Search

Begin New Search Topic Self Determination Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years

1. Scylla and Charybdis: The Self-Determination of Peoples Versus the Territorial Integrity of States

Author:
A. Kagramanov
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
LIKE Odysseus, who fell into the clutches of Scylla after escaping the whirlpool Charybdis, countries that have escaped the threat of losing territory as a result of foreign invasion are facing the threat of disintegration from within. The ancient epic by the great Homer about the adventures of the hero Odysseus, who finds himself between a rock and a hard place, involuntarily comes to mind when considering the perennial international legal dilemma about the relationship between the principle of the territorial integrity of states and the right of peoples and nations to self-determination. As Yekaterina Narochnitskaya rightly notes, self-determination, like freedom, has “its limits and its paradox.” “Just as unlimited freedom destroys itself, so the right to self-determination, elevated to an absolute, risks depriving everyone and everything of self-determination, the inevitable outcome being a chain reaction of countless conflicting expressions of will leading to a general collapse.”1 Experience shows that the principle of self-determination is subject to double standards and often politically exploited by certain groups to achieve their economic, social, ethnocratic, religious, and other narrow, sometimes purely selfish goals that contradict the original purpose of this vital international legal and (in most cases) constitutional provision. And it is for these untoward purposes that the artificial “collision” of this principle with the principle of territorial integrity is often used.
Topic:
International Law, Law, Self Determination, Conflict, Peace, and Territory
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Georgian Ethnopolitical Conflicts as a Subject of Confrontation between the USA and Russia

Author:
Ekaterine Lomia and Loid Karchava
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
Since 2009 Russia has increased its military forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and pursued the policy of ‘creeping annexation in the occupied territories of Georgia. Today, 20% of Georgian territories are occupied by the Russian Federation. The Russian-baked separatists continuously erect barbed-wire border posts in one of the occupied regions of Georgia-South Ossetia and detain Georgian people, under the pretext of ‘illegally crossing the border’. Fundamental rights of the local population are violated daily since the occupants install barbers through people’s houses, gardens, and cultivated lands. Innocent citizens are forced to leave their homes, belongings, and cultivated lands that are left beyond the occupants’ demarcation line. The paper argues that along with other global challenges of the world, the USA-Russia clashes of interests are also found with the Georgian conflicts. While Washington hugely supports Georgia’s territorial integrity and welcomes its Euro-Atlantic aspirations, the Russian Federation, on the contrary, prevents the aforementioned process and directly opposes Georgia’s integration into NATO. The USA condemns Russia’s creeping annexation of Georgian territories and continuously calls on Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent country. Furthermore, the USA-Russia relations have considerably deteriorated following Russia’s military intervention in Georgia and the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Hegemony, Self Determination, Military Intervention, Conflict, Borders, and Territory
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Georgia, North America, and United States of America

3. Peace as a Human Right: Outlook of the Relationships between Human Rights and Peace from the 21st Century | Bir İnsan Hakkı Olarak Barış: İnsan Hakları/Barış İlişkisinin 21. Yüzyıldan Görünümü

Author:
Fatma Akkan Güngör and Zehra Aksu
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics & International Relations
Institution:
Department of International Relations, Karadeniz Technical University
Abstract:
The 20th century has been regulated with a conservative principle due to the fact that states could not be able to solve their national and international problems on their own, and therefore should embrace the concept of global cooperation. That is the reason why state sovereignty has been the subject of many discussions until today. When peace emerged as a human right in the form of solidarity, it was taken into consideration in the literature together with the concept of humanitarian intervention. Furthermore, after that, its validity was discussed in the context of state sovereignty. While all these discussions are taking place, many philosophers/academics, who focus on the problematic of state right or human right and whose ideas evolve to peace studies over the inevitability of wars and reach a stalemate between the subject or state over the right of intervention, bring the old concepts back to the agenda and produce new ideas for the new order. Based on the question of whether peace should be in the system or within the nation, the main problematic in this era is whether a society that includes the entire universe or a system in which the sovereignty principles of states will continue and whether a system, in which wars are also possible, will be accepted as "right" by the subject. | 20. yüzyıl devletler için ulusal ve uluslararası sorunlarını tek başlarına çözemeyecekleri ve bu nedenle küresel işbirliğine yanaşmaları düzleminde muhafazakar ilkeyle düzenlenmiş ve günümüze kadar geçen sürede devlet egemenliği birçok tartışmaya konu olmuştur. Barış, dayanışma türünde bir insan hakkı olarak ortaya çıktığında literatürde insani müdahale kavramı ile birlikte ele alınmış ve sonrasında devlet egemenliği bağlamında geçerliliği tartışılmıştır. Tüm bu tartışmalar yaşanırken devlet hakkı mı insan hakkı mı sorunsalına odaklanan ve savaşların kaçınılmazlığı üzerinden barış çalışmalarına evrilen ve müdahale hakkı üzerine özne mi devlet mi çıkmazında kalan birçok düşünür, eski kavramları yeniden gündeme taşımakta ve yeni düzene yeni düşünceler üretmektedir. Barışın sistemde mi ulusta mı olması gerektiği sorusu üzerinden hareketle ana sorunsal, bu çağda tüm evreni içine alacak bir toplumun mu yoksa devletlerin egemenlik ilkelerinin devam edeceği ve savaşların da olası olduğu bir sistemin mi özne tarafından doğru kabul edileceğidir.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Sovereignty, Self Determination, Humanitarian Intervention, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. A Comparison of Nisga’a Self-Government and International Standards of Indigenous Self-Determination

Author:
Agnieszka Szpak
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The paper concentrates on the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples on the basis of the Nisga’a Nation. The author analyzes the most important provisions of the Nisga’a Final Agreement, in particular those envisaging self-determination of the Nisga’a Nation. Then the author briefly examines the Nisga’a Constitution which may be regarded as a means to implement the Nisga’a Final Agreement. It shows how the Nisga’a selfgovernance model fits into the provisions on self-determination of indigenous peoples. The thesis of this paper is that the Nisga’a self-governance is consonant with international legal standards expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nisga’a selfgovernment model is much more than just cultural autonomy: it actually amounts to political autonomy. This subject is worth exploring because it may serve as a pattern to be followed with reference to other indigenous peoples, not only in Canada.
Topic:
Governance, Self Determination, Leadership, and Indigenous
Political Geography:
Canada and North America

5. Secessionist Conflict: A Happy Marriage between Norms and Interests?

Author:
Rafael Biermann
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
This roundtable debates how norms, values, and interests are balanced and harmonized in a world of conflict. My contribution focuses on one specific policy field: secessionist conflict. Like Megan Bradley’s contribution on the international refugee regime,1 this essay takes a metaperspective and does not investigate any one specific case or actor.2 I assume a political science perspective, paying attention first to social norms (as standards of appropriate behavior), which encompass but go beyond legally codified norms of international law;3 and second to interests, whether they be national, group, personal, or other. My perspective here is a critical social constructivist one, investigating the dialectic relationship of norms, interests, and power. I introduce the concept of “norm selection” in a policy field, which offers choice within a cluster of competing norms. Finally, following Bernd Bucher’s call to bring back agency into what he terms international “norm politics,” this contribution prioritizes agency, arguing that it is actors with diverging interests who do the balancing of norms, values, and interests.4 This was one of the major insights we gained from the workshop preceding this roundtable.5 The central argument of my contribution is that the policy field of secessionist conflict is structured around a set of five rival norms, of which territorial integrity and self-determination form the core. This normative structure permits the parties involved in a secessionist conflict to select from a menu of norms those that best suit their interests. The selection displays remarkable regularities, indicating default positions for each type of actor. However, significant outlier cases signal that interests do not simply trump norms but that actors accord different values to those norms. This attribution is influenced by the dynamics of a normative environment in which norms rise and fall. In particular, since the Cold War ended, discourse as well as state practice have shifted away from the traditional taboo on secession toward more revisionist concepts, such as remedial secession or earned sovereignty, providing an opening for the secessionist wave that started with the breakup of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia. I present my argument in three steps. First, I introduce the above-mentioned cluster of norms that shape discourse and policies on secession, distinguishing the two core norms and the three circumjacent ones of noninterference, human rights, and democratic good governance. Second, I identify five major types of actors in secessionist conflicts and investigate how each balances those norms. Since this balancing is actor-specific and conforms to the interests that each pursues, I arrive at distinct default positions for each actor type. Whereas this analysis suggests that norms serve primarily as legitimation devices to advance the diverging interests of various actors, the last section discusses outlier cases where norms and interests do not match as presumed.
Topic:
International Law, Self Determination, Norms, and Secession
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. The Securitisation of Kurdish Self-Determination as A Challenge for the Sectarian Balance of Power in the Middle East

Author:
Marek Musiol
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The article addresses current questions concerning the Kurdish situation before and after the invasion and expansion of ISIS. It applied the theory of securitisation to study the tangled circumstances and frameworks of Kurdish claims, underlining their attempts at gaining their much-desired independence. This elaboration enables one to recognise the genesis and the local, regional and global context of international actions vis-à-vis Kurdish interests, and the possible supporters and opponents of the Kurdish project of statehood in the Middle East. It portrays also the current perception of Kurdish efforts to establish their own national and legal subjectivity that must be recognised by the majority of state actors in order to meet the indispensable criteria of international law. This article is particularly important in the context of recent developments in the Middle East. First of all, it refers to pressures, as well as openly offensive actions targeting the inter- ests and territories controlled by the Kurds in Turkey during the existence of the so-called Islamic State. Secondly, it reflects on actors’ reactions in the international arena, including the countries of the Middle East, towards the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan, as well as on direct actions aimed at shaping a new geopolitical order after the fall of ISIS (attack by Iraqi troops in Kirkuk or the Turkish army in Afrin).
Topic:
Terrorism, Self Determination, Democracy, ISIS, and Independence
Political Geography:
Middle East