Explores the effectiveness of various types of responses and strategies available to states faced with demands for territorial revisions.
Williams explores the effectiveness of various types of responses and strategies available to states when faced with demands for territorial revisions. She examines the situations surrounding the 19th-century unification of Germany, the breakup of Yugoslavia and the strife in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the ongoing struggle over the fate of Kashmir.
The type of demand for territorial revisions, she argues, and the responses determine whether the outcome will be peace or war. While states should deter those states or groups that are imperialist, she points to the utility of pursuing a firm-but-flexible strategy toward those that are consolidationists. This analysis will be of considerable value to scholars, students, and policy makers involved with issues of contemporary nationalism, ethnic politics, and international relations.
Preface
International Relations, Nationalism, and Territorial Revisions
Theoretical Framework: Coercing Imperialists and Accommodating Consolidationists
Bismarck and German Unification
Bosnia and the Breakup of Yugoslavia
Kosovo: Albanians versus Serbs
Contest over Kashmir
Conclusion
Selected Bibliography
Index
Reviews
Kristen P. Williams offers us a solid and much needed book that addresses the importance of territoriality in international relations. It blends historical analysis with theoretical international relations and offers a clear picture of what territoriality means, and how best to deal with it...This is a clearly written and well-organized book. It addresses a major issue in international history...It does so in an accessible manner, and shows clearly the value of applying historical knowledge to current issues in international relations. It is a satisfying first statement of the problem...—The International History Review
[A]n ambitious and theoretically informed effort to advance the important debate over the relationship between territory and ethnicity. Scholars and policy makers would do well to read and study the suggestions outlined in Williams's work.—Political Science Quarterly