Horowitz, D.L. (2015) ‘Irredentas and secessions: Adjacent phenomena, neglected connections’

Horowitz, D.L. (2015) ‘Irredentas and secessions: Adjacent phenomena, neglected connections’, in K. Cordell and S. Wolff, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict, 2.ed., London, Routledge, 155-164.

1. Secessions and irredentas have traditionally not been treated together, but they are deeply interconnected: the strength of one movement is related to the fact that the other may well rise – they are plausible alternatives to each other.
2. Secession: attempt by an ethnic group claiming a homeland to withdraw with its territory from the authority of a larger state of which it is part (155).
3. Irredentism: a movement by members of an ethnic group in one state to retrieve ethnically kindred people and their territory across borders.
4. Both secession and irredentism contain various levels of intensity and various strategies (irredentism: incorporation into another state; creation of a new state from various irredentist groups).
5. Secession: subtracting from an existing state; Irredentism: subtracting from one state and adding to another.
6. There have been very few irredentas in postcolonial states, but many secessionist movements.
7. Some international border disputes have no ethnic component; others contain compact ethnic groups that nevertheless do not dominate their region.
8. When faced with a choice between the two, groups find secession the more satisfying choice. “Indeed, the potential for irredentism may increase the frequency and strength of secession, but not vice-versa” (157).
9. Three issues that connect S and I:
   1. Convertibility of S and I:
      1. violence is convertible from one to the other;
      2. so is mutability of ethnic group claims and of trans-border affinities.
      3. State policies towards both also change over time: they tend to be inconstant towards I, which drives groups towards S.
      4. Ethnic affinity in one state may not extend to the irredentist group, also favoring S.
   2. Relative frequency of S and I:
      1. Irredentist action by the potential retrieving state is uncommon.
      2. Aid to S movements can be strategically terminated; aid to I movements cannot because they are underpinned by “an ideology of common fate” that does not lend itself to abrupt termination (160).
      3. In turn, irredentist groups find retrieval by another state undesirable because of their own personal interests as political leaders. S given them a better access to power, whilst I allows them to be challenged by leaders of retrieving state.
      4. Retrieving state itself may be heterogenous.
      5. Multiple secessions to build a new state (eg. Kurdistan) is almost impossible.
      6. In practice, even groups that have theoretically an I option do not really have it in practice and end up opting for S.
      7. “In short, all else being equal, the fewer the irredentas, the larger the number of secessionist movements” (161).
   3. Relative strength of S and I:
      1. Relative strength of a movement I affected by whether they chose S or I and whether the other is also available.
      2. States that are reluctant to engage in I claims may assist groups to achieve S (India / Bangladesh).
10. When will an ethnoterritorial separatism movement take S or I courses? It’s a strategic choice based on calculations of rational interest.
11. However, emotional factors cannot be discounted (eg. Ethnic affinity): secession movements continue to arise although secession almost always fails.