Finding the Right Balance between Self- and Shared-Rule: Institutional Solutions to Self-Determination Conflicts
Research output: Working paper › Research
Why is territorial self-governance associated with violent conflict in some cases, but not in others? This paper re-examines how the institutional design of territorial self-governance regimes relates to violent conflict in multi-ethnic societies. This article argues that besides addressing the core of self-determination disputes, the success of autonomy arrangements at preserving peace hinges upon whether self-rule is genuine, e.g. the centre does not indirectly control the core institutions of regional autonomy, and the inclusion of autonomous regions into central-level governance structures, e.g. providing them with influence over national decision-making and institutional means to protect their autonomy (shared-rule). In order to test these propositions, this article uses a new global dataset containing more than 75,000 region-year assessments of the degree of autonomy by applying the conceptual distinction between ‘self-rule’ and ‘shared-rule’ to all countries globally for the period 1950-2016. A first analysis supports the claim that the degree and scope of autonomy plays a crucial role in the autonomy-conflict nexus – territorial self-governance arrangements are associated with a lower risk of civil conflict when the degree of self-rule is comparably high and regions are given a say in national policy-making (shared-rule).
|Publication status||In preparation - Sep 2019|