Description
Why do some oil-rich states experience secessionist conflicts while others do not? Rather than comparing secessionist subnational groups with non-secessionist ones, this study contrasts secessionist regions, which have failed to achieve independence, with oil-rich sovereign states that achieved “secession” in the decolonization process. By conducting comparative case studies of Brunei and Aceh (Indonesia) on the one hand and Kuwait and Kurdistan (Iraq) on the other, I argue that the timing of the formation of an oil-led movement for state creation relative to the consolidation of the territorial integrity norm is crucial in determining the presence of oil-led secessionist conflict. Oil-led secessionism occurs when an area fails to meet the virtual “deadline” for statehood because of its late oil discovery relative to decolonization, while discovery well in advance of decolonization can enable separate independence, removing the need for further secession. Much of oil-led secessionism, therefore, is a project for “unfinished decolonization,” while some states evade conflicts by achieving “preemptive secessionism.” The findings of this study contribute to the literature on the oil-secessionism nexus by shifting the focus of comparative research and expanding the universe of cases through an investigation of historical cases.
