2016
DOI: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.2015.12132.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ethno‐Territoriality and Ethnic Conflict

Abstract: Ethno‐territoriality is an increasingly invoked term by those doing research on nationalism and ethnic conflict. Despite this, it has not been subject to detailed definitional and conceptual examination. This article develops a conceptual framework for thinking about ethno‐territoriality and ethnic conflict. It begins by briefly describing the relationship between territoriality, state sovereignty, and nationalist politics. I then provide a definition of ethno‐territoriality and outline a four‐part typology of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, the production of space and relational perspectives on space/place are so deeply ingrained within geographic thinking at this point that invocations of Lefebvre and Massey in relation to them often amount to little more than citational shorthand rather than detailed explications of their theoretical frameworks. Finally, geographers mobilize a range of spatial concepts and practices beyond space, place, and scale to analyze the dynamics of peace and conflict, including territory and territoriality (Anderson, 2008;Cairo et al, 2018;Le Billon et al, 2020;Moore, 2016), borders, barriers, and boundary-making (Jones, 2016;Megoran, 2017;Pullan, 2013), and networks and assemblages (Courtheyn, 2016;Hamdan, 2021;Williams, 2015).…”
Section: Parallel Conversationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the production of space and relational perspectives on space/place are so deeply ingrained within geographic thinking at this point that invocations of Lefebvre and Massey in relation to them often amount to little more than citational shorthand rather than detailed explications of their theoretical frameworks. Finally, geographers mobilize a range of spatial concepts and practices beyond space, place, and scale to analyze the dynamics of peace and conflict, including territory and territoriality (Anderson, 2008;Cairo et al, 2018;Le Billon et al, 2020;Moore, 2016), borders, barriers, and boundary-making (Jones, 2016;Megoran, 2017;Pullan, 2013), and networks and assemblages (Courtheyn, 2016;Hamdan, 2021;Williams, 2015).…”
Section: Parallel Conversationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Psychologically, the community's dependence on daily needs changes their mindset, attitude, and behavior. This underlies the imbalance of nationalism with reliance on other countries, which leads to people's distrust of their government (Kraus & Yonay, 2000;Moore, 2016). Martono et al ( 2021) explains the need for awareness and involvement of all parties to strengthen national identity at the border by local and central governments.…”
Section: Community Conditions In the Camar Bulan West Kalimantan Bordermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Preferences to militarize intangibly-salient over tangibly-salient territorial disputes are especially pronounced among states which exclusively serve a given identity group (Yiftachel and Ghanem 2004;Moore 2016;Barak 2017). Even as leaders of these states actively advance identity claims in the domestic sphere, their very politicization renders ruling parties vulnerable to challenge when they falter in their defense.…”
Section: Issue Indivisibility and Policy Outbidding In Territorial DImentioning
confidence: 99%