The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Autonomy as a Source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective
Abstract
The granting of autonomous status to minority populations has gained support among academics and practitioners alike as a way to solve, manage, and even preempt ethnic conflict. In spite of the enthusiasm for ethnofederalism, however, the provision of autonomy to minorities may actually increase rather than decrease the likelihood of conflict. Under certain political conditions, autonomy promotes the separate identity of the minority and increases its motivation and capacity to seek separation from the central state. This article presents a rudimentary theoretical framework identifying which qualities of autonomy solutions increase the likelihood of conflict. It discusses how autonomy relates to other factors conducive to conflict by studying minorities in the South Caucasus and examines the case of Georgia. In Georgia, there were five ethnic minority populations, two of whom—the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians—enjoyed autonomous status and were the only minorities to engage in armed conflict with the Georgian government. This article shows how autonomy, by empowering ethnic elites with control of statelike institutions and by enhancing factors such as leadership, economic viability, and external support, played a crucial role in the escalation of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Conversely, the absence of autonomy mitigated separatist and secessionist sentiments among two of Georgia's other minority groups—Javakheti's Armenian and Kvemo Kartli's Azeri populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
Reid, A., & Anderson, B. (1985) · Pacific Affairs · doi:10.2307/2759245 · Cited by 25,901
Kuper, L., & Horowitz, D. L. (1986) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2069338 · Cited by 4,869
(1970) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,500
The Ethnic Origins of Nations.
Pahl, D., & Smith, A. D. (1990) · International Migration Review · doi:10.2307/2546562 · Cited by 3,269
Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe
Brubaker, R. (1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511558764 · Cited by 2,594
Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism
Sidaway, J. D. (1995) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/0743-0167(95)90013-6 · Cited by 1,974
Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe
Legvold, R., & Brubaker, R. (1997) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20047997 · Cited by 1,421
The security dilemma and ethnic conflict
Posen, B. R. (1993) · Survival · doi:10.1080/00396339308442672 · Cited by 1,420
Jenkins, R., & Smith, A. D. (1988) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/590509 · Cited by 1,318
Peoples versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century
Ikenberry, G. J., & Gurr, T. R. (2000) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20049985 · Cited by 567
Cited by
Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security
Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491252 · Cited by 1,886
Inequality, Grievances, and Civil War
Cederman, L.-E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Buhaug, H. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139084161 · Cited by 978
Divided We Stand: Institutional Sources of Ethnofederal State Survival and Collapse
Hale, H. E. (2004) · World Politics · doi:10.1353/wp.2004.0011 · Cited by 278
Territorial Autonomy in the Shadow of Conflict: Too Little, Too Late?
CEDERMAN, L.-E., HUG, S., SCHÄDEL, A., & WUCHERPFENNIG, J. (2015) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055415000118 · Cited by 221
Hans, S., & Gupta, R. (2018) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-03-2018-0101 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Cornell, S. E.
- Venue
- World Politics
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 245-276
- ISSN
- 0043-8871 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3338
- OpenAlex
- W2133741691
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 116.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.