主領域（実定法系）・副領域（政治系）共に「最優秀」による。

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）   出版者・発行元：Oxford University Press (OUP)  

Abstract

Since the 1990s, scholars have debated whether partition, the most radical solution to ethnic conflicts, promotes peace or not. Drawing on the peacebuilding and war recurrence literature, I contribute to this debate by theorizing reasons that newly independent states emerging from partition are likely to suffer from new conflicts between former pro-independence allies. At the domestic level, former pro-independence groups, assumed to be a unitary actor by partition proponents, are likely to fragment as their unity was based on achieving the goal of independence. Furthermore, newly independent states tend to suffer from very weak institutions, and citizens develop strong frustrations toward their new states because their unrealistically high expectations are unmet. At the international level, international peacebuilders tend to wrongly assume that the unity within the pro-independence camp will last after independence and that the pro-independence people are essentially “good guys.” As a result, they often misunderstand the post-conflict political dynamics of new states, which reduces the effectiveness of their peacebuilding efforts. My arguments are illustrated through analyzing why Timor-Leste and South Sudan, the closest to typical partition cases in the twenty-first century, faced the 2006 Crisis and the 2013 Civil War, respectively.

DOI： 10.1093/jogss/ogae007

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

Using referendums to settle the question of sovereignty might look intuitive, but self-determination is not always accompanied by a referendum empirically, and the existing literature largely points to politicians’ instrumental motivations to hold self-determination referendums. Referendums are also notorious for their zero-sum nature. What exactly then makes referendums essential for self-determination? By analysing East Timor’s 1999 referendum, this article uncovers three reasons referendums should be held to accurately ascertain the population’s wishes in non-democratic contexts: the fear that representatives might be bribed or threatened in a hypothetical indirect vote; the simple nature of referendums; and the lack of democratic tradition.

DOI： 10.1080/21622671.2023.2181208

Scopus

掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）   出版者・発行元：Wiley  

DOI： 10.1111/1758-5899.12949

その他リンク： https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1111/1758-5899.12949

担当区分：筆頭著者,　最終著者,　責任著者   記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）   出版者・発行元：ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD  

A central government facing separatist activities adopts various policies to respond to them. In some cases, the government represses them harshly, while in other cases, it tries to accommodate the separatists' demands. We currently have two strands in the literature to understand which policies are implemented by the government: the reputation theory and the cost-benefit calculation model. However, neither of them is sufficient to explain Indonesia's policies toward its separatists in Aceh and Papua following democratization. Indonesia's policies toward separatists have been drifting between accommodation and repression. To understand these policy shifts, this paper emphasizes the importance of the inner workings of the central government, introducing two variables: the preferences of national leaders and the existence of veto players. This paper demonstrates that these perspectives are essential in order to fully explain the Indonesian government's policies toward its separatists.

DOI： 10.1080/09512748.2017.1293713

Web of Science

記述言語：日本語   出版者・発行元：東京大学大学院法学政治学研究科  

CiNii Books