Suchergebnisse

AbstractReligious conflicts are an enduring feature of domestic and international politics. This article offers the first systematic quantitative treatment of religion in nationalist demands for autonomy or independence on a global scale. I argue that subnational groups capitalizing on mobilization advantages from sacred land are more likely to demand self‐rule. Sacred places link collective identities to the contested territory, which is the main conflict issue in self‐determination demands. I rely on data on sacred land and religious identification of subnational groups worldwide and compare claimants and non‐claiming groups to capture the effect of sacred land on self‐determination. The analysis supports the expectation that sacred land and religious identities are closely linked to demand incidence. The findings shed light on the understudied relation between religion and self‐determination and improve our understanding of the significance of sacred places on a global comparative scale.

The literature on nationalism and civil war provides compelling evidence that territory is highly identity-relevant and strongly associated with conflict. However, it remains unclear which territorial characteristics determine this process, and how groups demanding self-determination differ from their counterparts not seeking greater rights. I argue that groups claim self-rule if they assign symbolic relevance to their land in contrast to material or strategic value, due to the positive effect of symbolic attachments on group cohesion. I present new data on the value of territory and self-determination demands, and propose a new and comprehensive measure of symbolic territory. The findings reveal that variation in symbolic value shows a considerably stronger association with self-determination demands than material and strategic territory. This highlights new research avenues investigating the role of territorial value in subnational conflicts, as well as the systematic differences in conflict behavior between groups demanding self-rule and non-disputants.

Subnational groups employ a variety of strategies to contest governments. While democratic states offer a broader array of accessible options, autocratic regimes are more difficult to contest via conventional means. Why do subnational groups stage sovereignty referendums across regime types? Our argument is that public votes over greater autonomy or independence signal adherence to international democratic norms and the legitimacy of the demand towards three audiences: the state, the domestic population, and the international community. Self-determination groups seek to gain support from their domestic constituency as well as the international community in order to pressure the state government into granting concessions. We introduce a new dataset of referendums and international diplomacy by subnational self-determination groups on a global scale between 1990 and 2015. We supplement the descriptive evidence and assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanism with an out-of-sample case of an in-sample observation, the 2017 independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan. We show that referendums are indeed associated with international diplomacy and domestic state building by self-determination groups, suggesting that both tools are critical for the choice of conventional strategies across regime types. ; Subnationale Gruppen verwenden eine Vielzahl von Strategien bei der Verfolgung ihrer Forderungen gegenüber der Regierung. Während demokratische Staaten zahlreiche Handlungsoptionen für Gruppen bereithalten, ist es in autokratischen Regimen schwieriger, die Politik auf konventionellem Wege anzufechten. Warum führen subnationale Gruppen Referenden in unterschiedlichen Regimetypen durch? Unser Argument ist, dass Referenden (über größere Autonomie oder Unabhängigkeit) die Einhaltung internationaler demokratischer Normen und die Legitimität der Forderungen gegenüber drei Zielgruppen - dem Staat, der Gruppenpopulation und der internationalen Gemeinschaft - signalisiert. Selbstbestimmungsgruppen versuchen, die Unterstützung von Gruppenangehörigen und der internationalen Gemeinschaft zu sichern um die Regierung zu Zugeständnissen zu bewegen. Wir stellen einen neuen Datensatz vor, der Referenden und internationale Diplomatie von subnationalen Selbstbestimmungsgruppen auf globaler Ebene zwischen 1990 und 2015 erhebt. Wir ergänzen die deskriptive Datenanalyse und testen die Plausibilität des vorgeschlagenen Mechanismus mithilfe des kurdischen Unabhängigkeitsreferendums im Nordirak in 2017, einer Beobachtung eines Falles aus dem Datensatz, aber außerhalb des Analysezeitraums. Wir zeigen, dass Referenden in der Tat mit internationaler Diplomatie und der Einrichtung substaatlicher Institutionen verbunden sind, was darauf hinweist, dass beide Strategien wesentlich sind für die Wahl konventioneller Strategien über Regimetypen hinweg.

Subnational groups employ a variety of strategies to contest governments. While democratic states offer a broader array of accessible options, autocratic regimes are more difficult to contest via conventional means. Why do subnational groups stage sovereignty referendums across regime types? Our argument is that public votes over greater autonomy or independence signal adherence to international democratic norms and the legitimacy of the demand towards three audiences: the state, the domestic population, and the international community. Self-determination groups seek to gain support from their domestic constituency as well as the international community in order to pressure the state government into granting concessions. We introduce a new dataset of referendums and international diplomacy by subnational self-determination groups on a global scale between 1990 and 2015. We supplement the descriptive evidence and assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanism with an out-of-sample case of an in-sample observation, the 2017 independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan. We show that referendums are indeed associated with international diplomacy and domestic state building by self-determination groups, suggesting that both tools are critical for the choice of conventional strategies across regime types.