The Conflict Of Ethnic Civil War

2086 Words Nov 14th, 2014 9 Pages
In the following I will assess the methodologies both studies employ and the way they proceed with the differing datasets as this forms another part of the reason why they reach different conclusions.
In his analysis Kaufmann finds that eight ethnic civil wars have been resolved by negotiated agreements other than partition. This would ultimately speak against his finding that no ethnic civil war has ever been resolved by a power-sharing agreement. However, he contends that all these eight cases have in fact depended on grants of full or partial autonomy to a regionally concentrated ethnic group and were therefore based on physical separation rather than shared power. For this assertion however, he does not try to find any proof and thus, it is hard to follow Kaufmann’s argument in this matter. In contrast to that, Mason & Fett view such cases as negotiated settlements. This indicates the fundamental theoretical disagreement between the two studies whether negotiated settlements must be based on granting autonomy to geographically concentrated ethnic minorities. Whereas Kaufmann definitely accepts this as being true, Mason & Fett are not quite as certain. They say that negotiated settlements “can take the form of federal or consociational arrangements…” (Mason & Fett, 1996:554) and thereby acknowledging that partition and regional autonomy does not have to be the ultimate solution.
This disagreement is quite interesting and simultaneously controversial. However even though…
Open Document