score:8
The Counter Reformation in Europe culminated in the murderous, no-holds-barred, Thirty Years War. That war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and ushered in a period of religious tolerance in Europe that, exclusive of Ireland, lasted for over three hundred years into the 20th Century.
Note that the Treaty of Westphalia also occurred contemporary to, perhaps not coincidentally, the beginning of The (Age of) Enlightenment.
Although Europe would continue to experience a succession of wars over the next few hundred years, these would be of a very different character from those of the 16th and early 17th century - they would no longer be religious wars, and they would be fought for limited ends and with limited means. Not until the 20th Century would the concept of Total War again enter the European mindset.
The religious intolerance and bloodshed of the preceding sesqui-century ended. Some discrimination persisted, but across most of Europe the concept that everyone could adhere to a religion consistent with one's conscience was accepted. It's true that European monarchy's favourite hobby remained warfare - but it was now about politics and personal grandeur instead of religion.
Note here that there are only six heretics burned in Catholic and Protestant European countries post-1648:
compared to about 115 in the sesqui-century preceding, and about 34 in the half millennium before that.
Upvote:-1
The United States is an example, in that the Confederacy was a disputed territory between two self-identified nations (with some areas -- Kansas, Kentucky, Virginia -- especially contested). While the Civil War lasted 5 years, the overall cultural/legal conflict lasted for well over a century. Also, in the below discussion, Amanda Porterfield of Florida State Univ. says the U.S. Civil War was a religious conflict; the panel notes various denominations split into North and South branches.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?324898-2/discussion-religious-growth-early-america
It may yet be premature to term "settled," however, a future conflict would be unlikely to be along the same lines. The Mason-Dixon line used to be the divider in the U.S., whereas now, it's one of various boundaries (not all geographic).
Upvote:1
Usually no.
Cases like Kashmir, where two sides claim a territory, but neither of them is strong enough to completely defeat their enemy. Where also no external power (stronger than all participants together) is interested on fix the issue or no chance of cleaning of minorities is available (like genocide or deportation) are for example:
While the examples where the problem was fixed peacefully are:
Summary. In order to solve these kind of conflict there are few alternatives:
Upvote:2
There have been a few successful condominiums, where two (or more!) countries shared control of a territory. Some examples:
New Hebrides/Vanuatu (French/English condominium, lasted 1906 to 1980).
Egypt (French/English condominium 1876-1882)
Cyprus (Byzantine/Arab condominium 688 to 900s)
So, THEORETICALLY, India and Pakistan might be able to share the Kashmir as a condominium, which would at least end the division.