Former secessionist groups and postwar politics: What happens to sovereignty claims after the end of secessionist wars?

How do former secessionist rebel groups that become political parties relate to issues of sovereignty and territoriality after the war has ended? Secessionist wars have three possible endings: military defeat of the secessionist insurgency, as in Sri Lanka, territorial autonomy provisions as in Aceh, or, occasionally, the establishment of new states as in East Timor and Kosovo. Across these types of conflict endings, former secessionist movements continue to play central roles in post-war statebuilding trajectories at the sub-regional or national level. While we have a good understanding of conflict resolution dynamics following secessionist wars, we know less about how former secessionist movements govern in peacetime, and specifically how the settlement framework and ideology of secessionism shape the post-war trajectory of peacebuilding and statebuilding. How is sovereignty enacted by rebel group successor parties that abandoned their original goal of separate statehood, or where the armed movement was defeated? What ideas and ideologies of the state are enacted where secession was achieved? Building on unique primary research and comparative study of five post-secessionist scenarios in Asia and Europe, this paper explains how former secessionist movements adapt their claims over time and which factors influence these strategic decisions.