From your link (sans references):
However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.[43] According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.
---
But again, that’s not even my point. My point is a Kantian point: do you want to live in a world where self-determination of [group] in [country] is sufficient grounds for boots on the ground? This is not even a question about what the US or Russia had been or is doing, but about our preferences.
I’m saying we live in a world where a right to self-determination has been recognized for something like a century now, even if it does not come with an automatic invasion authorization from the UN Security Council. So far, I’m not sure if it’s been all that bad although as an American, I cannot sympathize with those who might want to exercise said right inasmuch as there is no other country to which people like me might want to form.
The right to self-determination seems to me to have been “recognized” as propaganda, but practically never practiced.
It was used post WW1, but only because there were two big multi-ethnic empires to be broken up. No-one proposed treating the victors similarly; their constituent nations which wanted independence had to fight for it, like Ireland did in 1920-1922.
Very few significant new nations have claimed statehood in the century since then on the basis of this principle without armed struggle. And when there’s a civil war or rebellion and one side wins independence by military and political means, I don’t give much credence to abstract principles.
Using Wikipedia’s list of sovereign states by date of independence for the last century, the only states in the first half of the list (from 1973 to the present) that were established peacefully along ethnic lines are Czech and Slovak republics in the post-USSR breakup of Czechoslovakia. Most other Soviet states became nations despite being multi-ethnic, or fought bloody civil wars as in Yugoslavia. So did almost all African and Asian colonies post decolonization.
I admit I didn’t have the patience to read all the linked articles on that list, and its older half (1914-1972), but at least its first half doesn’t contain a single example of a part of sovereign nation breaking away on the basis of self determination without a major war. The older half probably might have some examples, but I expect them to be very few.
Very few significant new nations have claimed statehood in the century since then on the basis of this principle without armed struggle.
A lot of former colonies are now self-governed and a lot of them became independent without armed struggle. That was what the principle of self-determination was about. The British lost their empire over the principle.
It wasn’t really about giving the Scottish or the Basques a right to hold a referendum to get independence.
On the other hand the principle of immutability of borders as written down in the Hague Conventions isn’t that well respect either. The borders of Ukraine changed frequently since the Hague Conventions was made and I don’t see a real reason why they should now be immutable when a majority of Crimeans doesn’t want to belong to Ukraine.
The Soviet states also did became nations in a way that did violate the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union without a war.
A lot of former colonies are now self-governed and a lot of them became independent without armed struggle. That was what the principle of self-determination was about. The British lost their empire over the principle.
Those colonies became independent states with borders decided by the accidents of previous colonial conquest, or drawn arbitrarily post-conquest without regard to local interests or ethnic, economic and cultural divisions (e.g. India and Pakistan).
Similarly, in the British-administrated post-WW1 mandate territories (which they divested during the same general political era when they lost their empire), they drew arbitrary borders and deliberately installed rulers who were foreign to the local population or represented minorities, because they knew these rulers would have to oppress the locals and so would depend on foreign support (e.g. Jordan, Iraq).
Local people were not consulted by a referendum or plebiscite, and in no case that I’m aware of did previously multi-ethnic or multi-cultural states peacefully divide into nation states. There is certainly a principle of decolonization and de-imperialization, but I’m not seeing any self-determination.
The borders of Ukraine changed frequently since the Hague Conventions was made
When the Hague Conventions were signed, Ukraine didn’t exist as a sovereign state and hadn’t done so since the 17th century. Its borders changed a lot after that, but always as a result of war and conquest, apart from Russia’s gift of Crimea in 1954. It was partitioned and partially annexed many times over the 20th century by its more powerful neighbors. This history did not follow self-determination at any point.
I don’t see a real reason why they should now be immutable when a majority of Crimeans doesn’t want to belong to Ukraine.
Even if you accept it as a valid moral principle, the devil is in the details. How large a majority do you require before supporting separatism against a minority’s wishes? How much gerrymandering in the geographical boundaries do you allow? What is the minimum size of a group that may secede (since no-one will recognize family or tribe-sized states in practice)? If people who secede take their privately-owned land with them to form their new state, what happens when the owners of the mine or oil field providing 10% of your GDP secede and then sell their resources back to you at a 500% markup? If the richest and best-educated 10% of your population all happen to live in the same few cities, and they secede to stop wealth redistribution to the other 90%, is that alright? If a group of people wants to secede and implement an fundamentalist state with no freedom for women, gays, or atheists, do you try to stop them as you would non-state actors in your country, or do you shrug and say “eh, we don’t declare war on Saudi Arabia, either”?
The Soviet states also did became nations in a way that did violate the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union without a war.
The USSR (and the Warsaw Pact) was a union of separate republics to begin with; it chose to dissolve itself and they resumed their sovereignity. More importantly, I don’t think anyone would argue that a state has no right to break itself up if a large majority of its citizens agree. It’s a different matter if only the citizens in a particular region want to break away, and the rest want them to stay.
Local people were not consulted by a referendum or plebiscite, and in no case that I’m aware of did previously multi-ethnic or multi-cultural states peacefully divide into nation states.
The notion of self-determination is not primarily about referendums and plebiscites. A government that’s backed by a home grown military coup doesn’t violate the principle.
What is the minimum size of a group that may secede (since no-one will recognize family or tribe-sized states in practice)?
Not every group of people is an ethnic group with the corresponding rights.
In this case you have a majority of Crimeas who speak Russian. You had the the government in Kiev who came to power as the president fled the city because armed Ukrainian nationals took power over the city. They continued to destroy buildings of communist party. Then they passed laws to remove the status of minority languages.
In that climate Crimeans have a valid interest to secede.
How much gerrymandering in the geographical boundaries do you allow?
That a question about who sets the boundaries. In the case of Crimea the natural boundaries work quite well. In the case of Scotland the boundaries are also obvious.
In the case of the Basque country or Padania I’m sure that you could find a way to set reasonable boundaries.
The notion of self-determination is not primarily about referendums and plebiscites. A government that’s backed by a home grown military coup doesn’t violate the principle.
Then I’m confused. If the government of a breakaway region isn’t backed by its population but relies on military force, is it self-determination? If nation A conquers half of nation B and sets up a state where a minority rules by force, is that self-determination? I thought the answer was clearly no in both cases, but if a government backed only by a military coup (i.e. force majeure) counts as “self-determination” then I’m totally confused as to what you mean by those words.
Not every group of people is an ethnic group with the corresponding rights.
In this case you have a majority of Crimeas who speak Russian. You had the the government in Kiev who came to power as the president fled the city because armed Ukrainian nationals took power over the city. They continued to destroy buildings of communist party. Then they passed laws to remove the status of minority languages.
In that climate Crimeans have a valid interest to secede.
(Your comment doesn’t seem to be a response to my question about minimum size)
Since their “referendum” passed under Russian commando control I have no idea what percentage of the population might be opposed to independence, let alone opposed to Russian rule. 58.5% of the population of Crimea are Russians, but 24% are Ukrainians and 10.2% are Crimean Tatars many of whom only recently returned from a decades-long exile originally imposed by Stalin. No matter how this plays out there is going to be a severely oppressed minority maybe as large as 34%. (Do you think Ukrainian is going to have minority language status in Russian-occupied Crimea?)
That a question about who sets the boundaries. In the case of Crimea the natural boundaries work quite well. In the case of Scotland the boundaries are also obvious.
For Crimea and Scotland this may be true. I was talking about generalizing the principle of self-determination.
If the government of a breakaway region isn’t backed by its population but relies on military force, is it self-determination?
The notion of self determination is that every people can govern themselves. It’s a group right. Not one of individual persons.
Party of self-determination means that a country can’t remove a king of another country even if 60% of the population dislikes the king and would prefer another kind of political system then monarchy.
(Do you think Ukrainian is going to have minority language status in Russian-occupied Crimea?)
That depends very much about how the conflict plays out. I do believe that if things go according to Putins plan, that’s the outcome. Neither the EU nor Russia wants to wage war against each other, so sooner or later they have to negotiate a settlement. Russia wants a settlement that gives Crimea international recognition and is probably willing to give the Ukrainians and Tatars in Crimea minority rights in exchange.
Putin makes moves so that he will have a settlement which is overall beneficial for Russia. Winter is coming and the EU needs gas. As long as the West doesn’t want to settle Putin is going to take more territory in Ukraine. I don’t completely understand what game plan Obama follows and what his goal happens to be in the conflict.
(Your comment doesn’t seem to be a response to my question about minimum size)
A bunch of smaller groups of native Americans got some form of autonomy that allowed them to start casinos in the desert and do a bunch of things that are otherwise illegal in the US. I’m okay with handling it like that.
The notion of self determination is that every people can govern themselves. It’s a group right. Not one of individual persons.
I don’t see how to reconcile this with your statement that:
The notion of self-determination is not primarily about referendums and plebiscites. A government that’s backed by a home grown military coup doesn’t violate the principle.
If a government doesn’t have popular majority support, and so it would not win a referendum, but keeps power anyway through military force, how does this uphold a group right for self-governance? Wouldn’t the group right argue in favor of anyone who doesn’t support the government being self-governing and uncoerced by their military powre?
Party of self-determination means that a country can’t remove a king of another country even if 60% of the population dislikes the king and would prefer another kind of political system then monarchy.
On that view, Russia was wrong in supporting Crimean separatism.
A bunch of smaller groups of native Americans got some form of autonomy that allowed them to start casinos in the desert and do a bunch of things that are otherwise illegal in the US. I’m okay with handling it like that.
I don’t know anything about Native American rights and politics in the USA, but I expect that this autonomy is granted because the majority feels guilty over past conquest and oppression and is trying to make amends. A different group of comparable size (say, people of Chinese descend) would not be allowed to “do a bunch of things that are otherwise illegal” merely because they had a minority ethnic status and wanted self-determination.
If a government doesn’t have popular majority support, and so it would not win a referendum, but keeps power anyway through military force, how does this uphold a group right for self-governance?
The will of government is the will of the group. After Egypt had their revolution the new government still had to pay the debts of the old dictator because they old dictator was recognised to be able to make contracts in the name of the nation. How a dictator comes to power isn’t that important for determining whether he’s accepted as representing a group.
On that view, Russia was wrong in supporting Crimean separatism.
The democratically elected government of Crimea went through separating on their own. Russia claimed that it acted according to the new principle of “responsibility to protect (R2P)” which means that it’s okay to use military to prevent violence against a minority. Without the Russian soliders Kiev likely would have used violence to stop the Crimean government from holding a referendum.
Kiev also didn’t go through the impeachment process to remove the status of the old president so it’s not clear why a dejure president shouldn’t be allowed to ask an outside country for military assistance.
Russia also argues that without Western interference the protest movement wouldn’t have managed to make the president flee Kiev.
A different group of comparable size (say, people of Chinese descend) would not be allowed to “do a bunch of things that are otherwise illegal” merely because they had a minority ethnic status and wanted self-determination.
Chinese people in the US don’t have a claim to land in the same way that native Americans, Basque, Scottish or the various people in Crimea have.
In Germany our native Sorbic minority gets minority rights that we don’t give to Turkish immigrants. YOu can’t immigrate and then claim that you then should get the land into with you immigrated.
The will of government is the will of the group. After Egypt had their revolution the new government still had to pay the debts of the old dictator because they old dictator was recognised to be able to make contracts in the name of the nation. How a dictator comes to power isn’t that important for determining whether he’s accepted as representing a group.
You seem to be saying it’s OK for there to be military dictators as long as sub-groups of the country can secede. But no military dictator ever lets anyone secede. I am confused by your position.
The democratically elected government of Crimea went through separating on their own.
The government of Crimea was not democratically elected; it was put in place by the occupying Russian army who didn’t leave the locals much freedom to vote.
Russia claimed that it acted according to the new principle of “responsibility to protect (R2P)” which means that it’s okay to use military to prevent violence against a minority. Without the Russian soliders Kiev likely would have used violence to stop the Crimean government from holding a referendum.
Preventing a referendum hardly rises to the level of violence that should justify an invasion. Is holding a referendum a legally assured right?
Kiev also didn’t go through the impeachment process to remove the status of the old president so it’s not clear why a dejure president shouldn’t be allowed to ask an outside country for military assistance.
Russia also argues that without Western interference the protest movement wouldn’t have managed to make the president flee Kiev.
That seems true.
YOu can’t immigrate and then claim that you then should get the land into with you immigrated.
By that logic, nobody except Native Americans should have any land rights in the USA. In practice nobody follows that rule after a successful conquest. Making exceptions like those for Native Americans is done on a guilt / recompense basis, but it’s not a general legal principle because you could never get it to apply outside a very few minor cases.
Without the Russian soliders Kiev likely would have used violence to stop the Crimean government from holding a referendum.
Did they have any right to hold such a referendum? If they do, how come the Basques don’t?
Kiev also didn’t go through the impeachment process to remove the status of the old president so it’s not clear why a dejure president shouldn’t be allowed to ask an outside country for military assistance.
Whose law? Can the government of Taiwan authorize an invasion of China? Can Franz, Duke of Bavaria authorize an invasion of the UK? If I declare that under the lmmian constitution I am and always have been ruler of the US, does that grant me the right to invade?
I don’t think the concept of a de jure president is coherent—the only way a constitution got written in the first place is when the de facto rulers chose so.
Did they have any right to hold such a referendum? If they do, how come the Basques don’t?
As far as I’m concerned the Basque should have the right to hold a referendum.
I don’t think the concept of a de jure president is coherent—the only way a constitution got written in the first place is when the de facto rulers chose so.
In what sense do you consider the Kiev government the de facto rulers of the whole of Ukraine including Crimea? The government got control over Kiev through the thread of using violence. It might have also got control of Crimea through the threat of violence if Russia wouldn’t have protected the Crimean government from being violently coerced to follow the dictates of Kiev.
I don’t see that when I president loses control over the capital because of threats of violence but that president still controls other parts of the country he automatically stops being president.
Protecting a minority in a country from being violently coerced is what responsibility to protect is about.
Whose law?
The new government in Kiev didn’t change the part of the constitution that declares that you need an impeachment process to impeach a president and they didn’t go through the process of impeaching the president that’s outlined in the Ukrainian constitution.
Can the government of Taiwan authorize an invasion of China?
The Taiwanese government can certainly allow Chinese soldiers to do whatever they want within the borders of Taiwan.
Can Franz, Duke of Bavaria authorize an invasion of the UK?
The ruler of Bavaria had never authority over the UK and according to the German constitution he doesn’t have any authority over Bavaria either.
The president of the Ukraine on the other hand has authority over the territory of the Ukraine and at the time of the Crimea referendum he wasn’t impeached via the the legal process of impeachment that’s described in the Ukrainian constitution.
If you treating a coup on the capital on a country and the president leaves the capital I don’t think that means that the president “resigned” or loses his claim on being the president.
A more fitting comparison would be if the Dalai Lama can authorize military actions of foreign troops within the territory of Tibet. But the Dalai Lama doesn’t control any of the territory in Tibet while the Ukrainian president still had some backing in parts of the country, so the Dalai Lama has a weaker claim.
Let’s say you would have a few US military generals who threaten a coup if Obama doesn’t resign. Then Obama leaves Washington and a majority of the US congress makes a vote that John Boehner is the new president. Do you think that would mean that Obama loses his claim to being the president of the US?
The Taiwanese government can certainly allow Chinese soldiers to do whatever they want within the borders of Taiwan.
There are no de jure borders of Taiwan. Both the PRC (which currently governs mainland China) and the RoC (which currently governs Taiwan) (officially) claim that both mainland China and Taiwan are part of one nation and each (officially) claims to be the sole legitimate government of the whole nation. Also, the RoC used to control mainland China and was expelled from it in a way (IIUC) not completely unlike the former Ukrainian government or Obama in your hypothetical.
As far as my hypothetical goes, I think Taiwan has the right to ask the US to have US military stationed within Taiwanese borders and that the US can accept such a request from Taiwan.
I don’t think that would violate Chinese self-determination in a meaningful extend.
In what sense do you consider the Kiev government the de facto rulers of the whole of Ukraine including Crimea? The government got control over Kiev through the thread of using violence. It might have also got control of Crimea through the threat of violence if Russia wouldn’t have protected the Crimean government from being violently coerced to follow the dictates of Kiev.
The uprising in Kiev was of course violent, but it was a popular one; the President had lost whatever legitimacy he once had (and given the allegations of electoral fraud, I’m not sure how much that is). Government is by the consent of the governed.
If you consider it legitimate for the popular ruler of a subset of a country to invite a foreign invasion then surely that makes the notion of self-determination meaningless. Any country X wanting to invade country Y can simply find the small region of country Y that supports them and get them to ask for an invasion.
(FWIW I don’t think the new government in Kiev would have had the authority to invite a foreign intervention either, unless and until said government was widely recognized across the country. I would have argued for a UN peacekeeping force or similar international coalition, and referenda when people were secure enough to make it a free vote. But I think the Russian incursion makes it reasonable for Kiev to respond in kind)
Protecting a minority in a country from being violently coerced is what responsibility to protect is about.
But R2P is a novel theory with no basis in international law, right? Again, I suspect that in any case where country X wants to invade country Y they could find some reasonable-sounding principle that supports that invasion.
The ruler of Bavaria had never authority over the UK and according to the German constitution he doesn’t have any authority over Bavaria either.
My point was that the Republic of China government claims legal authority over all of China. And that, although he renounces any claim to it, Duke Franz is the rightful heir to the British throne.
Let’s say you would have a few US military generals who threaten a coup if Obama doesn’t resign. Then Obama leaves Washington and a majority of the US congress makes a vote that John Boehner is the new president. Do you think that would mean that Obama loses his claim to being the president of the US?
I think it means Obama isn’t ruler of the US until the two sides sort this mess out. And I think it means neither side has the right to invite foreign troops into the US. Again, isn’t that the whole point of self-determination?
The uprising in Kiev was of course violent, but it was a popular one; the President had lost whatever legitimacy he once had
A lot of the parties agreed to a compromise before they pressured the president to flee. I don’t think that if you don’t like a compromise that was negotiated and with was accepted by most stakeholder you have legitimacy in removing the president via the thread of a coup.
They also didn’t just pressured the president to flee but also destroyed infrastructure of the communist party via force. That’s no good basis for peaceful democracy.
The uprising wasn’t completely self-determined either. The extend isn’t quite clear but over the years the US invested 5 billion into producing pro-Western thought in Ukraine. Feeding a bunch of protesters to stay at a central place is expensive.
But R2P is a novel theory with no basis in international law, right?
People came up with R2P after pure self-determination didn’t work that well in Rwanda. Then the Kosovo conflict was fought on the basis of R2P. Kosovo sets a precedent.
I would have argued for a UN peacekeeping force or similar international coalition, and referenda when people were secure enough to make it a free vote.
That’s not possible because the UK and the US would have certainly vetoed such an UN resolution. France probably as well. If Putin could have a UN recognised voted that gives a Crimean referendum authority he would have gone for that choice. Putin wants that when the conflict is over the world recognises Crimea as part of Russia and a UN backed referendum would have been a good way to get there.
And that, although he renounces any claim to it, Duke Franz is the rightful heir to the British throne.
Renouncing a claim means that you lose a right.
I think it means Obama isn’t ruler of the US until the two sides sort this mess out.
Do you think that for similar reasons the US has no business helping the Iraqi government or the Kurdish to push back ISIS?
Not to forget that the US used military in the last decade for worse reasons.
The right to self-determination seems to me to have been “recognized” as propaganda, but practically never practiced.
If it has not been practiced, then it cannot be harmful as Ilya claims. So which is it: do international abstractions have no force and no consequences, in which case it doesn’t matter at all, Kantian or otherwise, which abstractions are mouthed? Or do they matter at least a little bit? In which case you don’t seem to have demonstrated any harm from the abstraction—fighting bloody civil wars is not a new phenomenon.
It hasn’t been practiced. If it starts being practiced, however, it may be as harmful as Ilya claims, so his argument deserves a response. But saying:
I’m saying we live in a world where a right to self-determination has been recognized for something like a century now, even if it does not come with an automatic invasion authorization from the UN Security Council. So far, I’m not sure if it’s been all that bad
Is not evidence because it hasn’t been really practiced so far.
Also:
do international abstractions have no force and no consequences
I’m not claiming anything about other abstractions, some of which definitely have force, just this one.
One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
From your link (sans references): However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.[43] According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence. --- But again, that’s not even my point. My point is a Kantian point: do you want to live in a world where self-determination of [group] in [country] is sufficient grounds for boots on the ground? This is not even a question about what the US or Russia had been or is doing, but about our preferences.
I’m saying we live in a world where a right to self-determination has been recognized for something like a century now, even if it does not come with an automatic invasion authorization from the UN Security Council. So far, I’m not sure if it’s been all that bad although as an American, I cannot sympathize with those who might want to exercise said right inasmuch as there is no other country to which people like me might want to form.
The right to self-determination seems to me to have been “recognized” as propaganda, but practically never practiced.
It was used post WW1, but only because there were two big multi-ethnic empires to be broken up. No-one proposed treating the victors similarly; their constituent nations which wanted independence had to fight for it, like Ireland did in 1920-1922.
Very few significant new nations have claimed statehood in the century since then on the basis of this principle without armed struggle. And when there’s a civil war or rebellion and one side wins independence by military and political means, I don’t give much credence to abstract principles.
Using Wikipedia’s list of sovereign states by date of independence for the last century, the only states in the first half of the list (from 1973 to the present) that were established peacefully along ethnic lines are Czech and Slovak republics in the post-USSR breakup of Czechoslovakia. Most other Soviet states became nations despite being multi-ethnic, or fought bloody civil wars as in Yugoslavia. So did almost all African and Asian colonies post decolonization.
I admit I didn’t have the patience to read all the linked articles on that list, and its older half (1914-1972), but at least its first half doesn’t contain a single example of a part of sovereign nation breaking away on the basis of self determination without a major war. The older half probably might have some examples, but I expect them to be very few.
?!
You’re right. I don’t know what came over me :-( Amended, and thanks.
A lot of former colonies are now self-governed and a lot of them became independent without armed struggle. That was what the principle of self-determination was about. The British lost their empire over the principle.
It wasn’t really about giving the Scottish or the Basques a right to hold a referendum to get independence.
On the other hand the principle of immutability of borders as written down in the Hague Conventions isn’t that well respect either. The borders of Ukraine changed frequently since the Hague Conventions was made and I don’t see a real reason why they should now be immutable when a majority of Crimeans doesn’t want to belong to Ukraine.
The Soviet states also did became nations in a way that did violate the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union without a war.
Those colonies became independent states with borders decided by the accidents of previous colonial conquest, or drawn arbitrarily post-conquest without regard to local interests or ethnic, economic and cultural divisions (e.g. India and Pakistan).
Similarly, in the British-administrated post-WW1 mandate territories (which they divested during the same general political era when they lost their empire), they drew arbitrary borders and deliberately installed rulers who were foreign to the local population or represented minorities, because they knew these rulers would have to oppress the locals and so would depend on foreign support (e.g. Jordan, Iraq).
Local people were not consulted by a referendum or plebiscite, and in no case that I’m aware of did previously multi-ethnic or multi-cultural states peacefully divide into nation states. There is certainly a principle of decolonization and de-imperialization, but I’m not seeing any self-determination.
When the Hague Conventions were signed, Ukraine didn’t exist as a sovereign state and hadn’t done so since the 17th century. Its borders changed a lot after that, but always as a result of war and conquest, apart from Russia’s gift of Crimea in 1954. It was partitioned and partially annexed many times over the 20th century by its more powerful neighbors. This history did not follow self-determination at any point.
Even if you accept it as a valid moral principle, the devil is in the details. How large a majority do you require before supporting separatism against a minority’s wishes? How much gerrymandering in the geographical boundaries do you allow? What is the minimum size of a group that may secede (since no-one will recognize family or tribe-sized states in practice)? If people who secede take their privately-owned land with them to form their new state, what happens when the owners of the mine or oil field providing 10% of your GDP secede and then sell their resources back to you at a 500% markup? If the richest and best-educated 10% of your population all happen to live in the same few cities, and they secede to stop wealth redistribution to the other 90%, is that alright? If a group of people wants to secede and implement an fundamentalist state with no freedom for women, gays, or atheists, do you try to stop them as you would non-state actors in your country, or do you shrug and say “eh, we don’t declare war on Saudi Arabia, either”?
The USSR (and the Warsaw Pact) was a union of separate republics to begin with; it chose to dissolve itself and they resumed their sovereignity. More importantly, I don’t think anyone would argue that a state has no right to break itself up if a large majority of its citizens agree. It’s a different matter if only the citizens in a particular region want to break away, and the rest want them to stay.
The notion of self-determination is not primarily about referendums and plebiscites. A government that’s backed by a home grown military coup doesn’t violate the principle.
Not every group of people is an ethnic group with the corresponding rights.
In this case you have a majority of Crimeas who speak Russian. You had the the government in Kiev who came to power as the president fled the city because armed Ukrainian nationals took power over the city. They continued to destroy buildings of communist party. Then they passed laws to remove the status of minority languages.
In that climate Crimeans have a valid interest to secede.
That a question about who sets the boundaries. In the case of Crimea the natural boundaries work quite well. In the case of Scotland the boundaries are also obvious.
In the case of the Basque country or Padania I’m sure that you could find a way to set reasonable boundaries.
Then I’m confused. If the government of a breakaway region isn’t backed by its population but relies on military force, is it self-determination? If nation A conquers half of nation B and sets up a state where a minority rules by force, is that self-determination? I thought the answer was clearly no in both cases, but if a government backed only by a military coup (i.e. force majeure) counts as “self-determination” then I’m totally confused as to what you mean by those words.
(Your comment doesn’t seem to be a response to my question about minimum size)
Since their “referendum” passed under Russian commando control I have no idea what percentage of the population might be opposed to independence, let alone opposed to Russian rule. 58.5% of the population of Crimea are Russians, but 24% are Ukrainians and 10.2% are Crimean Tatars many of whom only recently returned from a decades-long exile originally imposed by Stalin. No matter how this plays out there is going to be a severely oppressed minority maybe as large as 34%. (Do you think Ukrainian is going to have minority language status in Russian-occupied Crimea?)
For Crimea and Scotland this may be true. I was talking about generalizing the principle of self-determination.
The notion of self determination is that every people can govern themselves. It’s a group right. Not one of individual persons. Party of self-determination means that a country can’t remove a king of another country even if 60% of the population dislikes the king and would prefer another kind of political system then monarchy.
That depends very much about how the conflict plays out. I do believe that if things go according to Putins plan, that’s the outcome. Neither the EU nor Russia wants to wage war against each other, so sooner or later they have to negotiate a settlement. Russia wants a settlement that gives Crimea international recognition and is probably willing to give the Ukrainians and Tatars in Crimea minority rights in exchange.
Putin makes moves so that he will have a settlement which is overall beneficial for Russia. Winter is coming and the EU needs gas. As long as the West doesn’t want to settle Putin is going to take more territory in Ukraine. I don’t completely understand what game plan Obama follows and what his goal happens to be in the conflict.
A bunch of smaller groups of native Americans got some form of autonomy that allowed them to start casinos in the desert and do a bunch of things that are otherwise illegal in the US. I’m okay with handling it like that.
I don’t see how to reconcile this with your statement that:
If a government doesn’t have popular majority support, and so it would not win a referendum, but keeps power anyway through military force, how does this uphold a group right for self-governance? Wouldn’t the group right argue in favor of anyone who doesn’t support the government being self-governing and uncoerced by their military powre?
On that view, Russia was wrong in supporting Crimean separatism.
I don’t know anything about Native American rights and politics in the USA, but I expect that this autonomy is granted because the majority feels guilty over past conquest and oppression and is trying to make amends. A different group of comparable size (say, people of Chinese descend) would not be allowed to “do a bunch of things that are otherwise illegal” merely because they had a minority ethnic status and wanted self-determination.
The will of government is the will of the group. After Egypt had their revolution the new government still had to pay the debts of the old dictator because they old dictator was recognised to be able to make contracts in the name of the nation. How a dictator comes to power isn’t that important for determining whether he’s accepted as representing a group.
The democratically elected government of Crimea went through separating on their own. Russia claimed that it acted according to the new principle of “responsibility to protect (R2P)” which means that it’s okay to use military to prevent violence against a minority. Without the Russian soliders Kiev likely would have used violence to stop the Crimean government from holding a referendum.
Kiev also didn’t go through the impeachment process to remove the status of the old president so it’s not clear why a dejure president shouldn’t be allowed to ask an outside country for military assistance.
Russia also argues that without Western interference the protest movement wouldn’t have managed to make the president flee Kiev.
Chinese people in the US don’t have a claim to land in the same way that native Americans, Basque, Scottish or the various people in Crimea have.
In Germany our native Sorbic minority gets minority rights that we don’t give to Turkish immigrants. YOu can’t immigrate and then claim that you then should get the land into with you immigrated.
You seem to be saying it’s OK for there to be military dictators as long as sub-groups of the country can secede. But no military dictator ever lets anyone secede. I am confused by your position.
The government of Crimea was not democratically elected; it was put in place by the occupying Russian army who didn’t leave the locals much freedom to vote.
Preventing a referendum hardly rises to the level of violence that should justify an invasion. Is holding a referendum a legally assured right?
That seems true.
By that logic, nobody except Native Americans should have any land rights in the USA. In practice nobody follows that rule after a successful conquest. Making exceptions like those for Native Americans is done on a guilt / recompense basis, but it’s not a general legal principle because you could never get it to apply outside a very few minor cases.
Did they have any right to hold such a referendum? If they do, how come the Basques don’t?
Whose law? Can the government of Taiwan authorize an invasion of China? Can Franz, Duke of Bavaria authorize an invasion of the UK? If I declare that under the lmmian constitution I am and always have been ruler of the US, does that grant me the right to invade?
I don’t think the concept of a de jure president is coherent—the only way a constitution got written in the first place is when the de facto rulers chose so.
As far as I’m concerned the Basque should have the right to hold a referendum.
In what sense do you consider the Kiev government the de facto rulers of the whole of Ukraine including Crimea? The government got control over Kiev through the thread of using violence. It might have also got control of Crimea through the threat of violence if Russia wouldn’t have protected the Crimean government from being violently coerced to follow the dictates of Kiev.
I don’t see that when I president loses control over the capital because of threats of violence but that president still controls other parts of the country he automatically stops being president.
Protecting a minority in a country from being violently coerced is what responsibility to protect is about.
The new government in Kiev didn’t change the part of the constitution that declares that you need an impeachment process to impeach a president and they didn’t go through the process of impeaching the president that’s outlined in the Ukrainian constitution.
The Taiwanese government can certainly allow Chinese soldiers to do whatever they want within the borders of Taiwan.
The ruler of Bavaria had never authority over the UK and according to the German constitution he doesn’t have any authority over Bavaria either. The president of the Ukraine on the other hand has authority over the territory of the Ukraine and at the time of the Crimea referendum he wasn’t impeached via the the legal process of impeachment that’s described in the Ukrainian constitution.
If you treating a coup on the capital on a country and the president leaves the capital I don’t think that means that the president “resigned” or loses his claim on being the president.
A more fitting comparison would be if the Dalai Lama can authorize military actions of foreign troops within the territory of Tibet. But the Dalai Lama doesn’t control any of the territory in Tibet while the Ukrainian president still had some backing in parts of the country, so the Dalai Lama has a weaker claim.
Let’s say you would have a few US military generals who threaten a coup if Obama doesn’t resign. Then Obama leaves Washington and a majority of the US congress makes a vote that John Boehner is the new president. Do you think that would mean that Obama loses his claim to being the president of the US?
There are no de jure borders of Taiwan. Both the PRC (which currently governs mainland China) and the RoC (which currently governs Taiwan) (officially) claim that both mainland China and Taiwan are part of one nation and each (officially) claims to be the sole legitimate government of the whole nation. Also, the RoC used to control mainland China and was expelled from it in a way (IIUC) not completely unlike the former Ukrainian government or Obama in your hypothetical.
As far as my hypothetical goes, I think Taiwan has the right to ask the US to have US military stationed within Taiwanese borders and that the US can accept such a request from Taiwan.
I don’t think that would violate Chinese self-determination in a meaningful extend.
The uprising in Kiev was of course violent, but it was a popular one; the President had lost whatever legitimacy he once had (and given the allegations of electoral fraud, I’m not sure how much that is). Government is by the consent of the governed.
If you consider it legitimate for the popular ruler of a subset of a country to invite a foreign invasion then surely that makes the notion of self-determination meaningless. Any country X wanting to invade country Y can simply find the small region of country Y that supports them and get them to ask for an invasion.
(FWIW I don’t think the new government in Kiev would have had the authority to invite a foreign intervention either, unless and until said government was widely recognized across the country. I would have argued for a UN peacekeeping force or similar international coalition, and referenda when people were secure enough to make it a free vote. But I think the Russian incursion makes it reasonable for Kiev to respond in kind)
But R2P is a novel theory with no basis in international law, right? Again, I suspect that in any case where country X wants to invade country Y they could find some reasonable-sounding principle that supports that invasion.
My point was that the Republic of China government claims legal authority over all of China. And that, although he renounces any claim to it, Duke Franz is the rightful heir to the British throne.
I think it means Obama isn’t ruler of the US until the two sides sort this mess out. And I think it means neither side has the right to invite foreign troops into the US. Again, isn’t that the whole point of self-determination?
A lot of the parties agreed to a compromise before they pressured the president to flee. I don’t think that if you don’t like a compromise that was negotiated and with was accepted by most stakeholder you have legitimacy in removing the president via the thread of a coup.
They also didn’t just pressured the president to flee but also destroyed infrastructure of the communist party via force. That’s no good basis for peaceful democracy.
The uprising wasn’t completely self-determined either. The extend isn’t quite clear but over the years the US invested 5 billion into producing pro-Western thought in Ukraine. Feeding a bunch of protesters to stay at a central place is expensive.
People came up with R2P after pure self-determination didn’t work that well in Rwanda. Then the Kosovo conflict was fought on the basis of R2P. Kosovo sets a precedent.
That’s not possible because the UK and the US would have certainly vetoed such an UN resolution. France probably as well. If Putin could have a UN recognised voted that gives a Crimean referendum authority he would have gone for that choice. Putin wants that when the conflict is over the world recognises Crimea as part of Russia and a UN backed referendum would have been a good way to get there.
Renouncing a claim means that you lose a right.
Do you think that for similar reasons the US has no business helping the Iraqi government or the Kurdish to push back ISIS?
Not to forget that the US used military in the last decade for worse reasons.
If it has not been practiced, then it cannot be harmful as Ilya claims. So which is it: do international abstractions have no force and no consequences, in which case it doesn’t matter at all, Kantian or otherwise, which abstractions are mouthed? Or do they matter at least a little bit? In which case you don’t seem to have demonstrated any harm from the abstraction—fighting bloody civil wars is not a new phenomenon.
It hasn’t been practiced. If it starts being practiced, however, it may be as harmful as Ilya claims, so his argument deserves a response. But saying:
Is not evidence because it hasn’t been really practiced so far.
Also:
I’m not claiming anything about other abstractions, some of which definitely have force, just this one.
Source.