Synopses & Reviews
The notion of self-determination is not novel in modern international law. It stems back to the beginning of the 20th century, when world leaders in the wake of World War I realized that national peoples, groups with a shared ethnicity, language, culture, and religion, should be allowed to self-determine their affiliation and status on the world scene. Following on from the Second World War it became widely accepted that oppressed colonized groups ought to have similar rights to auto-regulate and to choose their political and possibly sovereign status. However, as decades passed by and as separatist minority groups throughout the world began challenging the concept of state territorial integrity, it became clear that the notion of self-determination had to be somehow confined.
This book considers the issue of self-determination in the present day where some minority groups have asserted their rights to external self-determination, only to find themselves rebuffed by the world community, while other minority groups have found strong support in the eyes of external actors and have garnered sufficient international recognition to be allowed to separate. The book asks what is so unique about some minority groups and about their quests for independence that would justify the authorization to remedially secede? Under what circumstances does the right to external self-determination accrue?
The book draws on international law as well as international relations theory to examine recent international relations issues for practical applications of self-determination quests, as well as by reviewing international legal standards that govern such independence struggles. The book considers particular examples of attempts at self-determination including East Timor, the recent Kosovar secession from Serbia, as well as the Russian province of Chechnya and the two Georgian break-away provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This book concludes that minority groups today are able to achieve external self-determination and independence solely through the support of the most powerful states, the so-called Great Powers. Milena Sterio argues that the Great Powers Rule seems to have morphed itself into a prevailing international relations theory, which has come to dominate the legal theories of statehood, self-determination, and secession.
Synopsis
This book proposes a novel theory of self-determination; the Great Powers Rule. This book argues that traditional legal norms on self-determination have failed to explain and account for recent results of secessionist self-determination struggles. While secessionist groups like the East Timorese, the Kosovar Albanians and the South Sudanese have been successful in their quests for independent statehood, other similarly situated groups have been relegated to an at times violent existence within their mother states. Thus, Chechens still live without significant autonomy within Russia, and the South Ossetians and the Abkhaz have seen their conflicts frozen because of the peculiar geo-political equilibrium of power within the Caucuses region.
The Great Powers Rule, which asserts that only those self-determination seeking entities which enjoy the support of the majority of the most powerful states (the Great Powers) will ultimately have their rights to self-determination fulfilled. The Great Powers, potent military, economic and political powerhouses such as the United States, China, Russia, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, often dictate self-determination outcomes through their influence in global affairs. Issues of self-determination in the modern world can no longer be effectively resolved through the application of traditional legal rules; rather, resort must be had to novel theories, such as the Great Powers Rule.
This book will be of particular interest to academics and students of Law, Political Science and International Relations.