Analyzing the causes of ethnic conflict The case of Bosnia Xhensila Gaba
Course: Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict Time: 9.30-12.30 1
Instructor: Dr. Nancy Kwang Johnson Date: June 8, 2010
Abstract Ethnic conflicts have been in the focus of many recent systematic researches with regard to its causes, intensity and consequences. After the World War II, there is an increased number in inter-state conflicts, in which at least one of the groups gets mobilized on basis of ethnicity. Since 1945, almost 15 million people have been killed in conflicts involving ethnic violence. The scope of this paper is to analyze the causes of ethnic conflict escalation and provide a conceptual framework for understanding how different factors combine to give a violent outcome. Due to the complexities of the ethnic conflict, it would be inaccurate to refer to a single theory for explaining the causes. Thus, the theoretical framework includes many approaches that will be used to incorporate my case study- Bosnia and Herzegovina war. The reason why I selected Bosnia is because of the high levels of violence in which the conflict escalated and also because of the violation of human rights in the cruelest forms. What were the factors that aggravated the tensions between ethnic groups in Bosnia—Muslims, Croats and Serbs, respectively? How much was this conflict an outcome of the “ancient hatreds” among groups and how much of the politicization of the ethnicity? In this essay, I try to prove my claim that the heterogeneity of a state and the politicization of ethnicity leads to violent ethnic conflict. There are several competing theories that explain why the occurrence of ethnic conflict. I list here four of them as following: primordialist approach, institutional approach, political entrepreneurs approach and 2
competition over resources. I pose two hypothesis; (1) heterogeneous societies tend to have violent conflicts, (2) politicization of ethnicity leads to high levels of violence. Then I apply the theoretical framework in the case of Bosnia.
Keywords: ethnic conflict, theories of causes, Bosnia, heterogeneity, politicization of ethnicity
Introduction Ethnic conflicts have been in the focus of many recent systematic researches with regard to its causes, intensity and consequences. Being a multidimensional phenomenon, ethnic conflict has served as an incentive for further studies among scholars of different fields, such as psychologists, sociologists, political scientists and IR scholars. Despite the fact that the peaceful regulation of inter-ethnic tensions provides a more beneficial model for each party, still violent ethnic conflict occur in different parts of the world. The international community still has the physical and emotional consequences of recent ethnic conflict violence, such as the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. Knowing the wide range of books and articles dedicated to ethnic conflict’s topics, the immediate question that comes to our mind is why are we studying them? What makes ethnic conflict so important? Indeed, the importance of ethnic conflict is threefold. First, after the World War II, there is an increased number in interstate conflicts, in which at least one of the groups gets mobilized on basis of ethnicity. When the 3
“iron curtain� of the cold war was destroyed, the global wars were substituted by ethno-cultural conflicts, which became the most widespread sources of political violence in the world. The democratization process helped in wiping off the dust from the old ethnic, religious or cultural differences, which led to the occurrence of ethnic conflicts. Nowadays, there are recorded almost 5,000 ethnic groups, but only 180 states (Carment, 1993, p.137). This means that the number of states ethnically homogeneous is very low, and that many others (mostly in Africa) do not have a majority ethnic group. The heterogeneity of states in ethnic terms is a common phenomenon. Since 1945, almost 15 million people have been killed in conflicts involving ethnic violence. As the worst examples, we can mention the civil war in Rwanda in 1994, where almost 1 million people were killed and other 3 million were refugees (Scientific American Magazine, 1998). But if there are so many multiethnic states, then why do some of them have high levels of potential violent escalation and others not? To answer such a question, several factors should be analyzed, including the prior-conflict relations between groups, and the instrumental factors, such as politicians, institutions and insecurities. The second reason why ethnic conflict constitutes an important issue to comprehend is because of the human rights violation and the intervention from abroad. It is common in many ethnic conflicts that people get tortured, children forced to hard labor and women raped. Genocide and ethnic cleansing have occurred for example, during the disintegration of former Yugoslavia. Many people were expelled from the country. These atrocities call for the intervention of international community, such as NATO, UN, other IOs or even NGOs. Despite the ambiguities of international law, the protection of human rights is a priority compared to the non-infringement upon jurisdiction and sovereignty. Last, the third reason that makes necessary the well-understanding of ethnic conflicts is because of the wide range of actors that it involves. Although ethnic conflicts occur within the territory of one state, it 4
has an impact on the stability of the region and therefore on its neighbors, and affects also the Diaspora of both parties. Moreover, ethnic conflict has an impact on the international actors, as we mentioned above. So far, there are no cases of ethnic conflict resolved without the intervention from abroad. However, it is necessary to emphasize that intervention does not include only military means, but also economically and humanitarian assistance. Ethnic conflicts undermine the international peace and provide a threat beyond their jurisdiction, which means that the impacts of this conflict are extended as in a “chain affect�. Thesis paragraph The scope of this paper is to analyze the causes of ethnic conflict escalation and provide a conceptual framework for understanding how different factors combine to give a violent outcome. This means that the mere existence of multiethnic states does not imply that conflict would emerge. Ethnic conflicts occur when a variety of means, motives and opportunities interlink with each other. For example, the decline of the communist ideology gave a push to the spreading of ethnic conflict within the former Yugoslavia and the USSR. The ethno-cultural differences repressed during the previous regimes reemerged and as a result, many ethnic groups engaged into conflicts due to insecurities and political instability. In order to build the adequate paradigm in analyzing the causes of ethnic conflict, it is necessary to highlight two important assumptions. First, ethnic conflict is a process, not just an event. This means that as all the other processes, it is composed by the inputs, which are the several factors combined together under a certain context, and the output, which in this case is the violent ethnic conflict. Second, due to the complexities of the ethnic conflict, it would be inaccurate to refer to a single theory for explaining the causes. Thus, the theoretical framework includes many approaches that will be used to incorporate my case study- Bosnia and Herzegovina war. The reason why I selected 5
Bosnia is first, because of the high levels of violence in which the conflict escalated and second because of the violation of human rights in the cruelest forms, beginning with the destruction of the common-valued objects of the group (churches, universities, recorded history), moving on to massive killings, torture and ending up in what has been called “genocidal rape” (Allen, 1996). Also the response of the international community was considered to be quite late and not at the right level. In the beginning, the “third party” designated the situation in Bosnia as a civil war, where there were no “good guys” to be protected (Blagojevic, 2009). At that time, only a few called it in the proper name—genocide. I raise a series of questions with regard to Bosnia conflict and also provide some hypothesis trying to give explanations to many issues within the case. First, what were the factors that aggravated the tensions between ethnic groups in Bosnia— Muslims, Croats and Serbs, respectively? What were their relationships prior to the emergence of the conflict? How much was this conflict an outcome of the “ancient hatreds” among groups and how much of the politicization of the ethnicity? What were the motives, means and opportunities that drove the ethnic groups toward such a catastrophe? In order to properly answer these questions, first I define what is an ethnic group and ethnic identity, and also analyze the concept of ethnic nationalism. Then, I provide a list with the existing theories that explain causes of ethnic conflict, such as the primordialist, institutional, political entrepreneurs and competition over resources approach. Each of these theories provides elements that explain the situation of Bosnia, although each of them has its own limits. Moreover, after reviewing the paradigms and current debates within the realm of ethnic conflict, I pose some hypothesis. Lastly, I analyze the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina by incorporating it within the theoretical paradigms and by giving possible solutions to policymakers with regard to conflict resolution.
6
In this essay, I try to prove my claim that the heterogeneity of a state and the politicization of ethnicity leads to violent ethnic conflict. Literature review Let’s begin by defining some important concepts. Despite the term “ethnic”, ethnic conflict are not wars with the scope of establishing or recognizing ethnicity of the groups. Lake and Rothchild argue that “by itself, ethnicity is not a reason of violent conflict” (Blimes, 2006, p.537). Therefore my question is: how much does the ethnicity influence ethnic conflict? In the case of Yugoslavia, ethnicity did not initiate the conflict, but it played a vital role in mobilizing the groups under the same symbols. The ethnicity became politicized for the scope of claiming territory and power. Thus, it is important to know the definitions of ethnicity, ethnic conflict and nationalism. An ethnic group is a group of people who are acknowledged as distinctive based on cultural or social features (Sotiropoulou, 2000). In his study, Anthony Smith gave a special focus to the emotional intensity and historical legacy of ethnies. Smith believed that both history and culture are at the core of the “inner” force of ethnicity. According to Smith, there are six main characteristics for an ethnic group: (1) collective name, (2) common origin, (3) historical memories, (4) distinguishing elements of common culture, (5) connection with a specific homeland, (6) sense of solidarity (Sotiropoulou, 2000). What happened in Yugoslavia is that nationalist leaders, such as Slobodan Milosevic, used each of these features to mobilize their groups—Serbs, in this case. The plan for a “Greater Serbia” was based in claiming territories taken away from Serbs by historical injustices. He used the association with the homeland and the sense of solidarity to increase tensions and hostilities between Serbs and non-Serbs, and therefore sharpening the cleavages between these groups. Also, there are theories that closely link ethnicity with identity. According to Donald Horowitz, “Ethnicity is a highly inclusive 7
group identity based on some notion of common origin, employed primarily through affiliation and promoting some measure of cultural distinctiveness” (Blagojevic, 2009). On the other hand, we should be careful when defining nationalism, because often the terms ethnicity and nationalism are used interchangeably. Indeed, nationalism has more ideological and political connotations. Nationalistic claims include the desire of ethnic groups for self-governed political entity. When ethnicity becomes nationalist, then we can refer to ethno-nationalism, which often maintains a threat to the existence of multiethnic states. Ethnic conflict, on the other hand, is a conflict in which at least one of the parties involved will define its claims in ethnic terms (Cordell & Wolff, 2010, p.14). They complain for the lack of opportunity to preserve, express and develop their ethnicity and therefore they engage in violent conflict to defend their interests. After going over some of the definitions, now it is important to build the contextual background in which ethnic conflict occurs. Indeed, ethnic conflict is more likely to escalate into violent levels when a major structural change takes place. As a structural change we can include the decline of a central authority, such as the collapse of communism, decolonization or transition periods. Many IR scholars incorporate the occurrence of ethnic conflict within the framework of Realism and security dilemma. The term “security dilemma” was first introduced by John Herz in 1951, and according to him, a security dilemma occurs when two parties, neither wishing to damage the other, end up going to war. The key term to understand security dilemma is uncertainty, because it produces fear in both parties that the “other” has intent to harm them. For example, the military preparations of one state create an uncertainty in the mind of another as to whether those preparations are for defensive or offensive purposes. Neorealist authors claim that the anarchical nature of the international system forces states to imagine a worst-case situation. Anarchy promotes what is called “Hobbesian fear” and self-help behaviors. How is 8
this “IR notion” incorporated in the intrastate relations? The first writer to make use of the security dilemma as an explanation for ethnic conflict was Barry Posen (Roe, 1999, p.188). Posen argues that security dilemmas within states can take place when conditions are similar to those between states in the international system. He claims that the collapse of multiethnic states can be defined as a problem of “emerging anarchy”. The absence of an effective central government means that different groups within the state (ethnic, national, religious) are obliged to provide their own security. Stuart Kaufman asserts that when the central government is not capable to control the territory and protect their people, then the ethnic organizations are activated (Roe, 1999, p.189). Each group asks about the other group: Is it a threat? What levels does this threat reach? Will the threat go stronger in the long-run? Then, in order to get answers, they make reference to the past, but often their historical views are inaccurate for two main reasons. First, the previous regimes may have censored the historical record to strengthen their own position. Second, the politicians manipulate the history in order to gain political power. Thus the security dilemma is a good approach to understand why the ethnic groups start violent conflict. Now, let’s move on and analyze the theoretical models with regard to the causes of ethnic conflict. There are several competing theories that explain why the occurrence of ethnic conflict. I list here four of them as following: primordialist approach, institutional approach, political entrepreneurs approach and competition over resources. The primordialist approach claims the existence of “historical ancient hatred” among ethnic groups. The conflict potential is shaped by the ethnic emotions. As Donald Horowitz asserts, “Ethnicity symbolizes an element of emotional intensity that can be quickly stimulated when the group’s interests are thought to be at risk” (Blagojevic, 2009). But despite the 9
primordialist feature of ethnic emotions, still the animosities between groups are based on historical memories of grievance and injustice. The history of the group is socially constructed, and therefore we can establish the historical roots of ethnic animosities in collective memory. Prazauskas defines the historical memory of an ethnic group as a set of ideas about the past history of the group, its historical relations with other groups, ethnic perceptions and self-images. History is used as an instrument to support ethnic and religious polemics and also to reclaim and rebuild ethnic identity. However, the primordialist approach gives a feeling of hopelessness, because if we accept the fact that ethnic divisions and tensions are natural, then little can be done to prevent or resolve the ethnic conflict. By pretending that “ethnic hatred” is injected in ethnic groups and cannot be changed, we provide a simplified model for a much more complex problem. This view discourages those who engage in peacebuilding or peacekeeping operation, by making them believe that ethnic animosities are permanent, when in fact they operate if combined with other factors. The flaws of this view consist in the fact that they explain ethnic conflicts only on primordial (natural/biological) causes, which is a sign of discrimination for the societies affected by this trend. So, one of the flaws of this theory is the viewing of historically rooted ethnic animosities as the only cause of conflict. But, it is important to go beyond simplistic models of “ancient hatreds” and view the socially constructed relations between ethnic groups. This would give more hope for cooperation and coexistence. If we maintain that the past designs the relations between ethnic groups, then the question is: as the past cannot be altered, is peaceful coexistence impossible? The primordialist approach is definitely a pessimistic view, and leaves no room for resolution and negotiation. The second approach is the institutional one. As we mentioned before, in all the multiethnic societies, the possibility for conflict between groups is present (although in different 10
degrees) and if a set of factors and conditions converge, the conflict may turn from potential to actual. However, the level in which this potential is controlled depends on the institutional framework. The institutional framework can take two different models: by either facilitating or hindering inter-group collaboration. Enloe and Nager argue that if the administrative structures and legal institutions allocate resources on basis of ethnicity, this encourages political mobilization along ethnic lines (Blagojevic, 2009). Communist, colonial and democratic political structures have various institutional effects on inter-ethnic relations and thus on conflict potential. For example, communism is blamed for deepening the ethnic divisions, but suppressing the expression of ethnic conflicts, and as a consequence ethnic violence outbursts as soon as the system collapses. On the other hand, democratic institutions are considered to promote inter-ethnic cooperation and thus mitigate the conflict potential of ethnicity. But as conflicts rarely happen in democratic states, it is high possibility that the conflict escalates into democratizing states. During transition periods, each of the groups claims for self-determination and the creation of nation-state. Political entrepreneurs approach deals with the politicization of ethnicity. The instability and uncertainty that result from a major structural change and the institutional inability to regulate inter-ethnic relations provides a “perfect” condition in which political entrepreneurs can manipulate ethnic emotions in order to mobilize groups for their own political purposes. There is disbelief about political and religious leaders that use language to widen divisions between the main ethnic groups. Also, leaders who call themselves as safeguarding their community welfare tend to give a sense of constant attack by the “others” (Blagojevic, 2009). Rhetoric of fear, blame, and hate are used by political entrepreneurs as a tool of division and control. The
11
politicians’ exploitation of ethnic emotions leads to particular actions – such as intolerance. Ethnic intolerance refers to a denial of access to resources and rights to other ethnic groups. Let’s now see how theories are integrated within each other. The political entrepreneurs approach in explaining the causes of ethnic conflict is closely related to the institutional approach. Politicians who use ethnicity to their advantage can successfully maneuver only within those institutional arrangements that favor such practice or are unable to deter it. The success of political entrepreneurs in mobilizing ethnic groups into violent conflict depends on the strength of the existing state institutions.
Morris demonstrates the correlation between political
leadership and institutions (Blagojevic, 2009). According to her, both provide the filter through which all other causes of conflict have to pass. She also notes that institutions can increase grievances through political exclusion or inefficiency. The fourth and last paradigm explaining the causes of ethnic conflict is the competition over resources approach. Political mobilization of ethnic identities results in ethnic intolerance and competition over resources and rights – which, if unsettled, can lead to a violent conflict. When resources are scarce, it is easier for political entrepreneurs in rapidly growing the potential of the conflict. As concluded by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and United States Agency for International Development, “These groups are all the more expected to be vulnerable to such manipulation when they find themselves in situations characterized by a lack of opportunities” (Blagojevic, 2009). I expand the concept of resources to include not only economic, but also political, social, and cultural “goods”; so not only material gains, but also individual and group rights
12
Methodology All these theories are important in creating the “common denominator� responsible for giving an answer to the causes of ethnic conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This methodology consists of choosing a case study and proving the hypothesis I raise by incorporating the case within theoretical framework. Two are the hypothesis I pose with regard to the situation in Bosnia: (1) in heterogeneous countries composed by many ethnic groups, and with high levels of ethnic cleavage, it is more likely to experience violent conflict. (2) ethnic emotions and historical grievances do not initiate the conflict, but the manipulation and politicization of these features leads to violent ethnic conflict. In the following section, I analyze the case of Bosnia, and try to give solution to the hypothesis.
Discussion: Case study Bosnia belonged to a communist bloc, the former Yugoslavia. According to 1991 census the composition of Bosnian population was: 17% Croats, 44% Muslims, 31% Serbs, 8% Yugoslav and others (Allen, 1996). So the largest group was the Muslims and after them were the Serbs. Bosnia was quite heterogeneous compared to Slovenia, which was the first to gain independence in the most peaceful way. The main ethnic group in Slovenia is Slovene that composes 83% of the population. Other ethnic groups from Yugoslavia, such as Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have a low percentage, almost 5% (Allen, 1996). This means that the homogeneity is a factor that affects whether the formation of the state would happen through peaceful or coercive means. Indeed, the more ethnic groups within a state, the more demand for selfdetermination, the more fears and insecurities with regard to the future and as a result the more 13
violent the secession. Bosnia’s heterogeneity was not the only factor causing violence, but undoubtedly it helped in precipitating the conflict. However, the brutal situation could have been avoided, if the situation was not aggravated by extreme nationalistic claims (Stoessinger, 2001). Prior to the breakout of ethnic war in Bosnia, the country was considered a symbol of interethnic cooperation, as the groups were able to coexist peacefully. The relations between the three ethnic groups in Bosnia had begun to worsen due to both a resurgence of the historical grievances (particularly from the period of World War II) and due to a background of economic, political, and social uncertainty. As the Cold War came to an end and communism collapsed, Bosnia entered its uncertain transition toward a democracy and free market economy. The war among the three ethnic groups in Bosnia broke out shortly after the country declared its independence in March of 1992. About 250,000 people were killed in the Bosnian war, and a half of the country’s surviving population (about 2 million) was displaced internally and abroad. Bosnia experienced a major structural change, such as the collapse of communism and therefore the process of democratization began. The central authority dissolved and anarchy prevailed, and as we mentioned before, anarchy has a role in generating ethnic conflict. The political institutions were discredited and therefore they were not able anymore to control and regulate the inter-ethnic relations. During communism, any expression of nationalism, especially based on religion was suppressed and forbidden. When the communist regime collapsed, the “frozen hatreds” were brutally set free. The communism froze many of the unresolved nationality questions. One of the ways that communism used to avoid and control nationalistic manifestations, was the use of a “common denominator” for the identity—Yugoslavism. The political entrepreneurs caught this opportunity and exploited it to manipulate the ethnic emotions for their own political interests. The local, national and international political actors contributed 14
to inter-ethnic intolerance and competition over resources and rights. Thus, if you add all these factors together, the result is a violent ethnic conflict worth of 250,000 dead. How did the past influence the ethnic conflict in Bosnia? How much of the primordialist approach is found in the Bosnian case? Indeed, many supported the idea that the “ancient hatreds” among the three ethnic groups were to blame for the violent conflict. Many international actors expressed their conviction in the primordial explanation of the ethnic conflict in Bosnia. In a statement in 1993, the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, said, “The hatred between all three groups, the Bosnians and the Serbs and the Croats, is almost unbelievable. It’s almost shocking, and it’s centuries old. He called the conflict as a typical Balkan convulsion, or a “problem from Hell” (Rabia & Lifschultz, 1994). Another analyst of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia directly labeled the people of the Balkans as emotion-driven, and making irrational choices. They states that what was going on was a “civil war”, and thus justified their nonintervention using the principle of jurisdiction. As Snyder notes, “Different to what some would have us believe, Serbs and Croats engaged in fights very rarely before this century. Contemporary ethnic violence generates both from deliberate government policies and from historical antagonism” (Allen, 1996). Institutional (political system) theory helps explain how, following the collapse of communism, the political institutions in Bosnia were no longer capable to regulate inter-ethnic relations and control ethnic animosities, thus facilitating political entrepreneurs’ efforts to manipulate the groups to serve their own interests. The breakup of Yugoslavia is a classic example of manipulated nationalism in a region where peace has historically prevailed more than war, and in which a quarter of the population were inter-ethnically married. The chaos within Bosnia was seen as an opportunity for gaining power and the first to get hold of the opportunity of uncertainty were the political entrepreneurs. 15
Nationalist leaders used the rhetoric of “us” being exploited by “them”. Slobodan Milosevic and his “war policy” was the central player in aggravating ethnic conflict. The war in Bosnia was elite-led conflict, as Kaufman states (Roe, 1999, p.189). Political entrepreneurs made use of the media to provoke ethnic hatred in former Yugoslavia. Indeed, it was a widespread authoritarian political culture in all regions of former Yugoslavia that made possible for nationalist leaders to monopolize the press and to increase the level of intolerance. The competition over resources argument composes the final “stone” of the mosaic for the violent ethnic conflict in Bosnia. The fall of communism and the transition to democracy brought an economic crisis and a high rate of unemployment. Unfortunately, the political entrepreneurs used the rhetoric of ethnic hatred to create social classes of “inclusion” and “exclusion”, under the mask of protecting the interests of their groups. Each group came to believe that the other ethnic group would deny them access to already limited resources, thus undermine their standard of living.
Conclusion Now, let’s summarize some concluding remarks. In this paper, I explained the competing theoretical approaches that deal with the causes of ethnic conflict—primordialist, institutional, political entrepreneurs and competition over resources paradigms. Each of these theories was useful in analyzing the case of Bosnia. The violent escalation of the conflict in Bosnia occurred as a result of the combination of many factors such as; a major structural change, ethnic emotions and historical grievances, politicization of ethnicity by extremist nationalists, weak institutional framework and rivalry over the resources. The first hypothesis stating that 16
heterogeneous societies have high levels of conflict potential seem to be true and applicative while comparing Bosnia with Slovenia. Both of them were under the same authority (FYROM), both were experiencing transitional periods; but Slovenia had a very peaceful dissolution, while Bosnia had the most violent one. One reason for these different outcomes is found in the demographic composition. Bosnia’s population was made by three ethnic groups-Muslims, Croats, Serbs—each of them struggling for territory, power, domination. However, this does not mean that any heterogeneous state is likely to have a violent conflict. The heterogeneity was considered a great opportunity by many political entrepreneurs to achieve their goals. With regard to the second hypothesis, it asserts that ethnic emotions are not initiators of the conflict, but under manipulation, they become a serious threat. Indeed, Bosnia was a victim of the political propaganda and its rhetoric. Historical memories and past grievances were brought in politicized way. The anarchical situation sharpened the insecurities and doubts between groups. Thus the violent conflict in Bosnia was the arithmetical sum of all the factors mentioned above. Bosnia was compared to the Nazi Holocaust, because of the atrocities committed and the crimes against humanity. Nowadays, after intervention from abroad in 1995, Bosnia was divided into two parts: the Muslim-Croatian Federation (53%) and the Serbian Republic of Bosnia (49%) (Rekacewicz, 1999). The international policy designed for Bosnia embraces the policy of partition, and therefore a demarcation line was established between two ethnic groups. However, the Bosnian case still need further studies in order to implement a policy that integrates both groups. Then, we can say that the conflict has been fully resolved.
17
References
Allen, B. (1996). Rape warfare: the hidden genocide in bosnia-herzegovina and Croatia. US: Universtity of Minnesota Press.
Blagojevic, B. (2009). Causes of ethnic conflict: a conceptual framework. Journal of global change and governance, 3(1),
Blimes, R. (2006). The Indirect effect of heterogeneity on the likelihood of civil war onset. The journal of conflict resolution, 50(4), 536-547, www.jstor.org
Carment, D. (1993). The International dimensions of ethnic conflict: concepts, indicators, and theory. Journal of peace research, 30(2), 137-150, www.jstor.org
Cordell, K., & Wolff, S. (2010). Ethnic conflict. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18
Doyle, Initials. (1998, September). Ethnic groups in Bosnia. Scientific American Magazine,
Rekacewicz, Ph. (1999, January). Bosnia: the Dayton partition. Le Monde Diplomatique
Roe, P. (1999). The Intrastate security dilemma: ethnic conflict as a "tragedy"? Journal of peace research, 36(2), 183-202, www.jstor.org
Sotiropoulou, A. (2000). The Role of ethnicity in ethnic conflicts: the case of Yugoslavia. University of Bath,
Stoessinger, J. (2001). Why Nations go to war. Boston: Bedford.
19