The creation of new states through interim agreements: Ambiguous compromises, intra-communal divisions, and contested identities
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512119871322 |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119871322
International Political Science Review
2020, Vol. 41(5) 667 –680
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512119871322
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
The creation of new states through
interim agreements: Ambiguous
compromises, intra-communal
divisions, and contested identities
Nina Caspersen
Department of Politics, University of York, UK
Abstract
For some separatist movements, interim agreements offer a possible route to recognized statehood. However,
such agreements require these movements to compromise on their demand for immediate independence
and risk the preservation of the joint state. How is this reconciled with their claim to self-determination
and how is it received by the community they claim to represent? This article examines four post-Cold
War cases where an interim agreement has been accepted (New Caledonia, Bougainville, Montenegro and
South Sudan). It finds that interim agreements are more easily accepted when the community is significantly
divided on the issue of independence and when an inclusive and flexible construction of the community
predominates. Somewhat paradoxically, this suggests that new states are more likely to emerge in cases
without a determined, cohesive, ethnically defined demand for independence.
Keywords
Independence, nationalism, interim agreements, referendum, international recognition
Introduction
A new strategy has recently been added to the repertoire of would-be states: interim agreements.
Rather than a unilateral declaration of independence, such an agreement defers the holding of an
independence referendum, and autonomy for the contested territory is implemented in the interim
period. This temporary deferral of the final status decision differs from other interim legal arrange-
ments, such as international territorial administrations, in that it specifies the procedure for the
creation of a new state, without guaranteeing that this will be the outcome. Interim settlements
have become a significant source of new states in an international system that remains heavily
biased against secession. South Sudan and Montenegro both gained independence after such an
interim period, Bougainville may follow suit when it holds a similar vote in 2019 and New
Corresponding author:
Nina Caspersen, Department of Politics, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Email: nina.caspersen@york.ac.uk
871322IPS0010.1177/0192512119871322International Political Science ReviewCaspersen
research-article2019
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial