Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 25
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Gottfried, Matthew S. and Trager, Robert F. 2016. A Preference for War: How Fairness and Rhetoric Influence Leadership Incentives in Crises. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 2, p. 243.

    Kopper, Akos 2016. Managing conflicting ‘Truth Claims’ – ambiguity in the diplomat's toolkit in East-Asian Island conflict. The Pacific Review, Vol. 29, Issue. 4, p. 603.

    Trager, Robert F. 2016. The Diplomacy of War and Peace. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 205.

    Libman, Alexander 2015. Words or deeds: what matters? On the role of symbolic action in political decentralization. Empirical Economics, Vol. 49, Issue. 3, p. 801.

    Subotić, Jelena 2015. Narrative, Ontological Security, and Foreign Policy Change. Foreign Policy Analysis, p. n/a.

    Basta, Karlo 2014. The state as a symbol or a means to an end: internal border changes in multinational federations. Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 459.

    Bexell, Magdalena 2014. Global Governance, Legitimacy and (De)Legitimation. Globalizations, Vol. 11, Issue. 3, p. 289.

    CHO, IL HYUN and PARK, SEO-HYUN 2014. Domestic legitimacy politics and varieties of regionalism in East Asia. Review of International Studies, Vol. 40, Issue. 03, p. 583.

    Ejdus, Filip and Subotić, Jelena 2014. Politicization of Religion, the Power of Symbolism.

    Chan, Sheng-Ju 2013. Internationalising higher education sectors: explaining the approaches in four Asian countries. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 35, Issue. 3, p. 316.

    Johnston, Patrick B. 2012. Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns. International Security, Vol. 36, Issue. 4, p. 47.

    Ponsati, Clara and Sanchez-Pages, Santiago 2012. Optimism and commitment: an elementary theory of bargaining and war. SERIEs, Vol. 3, Issue. 1-2, p. 157.

    Branch, Jordan 2011. Mapping the Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and Systemic Change. International Organization, Vol. 65, Issue. 01, p. 1.

    Chadefaux, Thomas 2011. Bargaining over power: when do shifts in power lead to war?. International Theory, Vol. 3, Issue. 02, p. 228.

    Hanrieder, Tine 2011. The false promise of the better argument. International Theory, Vol. 3, Issue. 03, p. 390.

    Elden, Stuart 2010. Thinking territory politically. Political Geography, Vol. 29, Issue. 4, p. 238.

    Kydd, Andrew H. 2010. Rationalist Approaches to Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, p. 101.

    Toft, Monica Duffy 2010. Ending Civil Wars: A Case for Rebel Victory?. International Security, Vol. 34, Issue. 4, p. 7.

    Goddard, Stacie E. 2009. Brokering change: networks and entrepreneurs in international politics. International Theory, Vol. 1, Issue. 02, p. 249.

    Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. Kahler, Miles and Montgomery, Alexander H. 2009. Network Analysis for International Relations. International Organization, Vol. 63, Issue. 03, p. 559.


Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy

  • Stacie E. Goddard (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 January 2006

In Jerusalem, Ireland, Kosovo, and Kashmir, indivisible territory underlies much of international conflict. I argue whether or not territory appears indivisible depends on how actors legitimate their claims to territory during negotiations. Although actors choose their legitimations strategically, in order to gain a political advantage at the bargaining table, legitimation strategies have unintended structural consequences: by resonating with some actors and not others, legitimations either build ties between coalitions and allow each side to recognize the legitimacy of each other's claims, or else lock actors into bargaining positions where they are unable to recognize the legitimacy of their opponent's demands. When the latter happens, actors come to negotiations with incompatible claims, constructing the territory as indivisible. I apply this legitimation theory to Ulster, arguing this territory's indivisibility was not inevitable, but a product of actors' legitimation strategies as they battled for support over the issue of Ireland's right to self-rule.For comments on this article, I thank Fiona Adamson, Tim Crawford, Consuelo Cruz, Ron Hassner, Jeff Herbst, Robert Jervis, Robert Keohane, Ron Krebs, Paul MacDonald, Daniel Nexon, John Padgett, Dan Reiter, Jack Snyder, Monica Toft, two anonymous reviewers, as well as participants in a seminar at the John M. Olin Institute at Harvard University. In addition, the John M. Olin Institute, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the Center for International Studies at Princeton University, and the Center for International Studies at the University of Southern California all provided support for this project.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *