Emerging Nationalism 09
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 The Challenge of Self-determination and Emerging Nationalism The Evolution of the International Community’s Normative Responses to State Fragmentation James Robert Mills Submitted for examination for the PhD degree Department of International Relations London School of Economics and Political Science July 2009 2 Table of Contents Abstract 4 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 6 Part I Theory Chapter 1 Identity, emerging nationalism and self-determination 17 (i) Self-determination and the liberal democratic political tradition 18 (ii) Primary Identity Forming Groups and ‘emerging nationalism’ 28 (iii) Human rights, groups rights and self-determination 32 Chapter 2 Sovereignty, state fragmentation and the limits of political 37 obligation (i) Sovereign statehood and self-determination 38 (ii) The internal aspect of sovereignty and humane governance 43 (iii) Secession 48 (iv) Implications for international norms 61 Part II History Chapter 3 From ‘concept’ to ‘principle’ – The birth of nationalism, the 64 construction of international society and the Paris Peace Conference (i) Early reactions to self-determination and emerging nationalism 65 (ii) The nineteenth century: the creation of normative responses 76 (iii) The Paris Peace Conference and the interwar period 86 Chapter 4 From ‘principle’ to ‘right’ - The UN system, the Cold War 103 and the ‘special case’ of decolonisation (i) The United Nations system and self-determination 104 (ii) The Cold War and self-determination 142 (iii) The ‘special case’ of decolonisation 149 Part III Post-Cold War Praxis Chapter 5 Towards coherent normative responses? –Self-determination 165 and emerging nationalism in the post-Cold War era (i) Theoretical and tangible changes to the context of international 167 relations (ii) The collapse of the Soviet Union 178 3 (iii) The disintegration of Yugoslavia – Act I: Badinter and recognition 183 (iv) The disintegration of Yugoslavia – Act II: Dayton 192 (v) Kosovo’s ‘quasi-independence’ 195 Conclusion 231 Bibliography 234 Appendices Appendix A – The Atlantic Charter (1941) 243 Appendix B – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) 244 Appendix C – The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 246 (1966) Appendix D – The International Covenant on Economic, Social and 249 Cultural Rights (1966) Appendix E – The Declaration on Friendly Relations (1970) 251 Appendix F – The Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People (2007) 255 Appendix G – EC Declaration on the ‘Guidelines on the Recognition of 258 New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union’ (1991) Appendix H – The Badinter Commission Opinions (1991-1992) 259 Appendix I – The Dayton Accords – The General Framework (1995) 262 Appendix J – Map of Kosovo (2008) 269 Appendix K – UN Security Council Resolutions related to Kosovo (1998- 270 1999) Appendix L – The Constitutional Framework for Self-government in 277 Kosovo (2001) Appendix M – The Ahtisaari Report (2007) 281 Appendix N – Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence (2008) 284 Statement of length 286 4 Abstract How does the international community understand and apply the right of self-determination? Who holds this right: individuals, peoples, nations, states, ethnicities, minorities, majorities? What limits are there to the exercise of this right and which claims are ‘valid’ and which are not? This thesis addresses these issues as it seeks, above all, to answer the question of when, why and in what ways the international community’s understanding of and normative responses to self-determination have evolved. To do so, Part I explores critically the theories and history of nationalism, human rights, sovereignty and self-determination to explain the challenges of ‘emerging nationalism’ (defined herein as nationalism within established multi-national states aimed at altering the constitutional and/or social standing of the nation vis-à-vis the larger political entity). This part identifies the genesis of the interconnected ideas of identity, human rights, and sovereignty and begins to trace the evolution of the norm of self-determination over time as it has been conceived and employed by international society. It suggests new approaches to these concepts based within the liberal democratic tradition, which are, arguably, more philosophically coherent than other explanations for self-determination. Part II assesses international normative responses to state fragmentation and national liberation prior to the end of the Cold War to determine how much they have resembled the interpretation of national self-determination suggested in Part I, contending that the conceptual evolution of self- determination can only be interpreted accurately by understanding the parallel evolution and development of international society. Part III examines the evolution of self-determination and emerging nationalism in the post-Cold War era, asking whether the norms generated by the present-day society of states are consistent with the theoretical and historical observations made earlier. The recent case of Kosovo is examined in detail as it best suggests the present trajectory of international norms and responses to emerging nationalism. 5 Acknowledgements As with many PhD dissertations, one of the first acknowledgements that ought to be made is to the supervisor, and I am truly thankful for the hours of guidance, the penetrating and supportive feedback, the good humour and the tremendous flexibility and many accommodations that I have experienced with Prof. James Mayall. His willingness to accommodate working with me as a part- time student, at long distance after my teaching career took me to the United States and over so great a time-span have all been above and beyond the call of duty. I am also extremely grateful for the camaraderie and intellectual stimulation I enjoyed during my study and work at the LSE in the Departments of International Relations and Government and in the European Institute, and in many research student workshops, most notably the International Political Theory Workshop. I also wish to thank my friends and colleagues in the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism (ASEN) and the editorial team of its journal, Nations and Nationalism, with whom I enjoyed the privilege of working. A big note of thanks also goes to the countless librarians and IT support staff on both sides of the Atlantic who assisted my research immeasurably, sometimes granting access to libraries and extending borrowing privileges when none were officially deserved and resolving small and large computer problems with skill. In recent years, I have enjoyed the emotional, institutional and financial support of the schools where, consecutively, I have taught: the Godolphin and Latymer School and Milton Academy. The respective Heads and faculty of both institutions have encouraged and supported me greatly in my part-time studies. This dissertation began with questions that came up while I was teaching school-aged students and my inability to answer satisfactorily my questions and theirs led me to pursue this study, off and on, for the next ten years. I thank my many students at Colfe’s, the LSE, G&L and Milton for their energy, enthusiasm and their inspiration, as teaching them has pushed me greatly in my own academic endeavours. Finally, I want to attempt to thank my friends and my family for their tremendous support, especially my children, Claudia and Louis whose whole lives have, to date, coincided with my work on this study and who are now old enough to voice their encouragement to finish it! However, no words can express my thanks to my wife, Sarah, without whose constant love, support and faith in me I could not have finished this dissertation. JRM Milton, Massachusetts 26 September 2007 Addendum Subsequent to the viva examination, the examiners graciously permitted me the opportunity to re-submit my thesis and revisions within eighteen months as opposed to three. Given the nature of my full-time job as well as my family commitments, I simply could not have completed this work without this courtesy, for which I am extremely grateful. I am also indebted to them for the thorough, constructive and collegial criticism of my work, which is, I believe, better owing to their labours. Of course, all errors and deficiencies of style and substance are my own. JRM June 2009 6 Introduction At the Palace of Versailles in early 1919 as the great powers that were left standing at the end of the war began to reconstruct the shattered and bankrupt dynamics of international relations and domestic authority, Woodrow Wilson interjected the concept of self-determination into the debate. He confidently believed that self-determination would be one of the guiding precepts of the new era of democracy that he hoped would emerge from the otherwise pointless devastation wrought by the war. For Wilson, the war had been ‘to make the world safe for democracy’1 and he considered, correctly, that self-determination was central to the workings of democracy and that it would have to play a part in any just and lasting peace. The story of how such hopes were systematically thwarted through design, ignorance, apathy and carelessness at Versailles is well known. The unequal and uneven use of the principle caused disappointment and frustration to Wilson and others who subsequently felt that Versailles failed to make self- determination a coherent and accepted norm in international activity.2 The practical complexities associated with the application of the concept proved