| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
131988
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Autonomy is often seen as an institutional instrument to manage substate nationalist conflict. Its implementation is key in determining its impact on conflict. While the central state might be satisfied with the absence of violence and stability as a measure of success, an aggrieved group will view success as gaining new powers and new resources. Autonomy often unravels when different goals are being pursued during implementation. "Special autonomy" in Papua failed because, first, the law was not the product of negotiation but of a solution that the central government imposed; second, Papuans remained divided on its utility and, ultimately, failed to seize the opportunity provided; third, the central government undermined the law in its attempts to curb secessionism, ultimately failing to make it credible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
098661
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Nationalist conflict has been one of the most pervasive and intractable types of conflict in the modern era. In some places, nationalist conflict has entailed lengthy wars, terrorist campaigns, and rural insurgency. Yet in many others, nationalist organizations have pursued peaceful strategies, engaging in bargaining, diplomacy, and popular protest. Why do some nationalist movements turn violent, whereas others remain primarily peaceful? Drawing on nationalist struggles against the French colonial empire, the competitive violence theory posits that violence was primarily driven by competition among nationalists. Nationalist violence erupted when colonial states pursued policies to restrict nationalist opposition and repress leading nationalists, creating a leadership vacuum and encouraging new nationalist actors to use violence to vie for influence. The competitive violence theory exemplifies an approach that can explain variation in both the timing and location of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|