Issue indivisibility and territorial claims* |
| |
Authors: | Paul R Hensel Sara McLaughlin Mitchell |
| |
Institution: | (1) Department of Political Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2230, USA;(2) Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, 341 Schaeffer Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Early research on contentious issues in world politics suggested that there is an important distinction between largely tangible
and largely intangible issues. Tangible issues are thought to be easier to resolve, while intangible issues can fester for
long periods of time through fruitless negotiations and repeated armed conflict. Research on territorial issues has suggested
that many territorial claims are driven by both tangible and intangible concerns, though, which complicates the analysis of
issue tangibility. The authors argue that territorial issues with greater intangible salience (e.g. historical possessions,
important homelands, sacred sites, identity ties) should be harder to resolve peacefully and should produce more frequent
and severe militarized conflict. Empirical analyses of 191 territorial claims in the Americas and Western Europe (1816–2001)
provide mixed support for these expectations. Territorial claims with high intangible salience are significantly more likely
to experience militarized disputes and wars. Surprisingly, though, states are much more likely to strike peaceful agreements
with their adversaries over territories that are valued for intangible reasons.
*This research was supported by National Science Foundation grants SES-0079421 and SES-0214447. |
| |
Keywords: | indivisible intangible issues militarized conflict salience territory |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|