Berg and Ben-Porat state that territoriality is “a form of behavior that uses territory as an instrument for securing a particular outcome” (pg 30, 2008) Territory can be maintained as long as the integrity of the agreements made are upheld, if they are not this can lead to violent conflicts within an area. (Berg, Ben-Porat, 2008) The meaning of partition is the dividing up a country through one or more territories to remedy new political borders in order for ethnic conflict to be ceased. There has been numerous cases made for and against the idea of partition with many controversial results being seen from countries who have undertaken a partition, under the impression that it would end the ethnic conflict within. A nation is something that is born not something that can be made by the political powers involved, nationalism describes the loyalty one has to its nation, thus complicating the situation of deciding whether partition may be an appropriate solution to violent conflicts as a nation is not seen to be something that can be broken apart. (Fearon, 2004) Many have argued that lasting civil peace is not possible by sorting what is said to be known as a “true” state into divided states and borders. (Fearon, 2004) The idea of a sovereign state is to be whole within a basis with no interference from other bodies. Partition has been described as an employment which would create separate sovereign bodies where each party involved could execute their own ethnic or other views. (Berg, Bon-Porat, 2008) It has been labeled as a solution that is of a “last resort” that leads to an agreeable point between territorial expression and self-determination. (Berg, Ben-Porat, 2008) Partitions that do not involve some sort of separation of t...
... middle of paper ...
...tions and Nationalism 14.1 (2008): 29-37.
• James Fearon, ‘Separatist Wars, Partition, and World Order’, Security Studies, 13 (4), 2004 pp. 394-415.
• Fraser, T. G. (1984) Partition in Ireland, India and Palestine: theory and practice. London: Macmillan
• Horowitz, M. C., Weisiger, A. and Johnson, C. 2009. The limits to partition. International Security, 33 (4), pp. 203--210.
• Johnson, C. (2008). Partitioning to peace: Sovereignty, demography, and ethnic civil wars. International Security, 32(4), 140-170.
• Kaufmann, C. (1996). Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars. International security, 20(4), 136-175.
• Kumar, R. (1997). The Troubled History of Partition. Foreign Affairs 76, 22.
• Sambanis, N. and Schulhofer-Wohl, J. 2009. What's in a line? Is partition a solution to civil war?.International Security, 34 (2), pp. 82--118.
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Pogodda, Sandra, Oliver Richmond, Nathalie Tocci, Roger Mac Ginty, and Birte Vogel. "Assessing the impact of EU governmentality in post-conflict countries: pacification or reconciliation?." European Security (2014): 1-23.
Partitions by Amit Majmudar is a novel that takes place in the late 1900s when India is split into two countries. One country remained India, and the other was the newly created Pakistan. Muslim individuals had to flee to Pakistan while the Hindus were to make their way to India. The novel follows four main protagonists, who are traveling to their “designated” country. One of these individuals is a Muslim doctor named Masud.
O’ Tuathail,G., Dalby, S and Routledge, P (eds) (2006) The Geopolitics Reader (2nd Edition), Routledge, London.
It also meant spatial separation of those who were defined out of citizenship and use of terror and violence to enforce new
Witkin, Gordon, and Jeannye Thornton. "Pride and Prejudice." U.S. News & World Report 15 Jul.1996. Rpt. in Ethnic Violence. Ed. Myra H. Immell. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. 74.
...ation. In D. Bloomfield, T. Barnes & L. Huyse (Eds.), Reconciliation after violent conflict: A handbook (pp. 19–39). Retrieved from http://www.idea.int/publications/reconciliation/loader.cfm?csmodule=security/getfile
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Civil conflicts tend to erupt “within nation-states and threaten their governments, the social order, and the rate and path of their development” (Anastasion et al. 17). Throughout the years there has been much debate centered on defining the underlying cause(s) of civil conflict. There are many theories that have evolved over time that suggest reasoning for the occurrence of civil conflict(s). Yet there still remains no concrete definition of cause. However, there was a theorist and scholar by the name of Thomas Malthus that offered a considerably plausible argument for the cause of civil war. Malthus produced a theory called Malthusianism; this theory expressed the potential underlying effects that can evolve from the rapid growth of a population combined with the scarce availiability of resources (Anastasion et al.).
The Syrian Civil War is a good example of world leaders playing by the rules of realism. The civil war began in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, and by July of 2012 17,000 have died and another 170,000 fled the country (Almond). The United Nations Security Council in February of 2012 had tried t...
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Layne, Christopher 1994 “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2, Autumn
DuNann Winter, D., & Leighton, D. C. (2001 ). Structural Violence . Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st. New York : Prentice-Hall.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.
The causes of ethnic conflict cannot be generalised to fit all incidents, as the conflicts in Sri