Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Guaranteeing Territorial Self-Government as a Conflict Management Tool

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Territorial Self-Government as a Conflict Management Tool

Part of the book series: Federalism and Internal Conflicts ((FEINCO))

Abstract

This chapter introduces a theory of territorial self-government as a conflict management tool, focusing on its ability to meet the needs of both groups seeking autonomy and the central state but also how instability is inherent in the compromise nature of the arrangements and the low level of trust between conflict groups. It then moves on to outline how guarantee mechanisms, both domestic and international, may be included in territorial self-government peace agreements to ensure their stability. The ability of international actors to maintain and support the TSG arrangements is explored, the role of international military and transitional authorities, as well as policy conditionality, are outlined. Finally, the chapter briefly addresses research design, discussing case selection, data collection, and data analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pettersson, T., & Wallensteen, P. (2015). Armed Conflicts, 1946–2014. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 52, No. 4, 536–550.

  2. 2.

    See for example Nordlinger (1972), Cornell (2002), Roeder and Rothchild (2005), Elkins and Sides (2007), Chapman and Roeder (2007), Meadwell (2009).

  3. 3.

    Where the identity groups are not geographically concentrated, autonomy can also be arranged on a non-territorial basis.

  4. 4.

    Wolff, S. (2009). Complex Power-Sharing and the Centrality of Territorial Self-Governance in Contemporary Conflict Settlements. Ethnopolitics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 27–45.

  5. 5.

    Brown, G. (2009). Federalism, Regional Autonomy and Conflict: Introduction and Overview. Ethnopolitics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1–4.

  6. 6.

    Cederman, L.E., Weidmann, N.B., & Skrede Gleditsch, K. (2011). Horizontal Inequalities and Ethnonationalist Civil War: A Global Comparison. American Political Science Review, Vol. 105, No. 3, 478–495. Cederman, L.E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2010). Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis. World Politics, Vol. 62, No. 1, 87–119.

  7. 7.

    Stewart, F. (2010). Horizontal Inequalities as a Cause of Conflict: A Review of CRISE Findings. Oxford: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, 7.

  8. 8.

    Marker, S. (2003). Unmet Human Needs, in Guy Burgess & Heidi Burgess (eds.), Beyond Intractability. Boulder, CO: Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado. Accessed 31 December 2017, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human-needs.

  9. 9.

    Kelman, H. (1997). Social-Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict, in William Zartman & Lewis Rasmussen (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict. Washington, DC: USIP Press, 195.

  10. 10.

    Marker, S. (2003). Unmet Human Needs, in Guy Burgess & Heidi Burgess (eds.), Beyond Intractability. Boulder, CO: Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado. Accessed 31 December 2017, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human-needs.

  11. 11.

    Walsh, D. (2015). How a Human Needs Theory Understanding of Conflict Enhances the Use of Consociationalism as a Conflict Resolution Mechanism: The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Ethnopolitics, Vol. 15, No. 3, 285–302.

  12. 12.

    Burton, J. (1997). Violence Explained. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 19–24.

  13. 13.

    Walsh, D. (2015). How a Human Needs Theory Understanding of Conflict Enhances the Use of Consociationalism as a Conflict Resolution Mechanism: The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Ethnopolitics, Vol. 15, No. 3, 285–302.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., 285–302.

  15. 15.

    Burton, J. (1997). Violence Explained. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 33–40.

  16. 16.

    Rothchild, D., & Hartzell, C. (1999). Security in Deeply Divided Societies: The Role of Territorial Autonomy. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Vol. 5, No. 3–4, 254–271.

  17. 17.

    Roeder, P. (2009). Ethnofederalism and the Mismanagement of Conflicting Nationalisms. Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 203–219.

  18. 18.

    Horowitz, D. (2003). The Right to Secede. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 5–17.

  19. 19.

    O’Leary, B. (2005). Debating Consociational Politics: Normative and Explanatory Arguments, in Sid Noel (ed.), From Powersharing to Democracy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 3–43.

  20. 20.

    Horowitz, D. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Horowitz, D. (1990). Ethnic Conflict Management for Policymakers, in J.V. Montville (ed.), Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Reilly, B. (2001). Democracy in Divided Societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Roeder, P., & Rothchild, D. (eds.), (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sisk, T. (1996). Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press. Wimmer, A. (2003). Democracy and Ethno-Religious Conflict in Iraq. Survival, Vol. 45, No. 4, 111–134.

  21. 21.

    Cornell, S. (2002). Autonomy as a Source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective. World Politics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 245–276.

  22. 22.

    McGarry, J. (2007). Asymmetrical Federal Systems. Ethnopolitics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 112.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Meadwell, H. (2009). The Political Dynamics of Secession and Institutional Accommodation. Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 221–235.

  25. 25.

    Brancati, D. (2006). Decentralization: Fuelling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism? International Organization, Vol. 60, No. 3, 651–685. Brancati, D. (2009). Peace by Design: Managing Intrastate Conflict Through Decentralization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  26. 26.

    Roeder, P., & Rothchild, D. (eds.), (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lapidoth, R. (1997). Autonomy: Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflict. Washington, DC: USIP Press.

  27. 27.

    Erk, J., & Anderson, L. (2009). The Paradox of Federalism: Does Self-Rule Accommodate or Exacerbate Ethnic Divisions? Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 191–202.

  28. 28.

    Bieber, F. (2013). Power Sharing and Democracy in Southeast Europe. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Special Issue, 147.

  29. 29.

    Wolff, S. (2005). Self-Governance in Interim Settlements, in Marc Weller & Stefan Wolff (eds.), Autonomy, Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution: Innovative Approaches to Institutional Design in Divided Societies. London: Routledge.

  30. 30.

    O’Leary, B. (2005). Powersharing, Pluralist Federation and Federacy, in Brendan O’Leary, John McGarry, & Khaled Salih (eds.), The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  31. 31.

    Weller, M. (2009). Self-Determination Conflicts: Recent Developments. European Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, No. 20, 161.

  32. 32.

    Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 54.

  33. 33.

    Herrera, Y.M., & Kydd, A.H. (2015). Misremembrance of Things Past: Cooperation Despite Conflicting Narratives, presented at the University of Oxford International Relations Research Colloquium, January 22, 2015.

  34. 34.

    Brewer, M.B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, 429–444.

  35. 35.

    Herreray, Y.M., & Kydd, A.H. (2015). Trust-Building Across Identity Groups, presented at the ICCS University of Birmingham, May 14, 2015.

  36. 36.

    Fearon, J. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, Vol. 49, 379–414. Walter, B. (1999). Designing Transitions from Civil War: Demobilization, Democratization, and Commitments. International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Summer), 127–155.

  37. 37.

    Roeder, P., & Rothchild, D. (eds.), (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 59.

  38. 38.

    Roeder, P., & Rothchild, D. (eds.), (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 129.

  39. 39.

    Hale, H.E. (2004). Divided We Stand: Institutional Sources of Ethnofederal State Survival and Collapse. World Politics, Vol. 56, 174.

  40. 40.

    Wolff, S. (2005). Self-Governance in Interim Settlements, in Marc Weller & Stefan Wolff (eds.), Autonomy, Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution: Innovative Approaches to Institutional Design in Divided Societies. London: Routledge.

  41. 41.

    Bell, C. (2006). Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 2, 399.

  42. 42.

    Ahuja, A., & Varshney, A. (2005). Antecedent Nationhood, Subsequent Statehood: Explaining the Relative Success of Indian Federalism, in Philip G. Roeder & Donald S. Rothchild (eds.), Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 242.

  43. 43.

    Bell, C. (2006). Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 2, 393.

  44. 44.

    Using peace agreements as constitutions may result in an excessive focus on including reciprocal promises and guarantees, which have a greater resemblance to private law than to the broad values-based approach normally associated with constitution drafting. This will result in constitutions which are lacking in the broad principles and are restricted in their ability to act as foundational documents articulating the values of the state as a whole. Successful constitution drafting requires a careful balance between using constitutions as symbolic and legal guarantees which offer conflict parties security that arrangements will not be violated and the need to include broad values and principles which help shape the priorities of the state in the long term.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., 393.

  46. 46.

    Van Houten, P., & Wolff, S. (2008). The Stability of Autonomy Arrangements: The Role of External Agents, presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, IL, 10.

  47. 47.

    Papagianni, K. (2010). Mediation, Political Engagement, and Peacebuilding. Global Governance, Vol. 16, No. 2, 243–263.

  48. 48.

    Morison, J. (2009). Ways of Seeing? Consociationalism and Constitutional Law Theory, in R. Taylor (ed.), Consociational Theory. London: Taylor and Francis, 81.

  49. 49.

    Bell, C. (2006). Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 2, 385–401.

  50. 50.

    Bruis, M. (2003). The European Union and Interethnic Power-Sharing Arrangements in Accession Countries. Journal of Ethnic and Minority Issues in Europe, Vol. 1, 14–16.

  51. 51.

    Horowitz, D. (2014). Ethnic Power Sharing: Three Big Problems. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 25, No. 2, 5–20.

  52. 52.

    Wilkinson, S. (2005). Conditionality, Consociationalism, and the European Union, in Sid Noel (ed.), From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 252.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., 248.

  54. 54.

    Bell, C. (2006). Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 2, 406.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., 384.

  56. 56.

    Bell, C. (2006). Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 2, 386–390.

  57. 57.

    Walter, B. (1999). Designing Transitions from Civil War: Demobilization, Democratization and Commitments to Peace. International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, 134–135.

  58. 58.

    Roeder, P., & Rothchild, D. (eds.), (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 10.

  59. 59.

    Binder, M. (2015). Paths to Intervention: What Explains the UN’s Selective Response to Humanitarian Crises? Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 52, No. 6, 712–726.

  60. 60.

    Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. London: Cornell University Press, 16.

  61. 61.

    In all five cases, complex political developments occur during the periods under examination, for example, corruption issues in Moldova and creeping authoritarianism in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These developments are only referred to as far as they are relevant to the operation of the TSG institutions.

  62. 62.

    Gerring, J. (2004). What is a Case Study and What is it Good for? American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 2, 341–354.

  63. 63.

    Collier, D., & Brady, H. (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 277.

  64. 64.

    Prior, L. (2010). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage, 1–27.

  65. 65.

    Attribution in interviews is in line with the requests of the interviewees. Furthermore, while the comments of the interviewees draw on their experience they do not necessarily represent the official positions of organisations for which they currently or previously worked.

  66. 66.

    Rathbun, B.C. Interviewing and Qualitative Field Methods: Pragmatism and Practicalities, in Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady and David Collier (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 690.

  67. 67.

    Berry, J.M. (2002). Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing. Political Science and Politics, Vol. 35, No. 4, 679–682.

References

  • Ahuja, A., & Varshney, A. (2005). Antecedent Nationhood, Subsequent Statehood: Explaining the Relative Success of Indian Federalism. In P. G. Roeder & D. S. Rothchild (Eds.), Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. (2006). Peace Agreements: Their Nature and Legal Status. The American Journal of International Law, 100(2), 373–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 679–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, F. (2013). Power Sharing and Democracy in Southeast Europe [Special issue]. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, M. (2015). Paths to Intervention: What Explains the UN’s Selective Response to Humanitarian Crises? Journal of Peace Research, 52(6), 712–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brancati, D. (2006). Decentralization: Fuelling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism? International Organization, 60(3), 651–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brancati, D. (2009). Peace by Design: Managing Intrastate Conflict Through Decentralization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. (2009). Federalism, Regional Autonomy and Conflict: Introduction and Overview. Ethnopolitics, 8(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusis, M. (2003). The European Union and Interethnic Power-Sharing Arrangements in Accession Countries. Journal of Ethnic and Minority Issues in Europe, 1, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. (1997). Violence Explained. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, L. E., Weidmann, N. B., & Skrede Gleditsch, K. (2011). Horizontal Inequalities and Ethnonationalist Civil War: A Global Comparison. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, L. E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2010). Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis. World Politics, 62(1), 87–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, T., & Roeder, P. G. (2007). Partition as a Solution to Wars of Nationalism: The Importance of Institutions. The American Political Science Review, 101(4), 677–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., & Brady, H. (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, S. (2002). Autonomy as a Source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective. World Politics, 5(2), 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, Z., & Sides, J. (2007). Can Institutions Build Unity in Multiethnic States? American Political Science Review, 101(4), 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erk, J., & Anderson, L. (2009). The Paradox of Federalism: Does Self-Rule Accommodate or Exacerbate Ethnic Divisions? Regional & Federal Studies, 19(2), 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49, 379–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2004). What is a Case Study and What is it Good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, H. E. (2004). Divided We Stand: Institutional Sources of Ethnofederal State Survival and Collapse. World Politics, 56, 165–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herreray, Y. M., & Kydd, A. H. (2015a). Trust-Building Across Identity Groups. Presented at the ICCS University of Birmingham, 14 May 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herreray, Y. M., & Kydd, A. H. (2015b). Misremembrance of Things Past: Cooperation Despite Conflicting Narratives. Presented at the University of Oxford International Relations Research Colloquium, January 22, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (1990). Ethnic Conflict Management for Policymakers. In J. V. Montville (Ed.), Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (2003). The Right to Secede. Journal of Democracy, 14(2), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (2014). Ethnic Power Sharing: Three Big Problems. Journal of Democracy, 25(2), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. (1997). Social-Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict. In W. Zartman & L. Rasmussen (Eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict. Washington, DC: USIP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapidoth, R. (1997). Autonomy: Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflict. Washington, DC: USIP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marker, S. (2003). Unmet Human Needs. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond Intractability. Boulder, CO: Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado. Accessed December 31, 2017, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human-needs.

  • McGarry, J. (2007). Asymmetrical Federal Systems. Ethnopolitics, 6(1), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadwell, H. (2009). The Political Dynamics of Secession and Institutional Accommodation. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(2), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morison, J. (2009). Ways of Seeing? Consociationalism and Constitutional Law Theory. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Consociational Theory. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordlinger, E. A. (1972). Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. (2005a). Powersharing, Pluralist Federation and Federacy. In B. O’Leary, J. McGarry, & K. Salih (Eds.), The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, B. (2005b). Debating Consociational Politics: Normative and Explanatory Arguments. In S. Noel (Ed.), From Powersharing to Democracy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papagianni, K. (2010). Mediation, Political Engagement, and Peacebuilding. Global Governance, 16(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, T., & Wallensteen, P. (2015). Armed Conflicts, 1946–2014. Journal of Peace Research, 52(4), 536–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, L. (2010). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rathbun, B. C. (2008). Interviewing and Qualitative Field Methods: Pragmatism and Practicalities. In J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. (2001). Democracy in Divided Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, P. (2009). Ethnofederalism and the Mismanagement of Conflicting Nationalisms. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, P., & Rothchild, D. (Eds.). (2005). Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothchild, D., & Hartzell, C. (1999). Security in Deeply Divided Societies: The Role of Territorial Autonomy. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 5(3–4), 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisk, T. (1996). Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, F. (2010). Horizontal Inequalities as a Cause of Conflict: A Review of CRISE Findings. Oxford: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Houten, P., & Wolff, S. (2008). The Stability of Autonomy Arrangements: The Role of External Agents. Presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, D. (2015). How a Human Needs Theory Understanding of Conflict Enhances the Use of Consociationalism as a Conflict Resolution Mechanism: The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Ethnopolitics, 15(3), 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, B. (1999). Designing Transitions from Civil War: Demobilization, Democratization, and Commitments. International Security, 24(1), 127–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2009). Self-determination Conflicts: Recent Developments. European Journal of International Law, 20(1), 111–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. (2005). Conditionality, Consociationalism, and the European Union. In S. Noel (Ed.), From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, A. (2003). Democracy and Ethno-religious Conflict in Iraq. Survival, 45(4), 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, S. (2005). Self-Governance in Interim Settlements. In M. Weller & S. Wolff (Eds.), Autonomy, Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution: Innovative Approaches to Institutional Design in Divided Societies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, S. (2009). Complex Power-Sharing and the Centrality of Territorial Self-Governance in Contemporary Conflict Settlements. Ethnopolitics, 8(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Dawn Walsh

Authors
  1. Dawn Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn Walsh .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Walsh, D. (2018). Introduction: Guaranteeing Territorial Self-Government as a Conflict Management Tool. In: Territorial Self-Government as a Conflict Management Tool. Federalism and Internal Conflicts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77234-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation