Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature
Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature
复制标题
分裂作为民族战争的解决方案：对理论文献的实证批判
作者：
Nicholas Sambanis
种族冲突理论家认为，交战种族群体的物理分离可能是内战的唯一可能解决方案。他们争辩说，如果不进行领土分割，如果不进行必要的强迫人口迁移，战争就不可能结束，种族灭绝就有可能发生。其他学者反驳说，分治只会用国际战争取代国内战争，它会产生不民主的继承国，并造成巨大的人类痛苦。到目前为止，这场辩论所依据的重要案例研究很少。本文使用了一个新的数据集内战，以确定与战争有关的分区的主要决定因素，并估计其对民主化的影响，战争将再次发生的概率，以及低水平的种族暴力。这是第一个大N的定量分析这个话题，测试命题的划分理论和沉重的一方的批评。分割理论家的大多数断言都未能通过严格的经验检验。文章还确定了一些内战后民主化的决定因素，以及经常性的种族暴力的决定因素。这些实证研究结果被用来制定一个替代的建议，结束种族暴力。
Theorists of ethnic conflict have argued that the physical separation of warring ethnic groups may be the only possible solution to civil war. They argue that without territorial partition and, if necessary, forced population movements the war cannot end and genocide is likely. Other scholars have counterargued that partition only replaces internal war with international war, that it creates undemocratic successor states, and that it generates tremendous human suffering. This debate has so far been informed by very few important case studies. This article uses a new data set on civil wars to identify the main determinants of war-related partitions and estimate their impact on democratization, on the probability that war will recur, and on low-level ethnic violence. This is the first large-N quantitative analysis of this topic, testing the propositions of partition theory and weighing heavily on the side of its critics. Most assertions of partition theorists fail to pass rigorous empirical tests. The article also identifies some determinants of democratization after civil war, as well as the determinants of recurring ethnic violence. These empirical findings are used to formulate an alternative proposal for ending ethnic violence.