To Claim or Not to Claim? How Territorial Value Shapes Demands for Self-Determination

Abstract

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.

Territory, islandness, and the secessionist imaginary: Why do very small communities favour autonomy over integration?

“…To structure the case material, I use Kelle's (2017) distinction between key features of symbolic territory—legal, cultural, and political. The aim is to show how “islandness” as a proxy for territory serves as the sine qua non of secessionist claims.…”

“…The final argument for secession is made on what Kelle (2017) calls “political” grounds. As we saw, the claim that Codrington absenteeism allowed Barbuda to develop a unique system of land tenure underscores the argument that the two islands are culturally distinct.…”

“…Indeed, given there is little else to differentiate these island communities from each other, territory is sine qua non of such a narrative. By examining how territory acts as a resource in the nationalist imaginary, this article makes the following contributions: Conceptually : It adds to the small literature in secession and nationalism studies which argues that territory should be afforded greater prominence in mainstream accounts (e.g., Etherington, 2010; Kelle, 2017; Penrose, 2002). This is especially true in extreme cases, like small islands, in which other well‐theorised factors are absent but foregrounding territory can also shed new and penetrating light on well‐studied cases too.…”

“…I find that while primordialist accounts foreground it as a factor, more recently, it has been subordinated in favour of explanations that focus on ethnicity, religion, language, or economy. To give territory greater prominence, I draw on the small body of work in political science that does take this factor seriously (e.g., Etherington, 2010; Kelle, 2017; Penrose, 2002) and augment it with scholarship by political geographers and a discussion of “islandness” found in the nascent island studies literature. I then discuss the case selection and data I used to substantiate this argument empirically.…”

Defending the Faith? Assessing the Impact of State Religious Exclusivity on Territorial MID Initiation

“…There researchers distinguish between tangibly- and intangibly-salient issues—whether disputed territories are coveted for their strategic or economic endowments versus their contributions to collective identity (Hensel 2012). Although states often engage in intense conflict over tangibly-salient resources (Carter 2010; Sorens 2011), intangibly-salient disputes appear prone to greater militarization at the interstate and intrastate level (Hensel and Mitchell 2005; Shelef 2016; Kelle 2017). This is presumably because identity-based claims are more indivisible than strategic or economic claims (Tir 2003; Johnson and Toft 2014) and territorial conflict itself increases identity politics' resonance (Gibler, Hutchison, and Miller 2012; Tir and Singh 2015).…”