The risk of domino secessions: interdependent secessions and lessons from the Western Balkans

References

• Bartkus, V.O., 1999. The dynamic of secession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Batt, J., 2007. An endgame in Kosovo. EU ISS bulletin, 22, 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Beran, H., 1984. A liberal theory of secession. Political studies, 32 (1), 21–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beran, H., 1998. A democratic theory of political self-determination for a new world order. In: P. Lehning, ed. Theories of secession. London: Routledge, 32–59.
   Google Scholar
• Bildt, C. 2004. Between Integration and Disintegration. NATO Review, 10–13 Dec.
   Google Scholar
• Bishai, L., 1998. Altered states: secession and the problems of liberal theory. In: P. Lehning, ed. Theories of secession. London: Routledge, 92–108.
   Google Scholar
• Butt, A.I., 2017. Secession and security: explaining state strategy against separatists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Center for Strategic and International Studies. 2018. The Ukraine crisis timeline [online]. Available from: http://ukraine.csis.org [Accessed 4 November 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Liberal Strategies, 2005. The Balkans in Europe's future. Sofia: International Commission on the Balkans.
   Google Scholar
• CEPS Policy Brief. 2007. The Presevo Valley of Southern Serbia alongside Kosovo (no. 120, January).
   Google Scholar
• Coggins, B., 2014. Power politics and state formation in the twentieth century: the dynamics of recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coggins, B., 2016. The history of secession: an overview. In: A. Pavkovic and P. Radan, eds. The ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 23–43.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, J., 2003. On theories of secession: minorities, majorities and the multinational state. CRISPP, 6 (2), 63–90.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham Gallagher, K., and Sawyer, K., 2017. Is self-determination contagious? A spatial analysis of the spread of self-determination claims. International organization, 71 (3), 585–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., and Batagelj, V., 2005. Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duerr, G.M.E., 2015. Secessionism and the European Union: the future of flanders, Scotland and Catalonia. Lanham: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, T., 2008. Convergence and divergence in post-cold war British, French, and German military reforms: between international structure and executive autonomy. Security studies, 17 (4), 725–774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, T., and Terriff, T., 2010. Military transformation in NATO: a framework for analysis. In: T. Terriff, F. Osinga, and T. Farrell, eds. A transformation gap? American innovations and European military change, 1–13. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Fontana, A., and Frey, J.H., 1994. Interviewing: the art of science. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications, 361–376.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, E., 2014. Transnational transmitters: ethnic kinship ties and conflict contagion 1946–2009. International interactions, 40 (2), 143–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, M., 1998. The priority of function over structure: a new approach to secession. In: P. Lehning and Lehning Percy, eds. Theories of secession. London: Routledge, 12–31.
   Google Scholar
• Gazdag, F., et al., 2007. Assessment of the security in the Western Balkans and a comparative analysis of the threat perception in the countries of the region. In: I. Gyarmati and D. Stancic, eds. Study on the assessment of regional security threats and challenges in the Western Balkans. Geneva: DCAF, 9–56.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, D.J., 2003. The right to secession: an antisecessionist defence. Political studies, 51, 369–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, R.D., 2015. Between dissolution and blood: how administrative lines and categories shape secessionist outcomes. International organization, 69 (3), 731–751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffiths, R.D., 2018. Age of secession: the international and domestic determinants of state birth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, H.E., 2000. The parade of sovereignties: testing theories of secession in the Soviet setting. British journal of political science, 30 (1), 31–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Crisis Group, 2001. After Milosevic. Brussels: International Crisis Group Press.
   Google Scholar
• International Crisis Group, 2004. Pan-Albanianism: how big a threat to Balkan stability? (International Crisis Group Report, No. 153, 25 February).
   Google Scholar
• Jane’s, 2007a. Bosnia and Herzegovina – a country profile (Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment, October 1). Available from: www.janes.com.
   Google Scholar
• Jane’s, 2007b. Serbia – a country profile (Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment, October 1). Availabe from: www.janes.com.
   Google Scholar
• Jane’s, 2007c. Macedonia – a country profile (Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment, October 1). Available from: www.janes.com.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, J.L., 2004. A multipolulation comparison of the diffusion of public organizations and policies across space and time. The policy studies journal, 32 (1), 109–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kathman, J.D., 2010. Civil War contagion and neighboring interventions. International studies quarterly, 54 (4), 989–1012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempton, D.R., and Clark, T.D., 2002. An introduction to center-periphery relations. In: D.R. Kempton Daniel and T. D. Clark, eds. Unity or separation: center-periphery relations in the former Soviet Union. London: Praeger, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Ker-Lindsay, J., 2012. The foreign policy of counter secession: preventing the recognition of contested states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krause, P., 2022. The strategies of counter-secession: how states prevent independence. Nations and nationalism, 28 (3), 788–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubo, K., 2016. Kosovo: secession under UN supervision. In: A. Pavkovic and P. Radan, eds. The Ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 171–183.
   Google Scholar
• Matovski, A., 2007. View from Macedonia – study on assessment of regional security threats and challenges in the western balkans. Geneva: DCAF.
   Google Scholar
• Mayall, J., 2016. Secession and international order. In: A. Pavkovic and P. Radan, eds. The ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 11–21.
   Google Scholar
• Oeter, S., 2014. The role of recognition and non-recognition with regard to secession. In: C. Walter, A. Ungern-Sternberg, and K. Abushov, eds. Self-determination and secession in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 45–67.
   Google Scholar
• Pavkovic, A., 2000. Recursive secessions in former Yugoslavia: too hard a case for theories of secession? Political studies, 48, 485–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavkovic, A., and Radan, P., 2016a. Creating new states: theory and practice of secession. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pavkovic, A., and Radan, P., 2016b. Introduction: what is secession? In: A. Pavkovic and P. Radan, eds. The ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Roeder, P.G., 2018. National secession: persuasion and violence in independence campaigns. London: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saideman, S.M., 2016. The international relations of secession. In: A. Pavkovic and P. Radan, eds. The ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 267–283.
   Google Scholar
• Sakwa, R. and Pavković, A., 2016. Secession as a way of dissolving federations: the USSR and Yugoslavia. In: A. Pavković and P. Radan, eds. The Ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 147–170.
   Google Scholar
• Siroky, D.S., 2016. Explaining secession. In: A. Pavkovic and P. Radan, eds. The ashgate research companion to secession. London: Routledge, 45–79.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Summers, J., 2014. Kosovo. In: C. Walter, A. Ungern-Sternberg, and K. Abushov, eds. Self-determination and secession in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 235–254.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C., 1998. Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Toft, M.D., 2002. Invisible territory, geographic concentration, and ethnic war. Security studies, 12 (2), 82–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vukadinovic, R., 2003. Security issues in Southeastern Europe. In: A. Grizold and I. Prezelj, eds. Security and cooperation in Southeastern Europe. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences, 49–68.
   Google Scholar
• Walter, B.F., 2006a. Information, uncertainty, and the decision to secede. International organization, 60 (1), 105–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter, B.F., 2006b. Building reputation: why governments fight some separatists but not others. American journal of political science, 50 (2), 313–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter, C., and Ungern-Sternberg, A., 2014. Self-determination and secession in international law. In: C. Walter, A. Ungern-Sternberg, and K. Abushov, eds. Self-determination and secession in international Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, J.R., 1981. Secession: a comparative analytical framework. Canadian journal of political science, 14 (1), 107–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar