ABSTRACT
Partition advocates make the case that separating ethnosectarian groups into independent homelands will achieve both goals simultaneously, increasing the probability of ending civil war while laying the foundations for long-term peace. This chapter argues that partitioning states during ongoing civil wars is a highly risky proposition with a low likelihood of achieving peace. Partition is not an end point to be implemented proscriptively, but rather an effort to pragmatically end the conflict at a given moment while territory is held by rebel forces; population movements are rarely, if ever, discussed. Most international relations accounts of ethnosectarian civil wars treat groups as unitary actors, and, frequently, the root cause of post-war conflict is ethnic intransigence: identities become salient during war, and this creates irreconcilable identities in the post-war environment.
