@policytensor Rather, ethnicity (esp. politicized inequality) is a potential factor shaping domestic+international conflict and can shape how leaders perceive strategic incentives in the first place (e.g., how they define the political community or the extent of their territorial claims).
Why has political violence been rising again after decades of post-Cold War decline? In our new article in International Security, we argue the answer lies not in great-power competition, but rather in the return of nationalist geopolitics. https://t.co/zVB69eCNjr
@policytensor Yes, that is an interesting distinction. In general, I would not claim that our theory explains every case perfectly or independently. Our argument also isn't that ethnic ties must always generate aggression or that strategic incentives are irrelevant.
@policytensor We have some further work in the pipeline on when ethnic nationalism goes beyond protecting or incorporating co-ethnics and develops aspirations to dominate other groups or nations, including beyond state borders, through imperial conquest or regional spheres of influence.
@policytensor Yes, I've linked a preprint of the final version before production here: https://t.co/6h8Rj0VZj9. And happy to send along a copy if thatโs easier.
We are grateful for helpful comments from conference participants at APSA, SISP, NYU Abu Dhabi, IBEI Barcelona, Washington University, and Trinity College Dublin, and especially to our discussants @aruggeri_eu and John Ishiyama.
Defending inclusive practices against the exclusionary nationalist onslaught is therefore not just idealism, but a practical strategy for reducing conflict within and between states, and for restoring the relative stability of the early post-Cold War era.