From Darfur to Sinai to Kashmir: Legalization and Ethno-Religious Conflicts
35 Pages Posted: 20 Aug 2007
This paper attempts to examine agreements between two high conflict states - India and Pakistan - in comparison with those between parties characterized by high degrees of conflict along ethnic and religious lines, from a theoretical perspective with a view to determining if legalization has any correlation between the commitments embodied in agreements between such states and the degree of compliance. For purposes of comparison, I examine the historic agreement between Israel and Egypt, and the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) as exemplars of similar conflicts where legalization has salience. I adopt the lens of legalization articulated by Abbott, et al, and bring recent advances from the intersection of international relations theory and international law to the design and structuring of agreements between states beset by persistent hostilities. I analyse agreements between India and Pakistan, Israel and Egypt, and the Darfur Peace Agreement, to demonstrate that agreements that are high on the precision-obligation-delegation matrix enjoy higher degrees of success than those that are low on this matrix when concluded between high conflict states. I conclude by arguing that India and Pakistan should aim for hard legalization to solve the Kashmir dispute, and that they must learn from the painful experience of the Darfur Peace Agreement and include non-state actors as signatories to any agreement.
Keywords: Dispute Resolution, International Law, Politics, Religion
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation