Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Ethnic conflicts represent some of the most devastating and persistent challenges in international relations, and they're central to understanding how identity, territory, and power intersect in the modern world. On the AP exam, you're being tested on more than just names and dates—you need to understand why these conflicts erupt, how they escalate, and what role the international community plays (or fails to play) in responding. These cases illustrate core concepts like sovereignty vs. humanitarian intervention, self-determination, ethnic nationalism, and the failures of international institutions.
Each conflict in this guide demonstrates specific mechanisms: colonial legacies that created artificial boundaries, state-sponsored violence against minorities, secessionist movements demanding autonomy, or the international community's struggle to balance non-intervention with human rights protection. Don't just memorize which groups fought whom—know what concept each conflict best illustrates. When an FRQ asks about ethnic cleansing, genocide, or the responsibility to protect, you'll need to pull the right example instantly.
Many ethnic conflicts trace directly to colonial powers drawing borders without regard for ethnic, religious, or linguistic communities. These artificial boundaries created states containing hostile groups or divided unified populations across multiple countries.
Compare: Rwanda vs. Darfur—both involved government-aligned forces targeting ethnic minorities, but Rwanda's genocide was concentrated and swift while Darfur's violence was prolonged and geographically dispersed. If an FRQ asks about international intervention failures, Rwanda is your clearest example; for ICC jurisdiction challenges, use Darfur.
These conflicts arise when ethnic groups seek independence or autonomy from existing states. The tension between territorial integrity (states keeping their borders) and self-determination (peoples choosing their own governance) creates intractable disputes.
Compare: Sri Lanka vs. Kurdish conflict—both involve ethnic minorities seeking autonomy, but Sri Lanka's conflict ended decisively (militarily) while the Kurdish situation remains unresolved across multiple states. The Kurdish case better illustrates how colonial-era borders divided ethnic nations.
The collapse of communist federations unleashed ethnic nationalism that had been suppressed for decades. When multiethnic states dissolved, competition over territory and the treatment of minority populations sparked violent conflicts.
Compare: Yugoslavia vs. Northern Ireland—both involved ethnic/religious divisions in European contexts, but Yugoslavia dissolved into separate states through war while Northern Ireland found a power-sharing solution within existing borders. The Good Friday Agreement demonstrates successful conflict resolution; Yugoslavia shows the costs of failure.
Some conflicts involve governments systematically targeting ethnic populations within their own borders. These cases raise fundamental questions about sovereignty, human rights, and when (if ever) the international community should intervene in domestic affairs.
Compare: Rohingya vs. Uyghurs—both involve Muslim minorities facing state persecution, but Myanmar's violence triggered mass refugee flows while China's policies emphasize detention and assimilation within borders. The Uyghur case demonstrates how powerful states can resist international pressure; the Rohingya case shows how weaker states face greater scrutiny.
Some conflicts center on irreconcilable claims to the same land, where both sides hold deep historical, religious, or cultural connections. These disputes resist compromise because territory carries existential significance for group identity.
Compare: Israeli-Palestinian vs. Nagorno-Karabakh—both involve competing ethnic claims to territory with religious significance, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has far greater global attention and involves a major U.S. ally. Both demonstrate how "facts on the ground" (settlements, population transfers) can make negotiated solutions increasingly difficult.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Colonial legacy conflicts | Rwanda, Darfur, Kurdish situation |
| Secessionist movements | Sri Lanka (LTTE), Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh |
| Genocide/ethnic cleansing | Rwanda, Bosnia (Srebrenica), Darfur |
| International intervention | Kosovo (NATO), Rwanda (failure to act) |
| Successful peace agreement | Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement) |
| State repression of minorities | Uyghurs in China, Rohingya in Myanmar |
| Stateless nations | Kurds, Palestinians, Rohingya |
| ICC/international justice | Darfur (al-Bashir indictment), Yugoslavia (ICTY) |
Which two conflicts best illustrate the international community's failure to prevent genocide, and what distinguishes the scale and speed of violence in each case?
Compare the Kurdish and Palestinian situations as examples of stateless nations—what factors explain why Palestinians have received greater international recognition of their claims?
If an FRQ asks you to evaluate the effectiveness of international criminal tribunals, which two conflicts provide the strongest evidence, and what outcomes support your argument?
How do the Rohingya and Uyghur cases demonstrate different state strategies for ethnic repression, and why has the international response differed?
The Good Friday Agreement is often cited as a model for ethnic conflict resolution. Identify two other conflicts from this list where similar power-sharing arrangements were attempted or proposed, and explain why they succeeded or failed.