Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict1

The most intractable civil wars in the last half of the twentieth century were not ethnic civil wars or ideological civil wars. The most intractable conflicts were those fought over territory. Between 1940 and 1996, combatants fighting territorial civil wars were 70 percent less likely to initiate peace negotiations than combatants fighting any other type of civil war (Walter 2002). And once begun, these negotiations rarely brought peace. In only 17 percent of the cases in which a government faced rebels who sought independence or greater regional autonomy did the government agree to accommodate the rebels in any way. This pattern also exists in the international arena. Evan Luard (1986), K. J. Holsti (1991), Gary Goertz and Paul Diehl (1992), and John Vasquez (1993) each found that territorial issues are one of the most frequent sources of war between states and competing governments are less likely to resolve disagreements over territory than any other issue. Paul Hensel (1996) found that territorial disputes between states are more likely to escalate, to produce a greater number of fatalities, and to be more conflictual than nonterritorial confrontations. Unlike most other issues, governments show a surprising unwillingness to negotiate over land in order to avoid or end otherwise costly conflicts. Why do governments so often refuse to negotiate over territory? Under what conditions will they agree to negotiate and make some accommodation for greater autonomy or independence?