Ending Empire: Contested Sovereignty and Territorial Partition (Cornell Studies in Political Economy)

Spruyt, Hendrik

ISBN 10: 0801489725 / ISBN 13: 9780801489723

Verlag: Cornell University Press, 2005

Beschreibung

This book is in good condition. The cover has minor creases or bends. The binding is tight and pages are intact. Some pages may have writing or highlighting.

Bestandsnummer des Verkäufers BRV.0801489725.G

Bibliografische Details

• Titel: Ending Empire: Contested Sovereignty and Territorial Partition (Cornell Studies in Political Economy)
• Verlag: Cornell University Press
• Erscheinungsjahr: 2005
• Sprache: Englisch
• ISBN-10: 0801489725
• ISBN-13: 9780801489723
• Einband: Softcover
• Zustand: good

Über diesen Titel

Inhaltsangabe

At the dawn of the twentieth century, imperial powers controlled most of the globe. Within a few decades after World War II, many of the great empires had dissolved, and more recently, multinational polities have similarly disbanded. This process of reallocating patterns of authority, from internal hierarchy to inter-state relations, proved far more contentious in some cases than in others. While some governments exited the colonial era without becoming embroiled in lengthy conflicts, others embarked on courses that drained their economies, compelled huge sacrifices, and caused domestic upheaval and revolution. What explains these variations in territorial policy? More specifically, why do some governments have greater latitude to alter existing territorial arrangements whereas others are constrained in their room for maneuver?

In Ending Empire, Hendrik Spruyt argues that the answer lies in the domestic institutional structures of the central governments. Fragmented polities provide more opportunities for hard-liners to veto concessions to nationalist and secessionist demands, thus making violent conflict more likely. Spruyt examines these dynamics in the democratic colonial empires of Britain, France, and the Netherlands. He then turns to the authoritarian Portuguese empire and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Finally, the author submits that this theory, which speaks to the political dynamics of partition, can be applied to other contested territories, including those at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At the dawn of the twentieth century, imperial powers controlled most of the globe. Within a few decades after World War II, many of the great empires had dissolved, and more recently, multinational polities have similarly disbanded. This process of reallocating patterns of authority, from internal hierarchy to inter-state relations, proved far more contentious in some cases than in others. While some governments exited the colonial era without becoming embroiled in lengthy conflicts, others embarked on courses that drained their economies, compelled huge sacrifices, and caused domestic upheaval and revolution. What explains these variations in territorial policy? More specifically, why do some governments have greater latitude to alter existing territorial arrangements whereas others are constrained in their room for maneuver?

In Ending Empire, Hendrik Spruyt argues that the answer lies in the domestic institutional structures of the central governments. Fragmented polities provide more opportunities for hard-liners to veto concessions to nationalist and secessionist demands, thus making violent conflict more likely. Spruyt examines these dynamics in the democratic colonial empires of Britain, France, and the Netherlands. He then turns to the authoritarian Portuguese empire and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Finally, the author submits that this theory, which speaks to the political dynamics of partition, can be applied to other contested territories, including those at the heart of the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Hendrik Spruyt is Norman Dwight Harris Professor of International Relations and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Northwestern University. He is the author of The Sovereign State and Its Competitors, which won the J. David Greenstone Award given by the History and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.