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.
