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.
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.