The self-determination of peoples

Therefore, one can understand the skepticism about the self-determination. But the Scots, Catalans, Basques and Kosovars should not suffer from this skepticism. And not even the Republic of Somaliland , the Peaceful part of Somalia.

by Jorge Arprin

Much is the self-determination of peoples talk lately. Alan Posener criticized recently the desire for national self-determination. His arguments are as follows: That right there is not even the desire for national self-determination has in the 20th Century only led to disaster, and it is better if there is no Kurdistan and Tibet, as the Middle East destabilized and no more VWs sold in China. Ralf Dahrendorf criticized as early as 1989 in TIME self-determination of peoples. In his view, only individuals have rights, not collective.

There is no right of Armenians to live among Armenians. But there is a right for Armenian citizens of their community, the same to be among equals, to be discriminated against, and even to maintain their own language and culture. These are civil rights, rights of individuals against any supremacy.

For Dahrendorf's right. There is no collective rights, only individuals have rights.No tribe, no nation, no ethnic group can invoke a right.

Nevertheless, the self-determination of peoples is thus not necessarily off the table. Under this concept is understood today, mainly the right to secession of a province or region. The question of which state you want to belong to, is also an individual. An Armenian has no right to live among Armenians. But he has a right to propagate an Armenian state. And if enough people are willing to support an Armenian state, no one has the right to prevent the establishment of an Armenian state by force.

It does for the authorization of secession not matter if the inhabitants of a city or county they are now justified by ethnic differences or not. The best example is the secession of the USA (from Poznań addressed in his article) that had nothing to do with ethnic conflicts. Although the assertion that the desire has led for national self-determination to disasters may be true, but many disasters also by the fact that the desire for national self-determination of states has been violently suppressed emerged. The Middle East is destabilized not only by Kurdish terrorist organizations, but also by authoritarian governments that forcibly suppress any peaceful attempt to establish a Kurdish state.

If one accepts the right of secession, inevitably raises the question of where to draw the line. A limitation, however, can not objectively define. If Monaco or the Vatican may be independent, any other region should have the right to do so.Ludwig von Mises advocated a right to secession for "the residents of an area, whether it be a single village, a tract of land or a number of contiguous tracts of land."

Of course a new state must also pay all of the individual rights of its citizens. Each state will be measured. When the secession should only serve to hurt better the rights of citizens, resistance to it is legitimate. That is why you can, as a liberal the secession of the Southern states historically not approve (especially as it were indeed the southern states, which set the civil war with the bombardment of Fort Sumter in gear). Unfortunately, most secessions are not exactly peaceful manner and also did not lead to liberal states. Therefore, one can understand the skepticism about the self-determination. But the Scots, Catalans, Basques and Kosovars should not suffer from this skepticism. And not even the Republic of Somaliland , the Peaceful part of Somalia.