Maria Koinova’s book centers on the interplay of two questions that are central for understanding the origins and development of contemporary conflicts and violence: What causes the trajectories of similar conflicts to diverge, and why do ethnonational conflicts persevere in spite of international peace- and institution-building instruments? Drawing on literature from conflict studies, democratization and transition literature, European Union studies, and general political science, Koinova argues that “the levels and duration of ethnonational violence are rooted in conflict dynamics established between majorities, minorities, and international agents during the formative period at the end of communism (1987/89–1992)” (p. 5). Seeing the collapse of communism as a “critical juncture” (p. 5), she proposes a sophisticated, yet complex, model for understanding conflict trajectories in and beyond the postcommunist states. This critical juncture subsequently serves as the initial point for studying the timing and sequencing of policies targeting minority population, as well as the influences on minority—majority relations exerted by the international community, kin-states, and diasporas.

Methodologically, Koinova’s model rests on a historical institutionalist study of relations between agents operating within broader structures of endogenous and exogenous opportunities and constraints. Exemplifying path dependence through process tracing and relying on European studies terminology, the author argues that the relations between minorities and majorities become locked in a dynamic that can be cooperative, semiconflictual, or conflictual. Although this self-perpetuating dynamic has the tendency to become informally institutionalized over time, some of its aspects are subject to change as the result of external influence. Relying on the literature of the political economy of transition, she unpacks and juxtaposes the effects of exogenous shocks and incremental changes on the trajectories of ethnonational conflict.

The underlying model then serves as the axis for comparing how conflict unfolded in three Southeast European states that experienced significantly different degrees of violence between ethnic minorities and majorities after the fall of communism: Bulgaria (low levels of violence), Macedonia (medium levels of violence), and Kosovo (high levels of violence). Koinova’s account is based on compelling empirical evidence, including 150 interviews, collected in the studied countries during the eight-year period that lasted from 2000 to 2008. It is supplemented by a plethora of secondary academic materials, including not only conceptual literature from different political science fields that she uses to build her model but also area studies that complement the fine nuances of historical detail required by her analytical model.

Ethnonationalist Conflict in Postcommunist States is written in a sophisticated academic language and follows a clear and coherent structure. The introduction to the book presents the main argument, methodology, and case selection, thus setting the stage for applying path dependence, timing, and sequencing to the case study of minority—majority relations in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Kosovo in the subsequent chapters. Importantly, the introduction highlights that the selection of case studies also carries a religious component in that the conflict unfolded between the Christian Orthodox majority and the Muslim minority, but the author does not systematically elaborate on the religious aspects of the conflict in the rest of her analysis.

The first chapter outlines the dynamics of relations between minorities and majorities before and during the time of the critical juncture, as well as hypotheses on sequences and timing of events that induced minorities’ acceptance or rejection of their constitutional position in the three countries. The second chapter examines the self-reinforcement mechanisms, including the advantage of political incumbency and adaptive expectations on the development of conflict dynamics between minorities and majorities. The empirical analysis in this chapter is intuitively rather than explicitly related to the “greed and grievance” debate in conflict studies. Koinova effectively shows how majorities seized the newly established Southeast European states, while marginalizing or oppressing minority peoples. Concurrently, minorities adapted their behavior to the expectations of the government’s sequencing of future policies. The underlying interplay between the majority’s “ownership” of new states and the minority’s adaptive responses affected the future levels of violence that articulated minority grievances.

The third and the fourth chapters focus on the analysis of international actors and structures during and after the critical juncture points. Read in conjunction, these two chapters seem to suggest that the successful mitigation of ethnonational conflict depends on the triangular relationship among minorities, majorities, and international agents, who act within institutional structures affected either by strong exogenous shocks, such as the 1999 NATO military intervention in Kosovo and its spillover onto Macedonia in 2001, or by undergoing gradual change, including that induced by the EU accession process. In the fifth chapter, Koinova examines how kin-states and diasporas, as identity-based exogenous actors, affect the violence levels in the new states of Southeast Europe. The sixth chapter explores the discontinuities in conflict trajectories after full “replacement” of old rules by the “layering” of new policies on top of the preexisting ones, while the seventh looks at continuities against the backdrop of the “normalization” of corruption, lessons learned by the international community, and contested and contentious behaviors of the kin-states and diasporas.

The major strength of the book lies in the congruence between the theoretically informed model and the finely grained historical detail, essential for understanding and unpacking conflict dynamics. Koinova prudently defines the plethora of terms and concepts used in theoretical deliberation and empirical analysis, even if her broad definitions occasionally allow for the overstretching of concepts. It is important to note her innovative application of the concept of “critical junctures,” commonly used in party politics literature, to an understanding of the institutionalization of contemporary conflicts. This key feature of the book makes it a valuable contribution to academic audience.

An important criticism builds on this last point: Despite Koinova’s assertion that the book “is relevant to policy-makers” (p. 229), the multitude of terms and concepts that she borrows from different disciplines and the complexity of her own model limit the audience for this monograph to established scholars and advanced students. At various points, she also introduces terms and concepts (e.g., “five degrees of violence”; p. 9) that are hardly picked up at all in the rest of the book. This also raises the related question of whether the author’s model is solid and durable or a loose framework that ties together different disciplinary insights. While wider applicability can be discussed and contested among the broader scholarly community, there is a more substantive criticism to the work. This criticism rests on the assumption of the similarity of the examined conflicts at the point of critical juncture, which is also related to comparability across cases. In spite of adopting a historical institutionalist approach, Koinova offers very little information on the institutionalization of minority—majority relations during the communist rule. This type of information would enhance an otherwise interesting book by helping readers to better understand the development of conflict in the postcommunist countries. It would show why minorities resorted to cooperation when their position improved, while resorting to violent conflict proportionate to their status reduction(s) after the fall of communism.