From Nagorno-Karabakh to Taiwan: measuring patron-client relations of de facto states

REFERENCES

• Berg, E., & Kuusk, E. (2010). What makes sovereignty a relative concept? Empirical approaches to international society. Political Geography, 29(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, E., & Toomla, R. (2009). Forms of normalisation in the quest for de facto statehood. The International Spectator, 44(4), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932720903351104
   Google Scholar
• Berg, E., & Vits, K. (2018). Quest for survival and recognition: Insights into the foreign policy endeavours of the post-soviet de facto states. Ethnopolitics, 17(4), 390–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1495359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biermann, R. (2024). Conceptualizing patron-client relations in secessionist conflict: A research agenda. Territory, Politics, Governance.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, R., & Hatay, M. (2020). Sovereignty suspended: Building the so-called state. University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, C. P. (1989). International patron-client relationships: A conceptual framework. Studies in Comparative International Development, 24(2), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspersen, N. (2012). Unrecognized states. The struggle for sovereignty in the modern international system. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Comai, G. (2018a). What is the effect of non-recognition? The external relations of de facto states in the post-Soviet space [Doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University]. DCU Online Research Access Service. https://doras.dcu.ie/22159/.
   Google Scholar
• Comai, G. (2018b). Conceptualising post-soviet de facto states as small dependent jurisdictions. Ethnopolitics, 17(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2017.1393210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• della Porta, D. (2008). Comparative analysis: Case-oriented versus variable-oriented research. In D. della Porta, & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences. A pluralist perspective (pp. 198–222). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dembinska, M., & Campana, A. (2017). Frozen conflicts and internal dynamics of de facto states: Perspectives and directions for research. International Studies Review, 19(2), 254–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández-Molina, I., & Ojeda-García, R. (2020). Western Sahara as a hybrid of a parastate and a state-in-exile: (extra)territoriality and the small print of sovereignty in a context of frozen conflict. Nationalities Papers, 48(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2019.34
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganohariti, R. (2020). Dual citizenship in de facto states: Comparative case study of Abkhazia and transnistria. Nationalities Papers, 48(1), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2018.80
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geldenhuys, D. (2009). Contested states in world politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gerrits, A. W. M., & Bader, M. (2016). Russian patronage over Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Implications for conflict resolution. East European Politics, 32(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2016.1166104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakša, U. (2017). Ontological security of the post-soviet de facto states. In M. Riegl, & B. Doboš (Eds.), Unrecognized states and secession in the 21st century (pp. 35–51). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kamilova, S., & Berg, E. (2012). How can a de facto state be distinguished from the puppet state? Analysis of transnistrian-Russian relations and dependences. In A. Kasekamp (Ed.), Estonian foreign policy yearbook 2011 (pp. 151–182). Estonian Foreign Policy Institute.
   Google Scholar
• King, C. (2001). The benefits of ethnic war: Understanding Eurasia’s unrecognized states. World Politics, 53(4), 524–552. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstø, P. (2020). Biting the hand that feeds them? Abkhazia–Russia client–patron relations. Post-Soviet Affairs, 36(2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1712987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopeček, V. (2019a). Factors of de facto states’ sustainability. In T. Hoch, & V. Kopeček (Eds.), De facto states in Eurasia (pp. 159–167). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kopeček, V. (2019b). Inside a de facto state. Forming and sustaining the Abkhazian and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic polities. In T. Hoch, & V. Kopeček (Eds.), De facto states in Eurasia (pp. 225–246). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kosienkowski, M. (2019). The patron-client relationship between Russia and Transnistria. In T. Hoch, & V. Kopeček (Eds.), De facto states in Eurasia (pp. 183–207). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kyris, G. (2020). The European union in Northern Cyprus: Conceptualising the avoidance of contested states. Geopolitics, 25(2), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1552945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, D. (2002). Separatist states and post-soviet conflicts. International Affairs, 78(4), 831–848. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3095759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, E., & Visoka, G. (2018). The foreign policy of state recognition: Kosovo’s diplomatic strategy to join international society. Foreign Policy Analysis, 14, 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Loughlin, J., Kolosov, V., & Toal, G. (2011). Inside Abkhazia: Survey of attitudes in a de facto state. Post-Soviet Affairs, 27(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2747/1060-586X.27.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pegg, S. (2017). Twenty years of de facto state studies: Progress, problems, and prospects. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.516
   Google Scholar
• Plesch, V. (2016, April 27). Hello, operator, Kosovo wants its own calling code. USA Today News. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/27/kosovo-europe-nation-dial-telephone-code/83547636/.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, D. (2022, November 14). How Taiwan Is Assessing and Responding to Growing Threats From China. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-taiwan-assessing-and-responding-growing-threats-china.
   Google Scholar
• Shoemaker, C. C., & Spanier, J. W. (1984). Patron-client state relationships: Multilateral crises in the nuclear age. Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Spanke, T. (2019). Nurturing dependence: The role of patron states in the state and institution building processes of de facto states [Doctoral dissertations, The London School of Economics and Political Science]. LSE Theses Online. https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4131/.
   Google Scholar
• Szakonyi, D. (2012, April 19–21). Democracy after secession: Institutions and external threats to the political regime in unrecognized states [Paper presentation]. Association for the study of nationalities world convention, New York, NY, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Tokarev, A., Margoev, A., & Prikhodchenko, A. (2021). The statehood of Eurasia’s de facto states: An empirical model of engagement by great powers and patrons. Caucasus Survey, 9(2), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2020.1870076
   Google Scholar
• Toomla, R. (2016). Charting informal engagement between de facto states: A quantitative analysis. Space and Polity, 20(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2016.1243037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, N. B. (2011). Strait talk: United-States – Taiwan relations and the crisis with China. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Veenendaal, W. P. (2017). Analyzing the foreign policy of microstates: The relevance of the international patron-client model. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13, 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Womack, B. (2016). Asymmetry and international relationships. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar