Periodic Reporting for period 1 - CLAIMAX (Beyond Maximalism: The Role of Domestic Political Institutions in the Making and Reception of Excessive State Claims)
Período documentado: 2023-09-01 hasta 2025-08-31
Excessive or “maximalist” state claims, such as demanding full control over disputed territories or entire maritime zones, have become an increasingly visible source of international tension. Yet, despite their importance for international peace and conflict, these claims have rarely been studied as a distinct phenomenon. "Beyond Maximalism: The Role of Domestic Political Institutions in the Making and Reception of Excessive State Claims" (CLAIMAX) set out to study maximalist claims as distinct from the ordinary, limited claims that underlie typical disagreements between states. It seeks to explain why some states put forward excessive claims while others do not, how such claims are perceived by foreign publics, and how those perceptions feed into foreign policymaking. Overall, its goal is to provide a better understanding of the roots and consequences of excessive claims with particular potential to fuel international conflict.
The project has two main components. The first is the observational part, which focuses on identifying the domestic political drivers of maximalist claims. It relies on an original global dataset covering numerical maritime claims since 1945 and examines how different regime types (democracies and different forms of autocracies) make excessive claims. It finds that democracies and types of autocracies that are more sensitive to public opinion tend to be more moderate, likely because they face domestic costs if they later have to retract expansive positions. The second is the experimental part, which assesses how citizens evaluate and respond to claims made by perceived adversaries of their countries. It draws on survey experiments conducted in Spain, Turkey, and Greece, using both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. The surveys test the effects of claim size, information about the regime type of the claimant, and information about legal standing on how maximalist a claim is judged to be and what kinds of foreign policy actions respondents support. By showing how public opinion evaluates claims over territory and maritime areas, and how these evaluations shape preferences over foreign policy responses, the project sheds light on the domestic and societal constraints that leaders face when managing international disputes.
The project has two main components. The first is the observational part, which focuses on identifying the domestic political drivers of maximalist claims. It relies on an original global dataset covering numerical maritime claims since 1945 and examines how different regime types (democracies and different forms of autocracies) make excessive claims. It finds that democracies and types of autocracies that are more sensitive to public opinion tend to be more moderate, likely because they face domestic costs if they later have to retract expansive positions. The second is the experimental part, which assesses how citizens evaluate and respond to claims made by perceived adversaries of their countries. It draws on survey experiments conducted in Spain, Turkey, and Greece, using both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. The surveys test the effects of claim size, information about the regime type of the claimant, and information about legal standing on how maximalist a claim is judged to be and what kinds of foreign policy actions respondents support. By showing how public opinion evaluates claims over territory and maritime areas, and how these evaluations shape preferences over foreign policy responses, the project sheds light on the domestic and societal constraints that leaders face when managing international disputes.
CLAIMAX produced several core results. In terms of conceptual and empirical foundations, the project developed clear criteria to identify maximalist claims, combining international law standards and comparative state practice. It conceptualised both objective and subjective maximalism and compiled an original dataset of unilateral maritime claims, allowing systematic testing of how regime type and other factors affect claim expansiveness. In terms of the specific analyses, the project assessed how regime characteristics are associated with the likelihood of advancing excessive claims. The analyses show that autocratic regimes, especially those that are less constrained internally, are more likely to adopt extreme positions, while democracies tend to make moderate claims. Finally, the project has also produced findings that use experimental conditions to assess how the public receives claims of other countries. Three large-scale surveys in Spain, Turkey, and Greece measured how citizens evaluate foreign claims of different sizes, from different regimes, and with varying legal standing. Respondents judged identical claims as more “maximalist” and illegitimate when made by autocracies, supporting the argument that regime type shapes threat perception and preferred policy responses. However, information about legal standing did not have any noticeable effect. The project produced multiple peer-reviewed outputs, and contributed to publication in leading international relations journals such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution and The Review of International Organizations. It also provided a dataset on states’ maritime claims over time. Two further working papers on the determinants and perceptions of maximalism are in progress, and several new avenues of research will be pursued based on the foundations of the project.
CLAIMAX goes beyond the state-of-the-art in several ways. Conceptually, it introduces “maximalist claims” as distinct from other, more limited and ordinary claims, and considers maximalism from both subjective and objective angles. It combines observational and experimental approaches to study the making and reception of international claims, bridging comparative politics and international security literatures. It thereby adds conceptual clarity and scholarly depth to the common use of maximalism as a charge policymakers use to describe their adversaries' claims in the policy discourse. Methodologically, it develops a way of assessing the excessiveness of a claim with reference to both international law and prevailing state practice, enabling systematic cross-case and longitudinal analysis that can be expanded to other types of claims and policy debates. Empirically, it provides the first global dataset of numerical maritime claims over time. Beyond academia, the data and findings have strong potential for further exploitation. Work is underway to geocode the dataset and further develop it so that users can visualize and download information on maritime claims and trace their evolution over time. Eventually, the data and findings can help diplomats, legal experts, and international organizations identify which claims stand out and in what respects, improving the prospects for effectively addressing them before they lead to conflict.