ABSTRACT
The unitary state is the most prevalent state system worldwide, and just like federal states, many of the world’s unitary states are places of ethnic confl ict. We can connect the common distinction of state systems between unitary and federal states (Elazar, 1997) with ethnic confl icts in two ways: in the fi rst place, it provides a context, a state structure as arena in which ethnic confl icts are fought and solutions are introduced. Ethnic confl icts are located somewhere, and whether they are located in unitary or federal states matters; difference in state structures infl uence the actors in the confl ict. Second, the distinction between unitary and federal is part of the accommodation of ethnic confl ict itself. Federalism is not just a context, but is itself an instrument of pacifi cation and managing ethnic difference (McGarry and O’Leary, 1994). And, arguably, also the unitary state has been used as instrument in response to ethnic confl icts and tensions. Particular historical examples of unitary states have been specifi cally designed to create national unity and end ethnic confl ict by merging rival ethnic identities into one homogenous state identity. The French republic, with its state organisation as ‘instruments of unity’ (Lacoste, 1997) aimed at standardisation and uniformity as introduced after the 1789 revolution, is perhaps the most well known example of the unitary state as instrument of ethnic homogeneity. However, to regard all unitary states as such would be a simplifi cation, and unitary states can be contexts for the recognition and accommodation of ethnic differences too.
