Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p In politics, a partition is a change of political borders cutting through at least one territory considered a homeland by some community. That change is done primarily by diplomatic means, and use of military force is negligible.[citation needed]Common arguments for partitions include: historicist — that partition is inevitable, or already in progress last resort — that partition should be pursued to avoid the worst outcomes (genocide or large-scale ethnic expulsion), if all other means fail cost-benefit — that partition offers a better prospect of conflict reduction than the if existing borders are not changed better tomorrow — that partition will reduce current violence and conflict, and that the new more homogenized states will be more stable rigorous end — heterogeneity leads to problems, hence homogeneous states should be the goal of any policyCommon arguments against include: It disrupts functioning and traditional state entities It creates enormous human suffering It creates new grievances that could eventually lead to more deadly violence, such as the Korean and Vietnamese wars. It prioritizes race and ethnicity to a level acceptable only to an apartheid regime The international system is very reluctant to accept the idea of partition in deeply divided societies↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Partition_(politics) abstract "In politics, a partition is a change of political borders cutting through at least one territory considered a homeland by some community. That change is done primarily by diplomatic means, and use of military force is negligible.[citation needed]Common arguments for partitions include: historicist — that partition is inevitable, or already in progress last resort — that partition should be pursued to avoid the worst outcomes (genocide or large-scale ethnic expulsion), if all other means fail cost-benefit — that partition offers a better prospect of conflict reduction than the if existing borders are not changed better tomorrow — that partition will reduce current violence and conflict, and that the new more homogenized states will be more stable rigorous end — heterogeneity leads to problems, hence homogeneous states should be the goal of any policyCommon arguments against include: It disrupts functioning and traditional state entities It creates enormous human suffering It creates new grievances that could eventually lead to more deadly violence, such as the Korean and Vietnamese wars. It prioritizes race and ethnicity to a level acceptable only to an apartheid regime The international system is very reluctant to accept the idea of partition in deeply divided societies↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5".