Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature

In two influential articles Chaim Kaufmann elaborated a set of hypotheses on the usefulness of partition as a solution to ethnic civil war, building on the arguments of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Van Evera. ¹ Before them, a first wave of theorists had considered the benefits and costs of partition. A prominent theorist, Donald Horowitz, suggested that

if the short run is so problematical, if the constraints on policy innovation are many, if even grand statements need patchwork readjustment, perhaps it is a mistake to seek accommodation among the antagonists. If it is impossible for groups to live together in a heterogeneous state, perhaps it is better for them to live apart in more than one homogeneous state, even if this necessitates population transfers. Separating the antagonists—partition—is an option increasingly recommended for consideration where groups are territorially concentrated. ²