The Specter of Secession: Responding to Claims for Ethnic Self-Determination

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

The first rush of post-Cold War secessions may be over, but conflicts within states-often triggered by ethnic or cultural differences-will continue to proliferate. Ethnic conflict has replaced the Cold War as the primary interest of political and military theorists, and even conflicts that may be primarily political or economic in nature are frequently given an ethnic cast. Such conflicts pose substantial threats to international peace and human life, and the United States, other governments, and international organizations are increasingly being called upon to influence, intervene in, or broker solutions to them.

Ethnic wars of secession highlight the inherent tension between "self-determination" and "sovereignty" or "territorial integrity." One problem in developing coherent responses to such conflicts has been the vagueness of these terms. In the context of decolonization, self-determination meant immediate independence, but there has been continuing disagreement over its applicability to noncolonial situations. Lip service is also routinely paid to the principle of territorial integrity, but the shattering of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Ethiopia within the past decade is a precedent not lost on many "nations" that would be states.

Neither sovereignty nor self-determination is an absolute right. Each is limited by other rights and international obligations. Sovereignty is limited not only by the rights of other states and the innumerable political and economic ties that bind them, but also by a legitimate international interest in human rights, the environment, and other issues formerly considered the sole jurisdiction of the state. Outside of the classic context of European decolonization, the free exercise of self-determination has been constrained historically by great-power rivalry, questions about the potential economic and political viability of new states, and the overarching goal of maintaining order and stability by preserving existing territorial arrangements wherever possible.

Despite continued claims to a "right" of secession by groups in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the former Soviet Union, no such right has yet been recognized by the international community. International law does not prohibit secession, whether voluntary or violent, but it has neither recognized a right to secede nor identified even tentatively the conditions that might give rise to such a right in the future...