Ethnic Conflict	
States and National Self-Determination
Last time…
•	In our last class, among other things, we discussed several approaches to discovering the causes of ethnic conflict
–	Developmental Approach
–	Reactive Ethnicity Approach
–	Democratization Theory
–	Ancient hatreds
–	Insecurity and Fear 
•	Security Dilemma
–	Elite Power Theory 
–	Economic Differentials 
•	Relative Deprivation
Overview
•	Today, 
–	Westphalia and Sovereignty 
Ethnonationalist Options
•	Succession is not the only option for ethnonationalist groups. They also may:
–	Corporatist Arrangements
•	Power given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and/or professional groups
–	Communalism
•	Political arrangement centered on the community
–	Multiculturalism
•	Power distribution should consist of distinct cultural groups, with equal status
–	Ethnic Cooptation
•	assimilating the ethnic group into the majority group or culture
–	Affirmative Action
•	active measures to ensure equal opportunity, generally concerning education, employment or seats in parliament and/or government 
But…
•	They may choose independence
•	When they do, they must be aware of the two conflicting international norms:
–	Doctrine of State Sovereignty
–	National Self-Determination
Doctrine of Sovereignty
•	Peace of Westphalia (1648)
–	Fundamental normative basis is sovereign equality:
•	Legal: On system level, the state is not subordinate to any other entity
•	Absolute: If a political entity is a state, it is sovereign; if not, it is not sovereign
•	Unitary: The state exercises sole legitimate absolute authority within its borders
–	State and Nation are not necessarily the same
–	But, what is a state?
Theories of Statehood
•	Constitutive Theory of Statehood
–	A state achieves personhood in international law if, and only if, it is recognized by other states
•	Declarative Theory of Statehood
–	A state achieves personhood in international law if it meets four criteria:
•	Population Component
•	Territorial Component
•	Government Component
•	Foreign Relations Component
De Facto vs. De Jure
•	There are de facto vs. de jure issues, as well.
–	De facto: 	“in fact”
–	De jure:		“in law”
•	Examples of difference:
–	Turkish Republic of North Cyprus
–	Nagorno-Karabakh
–	Transdniester
–	Somaliland
Independence
•	Two manners for a nationalist-separatist group to gain independence:
–	Mutual acceptance of partition
•	Slovaks in Czechoslovakia
•	Irish in United Kingdom
–	Forcible seizure of independence
•	Transdniester
•	United States of America
•	Israel
The Problem of Recognition
•	Recognition is a separate act from existence
–	Existence, for those who follow the declarative theory of statehood, is an objective reality
–	Recognition is required for those who follow the constitutive theory of statehood
•	Recognition of new independence is a purely political act
•	There are, however, other options to recognition of independence
Another Option
•	Recognition of Insurgency
–	Participants not merely lawbreakers, but as legal contestants 
–	External states cannot assist the insurgents
–	
Yet Another Option
•	Recognition of Belligerency
–	Requirements to qualify as belligerents:
•	Armed conflict must exist in the state
•	Rebels must occupy and govern a substantial territory
•	Rebels must follow rules of war, including a defined chain of command
•	External states must recognize the rebellion
Insurgency and Belligerency
•	Both acts of recognition:
–	are half-way acts of recognition of independence
–	acknowledge the existence of a civil war
–	confer a level of international status to the rebels (more for belligerency, less for insurgency)
–	require the state to follow the international rules of war
–	
•	Neither are automatically granted
Cornerstone of Westphalia
•	The foundation stone of Westphalia is the concept of Sovereign Equality
•	
–	How does national self-determination fit into this?
National Self-Determination
•	Leads to:
–	Right to succession
–	Right to create independent states
•	Founded upon:
–	The people is the fundamental source of legitimacy in the modern (post 19th century) world
•	First American president to publicly espouse the idea was Woodrow Wilson
–	BUT, his only concern were the white states
•	Wilson discovered three obstacles to this idea:
–	Required the break-up of existing states
–	Ethnic minorities existed in every state
–	Europe wanted to keep its colonies in Africa
•	
–	After the Great War, no major leader spoke of National Self-Determination as anything other than a principle (not as a right)
•	In the UN Charter, there is talk of National Self-Determination (Art I, §2):
–	To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…
•	Again, the idea was treated as a principle, not a right, except in the cases of:
–	Colonies
–	Apartheid (racism against majority)
•	Thus, 
–	International law
–	History
–	International norms
–	State practice
•	Are all against the nationalist-separatist movements
–	
Assignment
•	Taras and Ganguly: 44-66
–	This lays out moral arguments in favor of the nationalist-separatists
•	McRoberts, Kenneth. 2001 “Canada and the Multinational State.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34(December): 683-713
–	Gives some background to Canada, specifically, and multinational states, generally, and how they have avoided dissolution
•