Irredentism

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Irredentism is a word that carries the weight of some of history's bloodiest conflicts. It comes from Italian: terra irredenta, meaning "unredeemed land." The phrase was coined in the aftermath of 1878, when Italian nationalists began demanding the return of territories in Austria-Hungary where ethnic Italians lived. From that 19th-century origin, the concept spread across continents and centuries. Nazi Germany invoked it in 1938 to seize the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Somalia invaded Ethiopia in 1977 under its banner. Argentina sent troops to the Falkland Islands in 1982. Russia used it to justify annexing Crimea in 2014. What drives a government to claim land that technically belongs to someone else? Is it about protecting ethnic kin, avenging historical wrongs, or simply acquiring power and wealth? And why do international law, global institutions, and the hard lessons of history seem unable to stop it?

• 2. What the Word Means

  ›

  The phrase Italia irredenta referred specifically to Trentino and Trieste, and also to Gorizia, Istria, Fiume, and Dalmatia during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Those territories were populated in whole or in part by ethnic Italians but fell under Austro-Hungarian rule. Italian nationalists called them "unredeemed" because, in their view, the land had not yet been restored to its rightful home.

  Scholars have debated ever since exactly what qualifies as irredentism. Most agree it involves a state trying to annex territory belonging to a neighboring state. Three entities are typically at the center of the concept: the irredentist state that wants the land, the host state that currently holds it, and the disputed territory itself, often called the irredenta. Beyond those basics, disagreements multiply quickly. Does the motive have to be ethnic, or can a historical claim to land suffice? Can non-state actors practice irredentism, or does it have to be a recognized government? Must the claimed area be just a portion of the neighbor's territory, or can a state that seeks to absorb an entire neighboring country also be called irredentist? Some scholars, like Benjamin Neuberger, argue that a pre-existing parent state is essential. Others define it more broadly.

  A popular framing cuts through much of the debate. It holds that irredentism reflects a mismatch between state borders, which are drawn on maps and enforced by armies, and national boundaries, which exist in people's minds as a shared sense of ethnic, cultural, or historical belonging. The goal of irredentism, in this view, is to bring those two things into alignment by expanding the state's territory. The word "Greater" in phrases like "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Russia" signals that aspiration clearly.

• 3. Types and Variations

  ›

  Political theorists Naomi Chazan and Donald L. Horowitz identified two primary forms that irredentist movements take. The first is the classic case: one state tries to annex territory from a neighbor. Nazi Germany's claim on the Sudetenland, which at the time belonged to Czechoslovakia but held a majority German-speaking population, stands as the textbook example of this form.

  The second type has no pre-existing parent state at all. Instead, a cohesive ethnic or cultural group spread across several countries seeks to unite and form a new state altogether. The intended creation of a Kurdistan state, which would bring together Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, illustrates this form. Not all scholars accept this second type as true irredentism; some argue it sits too close to secession to maintain a meaningful distinction.

  Political scientist Thomas Ambrosio added further nuance by distinguishing cases based on the status of the host state. The most straightforward involves two ordinary states in dispute. Somalia's invasion of Ethiopia falls into this category. A second variant involves a former colonial territory: Indonesia's invasion and occupation of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor fits here, since East Timor was not a regular part of Portugal's metropolitan territory. A third variant arises when a state collapses and a neighbor steps in to claim portions of what remains. The irredentist movements by Croatia and Serbia during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s are examples of this third form.

  The case of Korea illustrates just how contested these categories can become. Both South Korea and North Korea claim the entire Korean Peninsula as their rightful territory, which, under some definitions, would make both states simultaneously irredentist toward each other.

• 4. Why States Do It

  ›

  Many researchers have tried to identify what actually causes irredentism, and the field has not reached consensus. Several threads of explanation, though, surface repeatedly in the literature.

  Ethnicity is the most commonly cited driver. States that are ethnically homogeneous are more likely to pursue irredentism, the argument goes, because in a multi-ethnic state, annexing territory dominated by one ethnic group would shift the domestic power balance in that group's favor. Other groups within the state would resist. A homogeneous state faces no such internal brake. The ethnic makeup of the territory to be annexed also matters: an ethnically mixed enclave is less likely to want absorption because joining another state would benefit only one of its groups.

  Discrimination against an ethnic minority across the border is another trigger frequently cited. Irredentist governments often frame their campaigns as humanitarian interventions to protect beleaguered kin. Armenia's involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Serbia's role in the Croatian War of Independence, and Russia's stated justification for annexing Crimea all deployed this framing. Scholars David S. Siroky and Christopher W. Hale are skeptical. They contend that the empirical evidence for ethnicity and discrimination as genuine motivations is thin and that these justifications often serve as cover for material or strategic ambitions.

  Realist and rational-choice accounts look instead to power and economic incentives. A territory that is relatively wealthy makes a more attractive target, by this logic. Larger states benefit from bigger internal markets and lower per capita defense costs, even if they also face the harder task of accommodating a wider range of citizens' preferences. Elites, in rational-choice models, may promote irredentism to rally nationalist sentiment behind them, distract the public from domestic failures, or outmaneuver political rivals.

  Regime type also appears to matter. Democratic states are generally less prone to irredentist violence, in part because they tend to be more inclusive of minority groups and because democratic peace theory holds that democracies avoid armed conflict with one another. Authoritarian regimes start most irredentist conflicts. But democracy is not a complete safeguard. Irredentist ideals can appeal to democratic publics precisely because they can be framed as an expression of popular will toward national unification. Siroky and Hale identify anocratic regimes as the most irredentism-prone of all: they share some democratic ideals that can be used to justify ethnic claims, but they lack the institutional stability and accountability that might restrain those claims.

• 5. History's Case Studies

  ›

  The Megali Idea, which translates roughly as the "Great Idea," shaped Greek politics from the War of Independence in the 1820s through the Balkan Wars in the early 20th century. Its goal was to unite all Greeks into a single state. It succeeded in stages through a combination of military conquest and diplomacy, expanding the territory of the Greek state over several decades. The project lost momentum after the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 and the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923.

  Adolf Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 relied on his claim that Sudeten Germans were being persecuted by the Czechoslovak government. The Sudetenland was ceded to Germany through the Munich Agreement, signed by Germany, France, Britain, and Italy in a failed attempt to avert a larger war. Political scientist Anna M. Wittmann draws a useful contrast between this event and Hitler's invasion of Poland the following year. The Sudetenland annexation qualifies as irredentism because it rested on shared language and ethnicity. The Poland invasion is better categorized as revanchism because Germany framed it as revenge for previous territorial losses.

  Somalia's 1977 invasion of Ethiopia aimed to attach the Ogaden region to Somalia and create a Greater Somalia by uniting ethnic Somalis on both sides of the border. The war lasted roughly eight months. Somalia came close to achieving its objective but ultimately failed, primarily because socialist countries intervened on Ethiopia's behalf.

  Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 was tied to a different dynamic. Argentina's military government used nationalist feeling over the islands as a distraction from serious domestic problems. President Juan Perón had earlier built up that sentiment through educational reforms teaching that the islands were Argentine. The war ended in British victory after about two months. Argentina did not officially acknowledge the end of hostilities until 1989, and successive governments continued to press their claim. Referendums in 1986 and 2013 showed the island population favoring British sovereignty. Argentina traces its claim to a colonial inheritance from independence in 1816.

  Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 drew on a long and complicated history. The Crimean peninsula was a Tartar Khanate starting in the 15th century. Russia annexed it in 1783, breaking a previous treaty to do so. In 1954, while both Russia and Ukraine were Soviet republics, Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine. Moscow justified the 2014 annexation by alleging that the Ukrainian government failed to protect ethnic Russians on the peninsula. Russia then invaded mainland Ukraine in February 2022, escalating the conflict.

• 6. International Law and Consequences

  ›

  International law takes a largely hostile stance toward irredentism. The United Nations Charter calls for respect for established territorial borders and defends state sovereignty. The Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, and the Helsinki Final Act hold similar positions. Because irredentist claims rest on conflicting assertions of sovereignty, finding a workable compromise is genuinely difficult. When irredentist conflicts are resolved peacefully, the outcome is usually mutual recognition of existing de facto borders rather than any territorial transfer.

  International relation theorist Markus Kornprobst argues that "no other issue over which states fight is as war-prone as irredentism." Political scholar Rachel Walker observed that "there is scarcely a country in the world that is not involved in some sort of irredentist quarrel... although few would admit to this." Stephen M. Saideman and R. William Ayres contend that many of the most significant conflicts of the 1990s, including the wars for a Greater Serbia and a Greater Croatia, were irredentist in nature.

  Despite the frequency of irredentist campaigns, they rarely succeed. They also frequently harm the very minorities they claim to protect. A host state, feeling its territorial integrity threatened, may increase discrimination against the ethnic minority in question as a way to reduce a potential internal threat. Meanwhile, the irredentist state may use the plight of those minorities as a rhetorical tool while caring mainly about territorial or strategic gain. Martin Griffiths and colleagues suggest that reducing the risk of irredentism over the long term depends on fostering political pluralism and genuine respect for minority rights within states, rather than on redrawing borders to satisfy ethnic claims. Disputes between Pakistan and India over Jammu and Kashmir, as well as China's claims on Taiwan, remain among the unresolved irredentist tensions that continue to shape global politics.

• 7. Irredentism and Its Relatives

  ›

  Revanchism is the concept most often confused with irredentism, and the distinction is a matter of motive rather than method. The term revanchism comes from the French word revanche, meaning revenge. It was first applied to French nationalists after the Franco-Prussian War who wanted to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine. Irredentism aims to build something, namely a "greater" unified nation-state reflecting an ethnic or historical vision. Revanchism aims to undo something, recovering territory lost in a previous defeat. Saddam Hussein's justification for the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait illustrates revanchism: he argued that Kuwait had always been an integral part of Iraq and only became a separate country because of British interference.

  Secession is another closely related concept. In secession, a territory breaks away from a larger state to form an independent entity, as the slaveholding southern states did when they formed the Confederate States of America in 1861. Irredentism runs in the opposite direction: the territory breaks away not to stand alone but to merge with another state. Horowitz observes that secession movements are considerably more common in postcolonial states than irredentist ones, but they are also less likely to succeed because secessionist groups typically command far fewer military resources than a recognized state. The Indian government's support for Sri Lankan Tamil secessionists up to 1987, followed by its reversal when it reached an agreement with the Sri Lankan government, illustrates how state backing for such movements can shift.

  The boundaries between irredentism and secession can blur. In the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Yugoslavian Slovenes seceded to form Slovenia while Austrian Slovenes did not join them, remaining part of Austria. The outcome for the Slovenians who stayed behind reflects the kind of partial success that leaves the theoretical question of which category the movement belongs to genuinely open.