Essay Question: Territory is highly divisible and yet perhaps the most common good/stake over which states go to war. Explain why states often fail to reach peaceful solutions/bargains to competing territoral claims.
Essay Advice:
– Interpretation of question
I intentionally wrote the essay questions in a way that’s open to interpretation. There is no
“right” way to interpret any of the questions. Ultimately, what I care about is that you write a
good/interesting/creative essay given the interpretation you go with for a particular question.
– Structure of essay and content covered
Try not to cover too much content in the essay. Focus on what you think are the most important
policies in avoiding and ending civil conflict/war. The essay should be focused, and often the
easiest way of doing that is to anchor the discussion to a key concept, idea, etc.
– Literature review
Sometimes less is more, and I would encourage you to only cite literature that is highly
relevant/pertinent to a point that you’re trying to make. Don’t cite literature for the sake of it
(that’s distracting and produces a fractured essay). I never penalize students for not
citing/discussing a particular study, unless it’s a seminal one without which we can’t really
understand the topic. Also, whenever reviewing literature, it’s
best not to do so in isolation of other literature, i.e., don’t structure the essay so that one
paragraph reviews article X, the next paragraph article Y, the next Z, etc. Instead, in discussing
literature, try to cover how one study (or set of studies) “speaks” to another or how to synthesize
multiple works. Finally, I always enjoy reading essays that critique various work, i.e., find faults
with it on theoretical and/or empirical grounds. So, you’re certainly free to engage in as much
critiquing of work as you’d like
Case studies
You are certainly free to incorporate case studies into your essay, but make sure they’re well
integrated into the discussion. You might base the entire essay on a case study, where you
address how the more abstract/theoretical literature we’ve covered in the module speaks to the
details of the case (or how the case can help us better understand the theory). You can also cite
multiple cases, but again, be sure to integrate those cases into the discussion in a thoughtful way.
What I don’t like is when brief, fleeting mentions of various cases are made in an essay, i.e.,
something like “And this is what happened in country X” (with not real elaboration).
Introduction
The introduction should ideally lay out the structure of the essay. In other words, I should have a
very good idea of how the rest of the essay will proceed from reading the introduction. That
doesn’t mean you need go into great depth in the introduction, but instead lay out a brief
summary of what you’ll be presenting/arguing in the essay. After reading the introduction, there
should be no big “surprises” as I proceed through the essay, i.e., you start to make a major
point/argument that the reader wouldn’t anticipate from reading the introduction.
Conclusion
A conclusion that simply summarizes what you’ve already presented in the essay is “wasted”
space. Alternatively, try to make the conclusion a bit more creative and interesting. Typically,
you can do this in one of two ways (although I’m sure there are other approaches that are just as
effective):
1) Briefly discuss the policy implications of what you’ve presented in the essay. In other
words, how can the content/argument of the essay help inform domestic/international
policymakers if they’re interested in averting conflict, ensuring an enduring peace, etc.
(or whatever outcome the essay addresses).
2) Briefly discuss what you think are potential avenues for future research. Meaning, we
already know quite a bit about the topic, but certainly not everything we would like to or
should know. Based on your essay, what are the potential
extensions/questions/topics/puzzles that future research should address
Readings:
• Brochmann, Marit, Jan Ketil Rød, and Nils Petter Gleditsch. 2012. “International Borders and Conflict Revisited.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 29(2): 170–194.
• Carter, David B. and H. E. Goemans. 2011. “The Making of the Territorial Order: New Borders and the Emergence of Interstate Conflict.” International Organization 65(2): 275–309.
• Gibler, Douglas M. and Alex Braithwaite. 2013. “Dangerous Neighbours, Regional Territorial Conflict and the Democratic Peace.” British Journal of Political Science 43(4): 877–887.
• Starr, Harvey and G. Dale Thomas. 2005. “The Nature of Borders and International Conflict: Revisiting Hypotheses on Territory.” International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 123–139
Reed, William, David H. Clark, Timothy Nordstrom, and Wonjae Hwang. 2008. “War,
Power, and Bargaining.” Journal of Politics 70(4): 1203–1216.
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2015. “Borders, Conflict, and Trade.” Annual Review of Political
Science 18(1): 125–145.