3
fears of setting a dangerous precedent.
9
Others assume indivisibility is limited to specific types of
conflict, such as nationalist or ethnic wars, missing how indivisible issues affect more general disputes.
10
I argue that issues are neither essentially divisible nor indivisible; there is no inherent property of
an issue that determines its divisibility. Rather, indivisibility is produced by dynamics within the
bargaining process. Specifically, I argue that whether or not an issue appears to be indivisible depends
upon how actors legitimate their claims to an issue. In particular, while actors choose their legitimations
strategically, in order to gain a short-term advantage at the bargaining table, these legitimation strategies
can have what network sociologists call “switching effects”: by resonating with some actors and not
others, legitimation strategies can either build ties between otherwise irreconcilable bargaining positions,
and allow each side to recognize the legitimacy of each other’s claims, or else lock actors into bargaining
positions that leave them unable to recognize any other demands to an issue as legitimate. When the latter
happens, actors come to the table with mutually incompatible claims, defining the issue as indivisible.
The paper proceeds as follows. In the next section, I define what it means for an issue to be
indivisible, arguing that indivisibility is not an inherent property of an issue, but is constructed by actors
during the bargaining process. I next develop a legitimation theory of indivisibility, arguing that how
actors justify their claims to an issue can change the bargaining structure, altering coalitions in ways that
reduce the range of possible settlements. Following this discussion, I apply the legitimation theory to the
case of Ulster, showing that this seemingly intractable conflict was not inevitable, but produced by
changes in legitimation strategies in the 20
th
century. I conclude by exploring the implications of this
theory for theory and policy.
Our money and our children: the conventional wisdom of indivisible issues
What do we mean when we say that an issue is “divisible” or “indivisible”? Most scholars
intuitively emphasize the inherent properties of an issue, in particular, whether or not the issue can be
9
See Fearon 1998; Toft 1998, 2002; Walter 2000.
10
Hall 1999; Toft 1998; Diehl 1999, xi.
Convention