DOCSLIB.ORG

The United Nations Partition of Palestine Revisited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The United Nations Partition of Palestine Revisited STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW VOLUME 57, NUMBER 1 WINTER 2021 STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Winter 2021 CONTENTS ARTICLES THE UNITED NATIONS PLAN OF Ardi Imseis 1 PARTITION FOR PALESTINE REVISITED: ON THE ORIGINS OF PALESTINE’S INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SUBALTERNITY MIXED STAKES CONFLICTS IN Jide Nzelibe 55 INTERNATIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ARCTIC INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AND Nedim Hogic & 105 ANTARCTIC ICEBERGS AS SUBJECTS OF Imad Antoine Ibrahim INTER-LEGALITY FORMATTED_POSTGALLEY_UN PLAN OF PARTITION.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/10/21 9:28 AM THE UNITED NATIONS PLAN OF PARTITION FOR PALESTINE REVISITED: ON THE ORIGINS OF PALESTINE’S INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SUBALTERNITY ARDI IMSEIS* This Article critically examines the United Nations (U.N.) commitment to international law by revisiting General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 No- vember 1947 recommending the partition of Mandate Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State. The main claim advanced is that Resolution 181(II) was an expression of an international rule by law, rather than an international rule of law, through which law was used, abused or selectively applied with grossly iniquitous results. To this end, it undertakes a critical international le- gal analysis of Resolution 181(II) with specific reference to the verbatim and summary records of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine whose report of September 1947 formed the basis of both the Resolution’s text and its underlying rationale. Rather than being governed by the objective application of international law, the Resolution was driven by distinctly European political goals, which privileged support for the European Zionist program in Palestine. The result was to legislate into U.N. law the two-state framework as the legal cornerstone of the Organization’s position on Palestine against the wishes of the country’s indigenous Arab majority. In this sense, Resolution 181(II) can be understood as the opening act of Palestine’s disenfranchisement and con- tingency in the U.N., a subaltern position which continues to this very day. I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 II. THE UNITED NATIONS AS THE STANDARD-BEARER OF THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW ........................................................................................................ 6 * Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University. I am indebted to Reem Bahdi, John Dugard, Richard Falk, Michael Lynk and Alice Panepinto for comments received on earlier drafts of this article. All errors are mine. 1 57 STAN. J. INT’L L. 1 (2021) FORMATTED_POSTGALLEY_UN PLAN OF PARTITION.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/10/21 9:28 AM 2 STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 57:1 III. RESOLUTION 181(II) AND THE UNITED NATIONS AS A SITE OF THE INTERNATIONAL RULE BY LAW ............................................................................. 8 A. Requirements of the International Rule of Law: The U.N. Charter, Self- Determination and the Role of the U.N. in the Mandate for Palestine ............ 8 B. Resolution 181(II): Its Terms ......................................................................... 13 C. Resolution 181(II): Assessment Under International Law ............................ 15 D. Resolution 181(II) as an Embodiment of the International Rule by Law ...... 20 IV. WHAT PRODUCED THE RULE BY LAW IN RESOLUTION 181(II)? THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE AND SUBSEQUENT GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES ........................................................................................... 23 A. Bias in UNSCOP’s Composition and Terms of Reference ........................... 24 B. UNSCOP’s Unwillingness to Sufficiently Engage Palestinian Arab Opinion .......................................................................................................... 30 C. UNSCOP’s Contempt for Democratic Government and the Empirical Reality of the Indigenous Arab Population .................................................... 35 V. THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RULE BY LAW: UNSCOP’S COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REGARDING THE INEVITABILITY OF VIOLENCE BEFALLING PALESTINE FOLLOWING PARTITION ................................................. 44 VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 50 I. INTRODUCTION On 28 January 2020, the Trump Administration launched its long-awaited “Deal of the Century” for Middle East peace.1 It was preceded by a number of inter- nationally unlawful decisions by Washington recognizing Israeli sovereignty in oc- cupied East Jerusalem and the legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestin- ian territory (OPT).2 Its terms openly endorsed, inter alia, Israeli annexation of up to 30 per cent of the OPT, including all Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley, and the establishment of a Palestinian “state” on the remaining territorially discontiguous fragments. The envisioned Palestinian “state” would not possess any control over its territorial and maritime borders, sea space, air space, and electromagnetic sphere. It would be completely demilitarized and connected only through a series of bridges, roads and tunnels all subject to Israeli control. A symbolic Palestinian capital city of “al-Quds” would be established, but only outside of the actual city of Jerusalem, and no Palestine refugee would be allowed to return to their lands inside Israel, with re- turn limited to the new Palestinian “state” subject to an Israeli veto.3 1 White House, Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People *2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Peace-to-Prosperity- 0120.pdf [https://perma.cc/K6JD-ZAQJ] [hereinafter Trump Plan]. 2 Kali Robinson, What is U.S. Foreign Policy on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: BACKGROUNDERS, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-us-policy-israeli-pal- estinian-conflict [https://perma.cc/9MLQ-TBGK] (last updated Dec. 15, 2020). As the belligerent occu- pant in the occupied Palestinian territory, Israel cannot legally be sovereign in the territory. Likewise, it may not transfer any of its civilian nationals into the territory it occupies. See S. Michael Lynk (Special Rapporteur), Second Rep. on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967, U.N. Doc. A/72/43106 (Oct. 23, 2017) [hereinafter Lynk Report]. 3 Trump Plan, supra note 1. FORMATTED_POSTGALLEY_UN PLAN OF PARTITION.DOCX (DO NOT DELELE) 4/10/21 9:28 AM 2021 The United Nations Plan of Partition for Palestine Revisited 3 Reactions to the Trump Plan were swift. Israel, who bilaterally negotiated it with Washington, warmly welcomed it and announced that it would formally annex those portions of the OPT allocated to it by the plan at a time of its choosing after 1 July 2020.4 For its part, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected the plan because it would result in a “Swiss cheese” state, legitimize the illegality of Israel’s territorial conquest of the OPT, permanently frustrate Palestinian self-deter- mination, and “flagrantly violate” international law as “represented by hundreds of United Nations resolutions and dozens of Security Council resolutions.”5 As if to rub salt into the wound, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and chief Middle East peace negotiator (as well as leader of a foundation financing Israeli settlements),6 publicly urged the Palestinians to seize this “big opportunity,” goading them on their “perfect track record of blowing every opportunity they’ve had in their past.”7 So brazen was the Trump Plan, that even individuals traditionally close to Israel chided it. Thus David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, derided it for being “more an annexation plan than a peace plan,”8 while Daniel Levy, an Israeli former peace negotiator, called it “an act of aggression dripping with the coarse syntax of racism. A hate plan, not a peace plan.”9 Among the international community, States roundly rejected the plan,10 and 47 independent United Nations (U.N.) Special Procedures mandate-holders indicated that the plan must be “mean- ingfully opposed” as a “vision of a 21st century apartheid.”11 In view of the above, it was disconcerting to find that the Trump Plan was met with a relatively muted response by U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres. Before the Security Council, he dryly affirmed “the commitment of the United Na- tions to supporting the parties in their efforts to achieve a two-State solution,” noting that “the position of the United Nations in this regard has been defined throughout the years by resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, by which the Secretariat is bound.”12 When pressed by journalists, he repeated these talking 4 Tovah Lazarof, Annexation as Early as July 1 under Netanyahu-Gantz Deal, JERUSALEM POST (May 9, 2020), https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/annexation-as-early-as-july-1-under-netan- yahu-gantz-deal-625304. 5 Statement by H.E. President Mahmoud Abbas (Palestine), Situation in the Middle East, Includ- ing the Palestine Question, U.N. SCOR, 8717th mtg. at 4, U.N. Doc. S/PV.8717 (Feb. 11, 2020). 6 Chris Riotta, Jared Kushner Failed to Disclose He Led a Foundation Funding Illegal Israeli Settlements Before U.N. Vote, NEWSWEEK (Dec. 3, 2017, 6:00 AM), https://www.newsweek.com/jared- kushner-disclosure-form-west-bank-settlements-israel-white-house-729290
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The British Empire and the Partition of India, 1947 the British Empire: the British Empire Was One of Largest Empires Ever Seen Throughout History
    Year 8 Research Project - The British Empire and the Partition of India, 1947 The British Empire: The British Empire was one of largest Empires ever seen throughout History. Some argue that it was a force for good, changing the countries under its control positively. Some however argue that it affected these countries negatively, forcing them to be ruled over by a more powerful country. 1. Come up your with own definition of an Empire. 2. Find the names of 10 countries that were under the control of the British Empire. 3. What percentage of the world’s population did the British control at the height of their Empire? 4. Find 3 positives about the British Empire. 5. Find 3 negatives about the British Empire. 6. Write a persuasive speech arguing whether we should or should not be proud of the British Empire. Think about the positive and negative consequences of the British Empire. Include examples of the impact the British Empire had in some of the countries it controlled. Use the following links to complete these tasks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zf7fr82/revision/1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7E9Tm1X7vw&list=PLcvEcrsF_9zLFhetle- QrjhRvL7vjcJo8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Q6A4qP7dQ The History of India: Indian history gives us some excellent examples of how things change and stay the same over a period of time. Over hundreds of years it underwent many changes. Sometimes the pace of change was very rapid, at other times much slower. Sometimes political changes appeared to happen very quickly, but at the same time, the way most ordinary people lived in India continued relatively unaltered.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Irredentism: the Case of Hungary and Its Transborder Minorities in Romania and Slovakia
    Explaining irredentism: the case of Hungary and its transborder minorities in Romania and Slovakia by Julianna Christa Elisabeth Fuzesi A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Government London School of Economics and Political Science University of London 2006 1 UMI Number: U615886 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615886 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. Signature Date ....... 2 UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Abstract of Thesis Author (full names) ..Julianna Christa Elisabeth Fiizesi...................................................................... Title of thesis ..Explaining irredentism: the case of Hungary and its transborder minorities in Romania and Slovakia............................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................... Degree..PhD in Government............... This thesis seeks to explain irredentism by identifying the set of variables that determine its occurrence. To do so it provides the necessary definition and comparative analytical framework, both lacking so far, and thus establishes irredentism as a field of study in its own right. The thesis develops a multi-variate explanatory model that is generalisable yet succinct.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Vs. Economic Legacies of Empires: Evidence from the Partition of Poland I
    Motivation and Background Contributions Discussion and Conclusion Cultural vs. Economic Legacies of Empires: Evidence from the Partition of Poland I. Grosfeld and E. Zhuravakaya Luke Zinnen, Presenter EC 765, Spring 2018 Luke Zinnen, Presenter Cultural vs. Economic Legacies of Empires Motivation and Background Contributions Discussion and Conclusion Outline 1 Motivation and Background 2 Contributions Empirical Strategy Results 3 Discussion and Conclusion Luke Zinnen, Presenter Cultural vs. Economic Legacies of Empires Motivation and Background Contributions Discussion and Conclusion Economic and Political Persistence of Historical Events Major and growing literature on connection between historical events and current political and economic outcomes Slavery Imperialism Unclear what carries through intervening time Economic factors Cultural Institutional Likewise, mechanisms important: which are overriden by later shocks, policy? Luke Zinnen, Presenter Cultural vs. Economic Legacies of Empires Motivation and Background Contributions Discussion and Conclusion Goals and Outcomes of the Paper Use 1815 - 1918 partition of Poland between Russia, Prussia/Germany, and Austria/Austria-Hungary as clean case to examine persistent and attenuated factors Homogenous before and after partition Partition arbitrary and with sharp borders Large dierences between absorbing empires Employ spacial regression discontinuity analysis on localities near empire borders during partition Find little persistent dierence in most economic outcomes (exception: railroad infrastructure), more for religiosity and democratic capital Latter have observable eect on liberal/religious conservative voting patterns Luke Zinnen, Presenter Cultural vs. Economic Legacies of Empires Motivation and Background Contributions Discussion and Conclusion Related Literature Persistence of culture and institutions, and their long-term eects on development Colonial rule and post-independence institutions: (Acemoglu et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Separatist Movements Should Nations Have 2 a Right to Self-Determination? Brian Beary
    Separatist Movements Should Nations Have 2 a Right to Self-Determination? Brian Beary ngry protesters hurling rocks at security forces; hotels, shops and restaurants torched; a city choked by teargas. AThe violent images that began flashing around the world on March 14 could have been from any number of tense places from Africa to the Balkans. But the scene took place high in the Himalayas, in the ancient Tibetan capital of Lhasa. Known for its red-robed Buddhist monks, the legendary city was the latest flashpoint in Tibetan separatists’ ongoing frustra- tion over China’s continuing occupation of their homeland.1 Weeks earlier, thousands of miles away in Belgrade, Serbia, hun- dreds of thousands of Serbs took to the streets to vent fury over Kosovo’s secession on Feb. 17, 2008. Black smoke billowed from the burning U.S. Embassy, set ablaze by Serbs angered by Washington’s acceptance of Kosovo’s action.2 “As long as we live, Kosovo is Serbia,” thundered Serbian 3 AFP/Getty Images Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica at a rally earlier in the day. The American Embassy in Belgrade is set ablaze on Kosovo had been in political limbo since a NATO-led military Feb. 21 by Serbian nationalists angered by U.S. force wrested the region from Serb hands in 1999 and turned it support for Kosovo’s recent secession from Serbia. into an international protectorate after Serbia brutally clamped About 70 separatist movements are under way down on ethnic Albanian separatists. Before the split, about 75 around the globe, but most are nonviolent.
    [Show full text]
  • Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of Israel
    PALESTINE, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, AND THE BORDERS OF ISRAEL Abraham Bell* & Eugene Kontorovich** Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to the relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization. The doctrine provides that emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries. Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights). TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 634 I. THE DOCTRINE OF UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS ........................................................... 640 A. Development of the Doctrine ..................................................................... 640 B. Applying the Doctrine ................................................................................ 644 II. UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS AND MANDATORY BORDERS ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Partition Or Integration?
    The Impact of Partition on Human Rights Ronald Behringer Assistant Professor (Limited Term Appointment) Department of Political Science Concordia University Paper Presented at the 2017 Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, Toronto, Ontario, May 30-June 1, 2017. *Do not cite until a final version is uploaded. 1 Introduction Since March 2011, the Syrian Civil War has been waged with no end in sight. The result has been a stalemated conflict and a deeply fragmented country. Tragically, as of December 2016, the war had killed around 400,000 people, and had produced a humanitarian crisis of more than 4.8 million refugees and around 6.3 million internally displaced persons (CNN 2016). Neighbouring Iraq has experienced sectarian violence ever since the United States-led coalition forces toppled the Saddam Hussein regime in March 2003. The withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq in December 2011 gave militant groups an opportunity to reignite the sectarian conflict between the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. As Kurdish Region President Massoud Barzani claimed in July 2014, Iraq has become “effectively partitioned” (BBC 2016). Civilians have paid the steepest price in the conflict, as more than 186,000 were killed between 2003 and 2016 (Statista 2016). In an article in Foreign Affairs, Ali Khedery, who served as a special assistant to five American ambassadors in Iraq and as senior adviser to three chiefs of United States Central Command, advised that If Iraq continues on its current downward spiral, as is virtually certain, Washington should accept the fractious reality on the ground, abandon its fixation with artificial borders, and start allowing the various parts of Iraq and Syria to embark on the journey to self-determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations: an Information Resource
    27 July 2011 Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations: An Information Resource Introduction: These pages aim to serve as an informal information resource for issues relating to the current discussions around the question of Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations. The resources contained here are not intended to be exhaustive or definitive; rather they are intended to serve as a bibliographic record of our own research around this complex issue. This is a political and emotional topic for many, and much of the commentary is also politicized: views expressed in the sources cited are those of the authors, not of QUNO. We hope to update this resource on a regular basis and welcome feedback and recommendations for supplementary materials, although we do not make a commitment to include all materials submitted. Please write to [email protected] Contents Background Scenarios Recent Developments Broad Discussions Specific Issues Opinion Pieces List of Sources Background It is currently anticipated that Palestinian officials will approach the United Nations (UN) this September with a request for formal UN membership. Palestinian statehood was unilaterally declared in 1988 and has been recognized by around 122 countries to date. In UN terms, becoming a UN member state requires a Security Council (SC) recommendation followed by a vote with a two-thirds majority (129 member states) in the General Assembly (GA). The Israeli leadership opposes the idea and the US has indicated they would likely use their veto to block the process in the SC. However, there are a number of alternative routes that the Palestinians could take to bolster their case for statehood, some of which are referenced below.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationalism and Separatism
    Nationalism and Separatism Sun-Ki Chai Th e historical era following World War II is often referred to as the era of decolo- nization, the time when the former European powers, as well as America and Japan, gave up their overseas empires and dozens of new sovereign countries came into being. However, it could just as easily be called the era of nationalist separatism, as the sheer number of ethnic and pan-ethnic movements seeking independence from the political status quo multiplied greatly. Relevance Th e relevance of these movements is clear, since they fundamentally altered the shape of the world’s geopolitical map. Th ey brought into being dozens of new countries and changed the boundaries of dozens of existing ones. Th ey also al- tered the world balance of power by creating an “unaligned bloc” of independent countries who were not willing to stand under the shadow of the United States or its great Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. Finally, they set the stage for the most recent period of post–Cold War history, in which ethnicity-based national- ism plays a major, or even dominant, role in international confl ict. Origins While there were many causes for the origins of these various types of national- ism, they can be attributed to two major causes: Th e fi rst related to the events leading up to and following the dismantling of the colonization system, which raised numerous questions about what the basis ought to be for the resulting newly independent countries. Th e other major cause was the rise of cultural sen- timents (particularly in Western countries), that placed a great deal of impor- tance on cultural identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S
    Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S. Siroky Department of Political Science Duke University Date: Approved: Dr. Donald L. Horowitz, Supervisor Dr. David L. Banks Dr. Alexander B. Downes Dr. Bruce W. Jentleson Dr. Erik Wibbels Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2009 abstract (Political Science) Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S. Siroky Department of Political Science Duke University Date: Approved: Dr. Donald L. Horowitz, Supervisor Dr. David L. Banks Dr. Alexander B. Downes Dr. Bruce W. Jentleson Dr. Erik Wibbels An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2009 Copyright c 2009 by David S. Siroky All rights reserved Abstract Secession is a watershed event not only for the new state that is created and the old state that is dissolved, but also for neighboring states, proximate ethno-political groups and major powers. This project examines the problem of violent secession- ist conflict and addresses an important debate at the intersection of comparative and international politics about the conditions under which secession is a peaceful solution to ethnic conflict. It demonstrates that secession is rarely a solution to ethnic conflict, does not assure the protection of remaining minorities and produces new forms of violence. To explain why some secessions produce peace, while others generate violence, the project develops a theoretical model of the conditions that produce internally coherent, stable and peaceful post-secessionist states rather than recursive secession (i.e., secession from a new secessionist state) or interstate dis- putes between the rump and secessionist state.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Partition Plan (UNGA 181): Lessons Learned Or Mistakes Repeated? the United Nations and Palestine
    BADIL Occasional Bulletin No. 03 November 2000 Revisiting the Partition Plan (UNGA 181): Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated? The United Nations and Palestine This Bulletin aims to provide a brief overview of issues related to Palestinian Refugee Rights In December 1977, more than a year after the UN General Assembly had endorsed a new framework for a resolution of the question of Palestine that called for the return to Palestinian refugees and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the 1967 occupied territories, the General Assembly declared November 29, the day of the Partition Plan, to be the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Resolution 32/40 B, 2 December 1977, also established a special unit on Palestinian Rights to raise awareness about the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and the right of return (UNGA Resolution 3236 XXIX, 22 November 1974), through studies, report, and conferences. On the 22nd anniversary of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, and more than five decades after the United Nations first addressed the issue of Palestinian rights, it is appropriate to revisit the discussions, debates, and proposals of 1947 and 1948 that led up to the adoption of UNGA Resolution 181(II) to see what kinds of lessons can be drawn from the UN's first attempt to deal with the so-called question of Palestine. This is particularly relevant at the current time with renewed, albeit limited, involvement of the United Nations after the collapse of the Madrid/Oslo process and Israel's brutal policy to destroy legitimate Palestinian resistance to the occupation and the denial of Palestinian rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Irredentism Or Cloaked Imperialism? Hidden Agendas and Hybrid Warfare in Reinstating the Russkiy Mir Kayla L
    Elizabethtown College JayScholar Politics, Philosophy, and Legal Studies: Student Politics, Philosophy, and Legal Studies Scholarship & Creative Works Spring 2018 Modern Irredentism or Cloaked Imperialism? Hidden Agendas and Hybrid Warfare in Reinstating the Russkiy Mir Kayla L. Gruber Elizabethtown College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://jayscholar.etown.edu/pplsstu Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Gruber, Kayla L., "Modern Irredentism or Cloaked Imperialism? Hidden Agendas and Hybrid Warfare in Reinstating the Russkiy Mir" (2018). Politics, Philosophy, and Legal Studies: Student Scholarship & Creative Works . 1. https://jayscholar.etown.edu/pplsstu/1 This Student Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics, Philosophy, and Legal Studies at JayScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Politics, Philosophy, and Legal Studies: Student Scholarship & Creative Works by an authorized administrator of JayScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INT 465 Directed Research Capstone Modern Irredentism or Cloaked Imperialism? Hidden Agendas and Hybrid Warfare in Reinstating the Russkiy Mir Kayla Gruber Spring 2018 Advisor: Dr. Oya Dursun-Ozkanca Reader: Dr. E. Fletcher McClellan Abstract The partition of post-Soviet Union territory ignited numerous border disputes, ethnic- related human rights concerns, and security dilemmas; these issues have intensified in the last twenty years, provoked by Russia’s rising power in the international system. The argument is that, despite citing abuses on ethnic kin as the reason for invading the Crimean peninsula, the decision to invade Crimea was a systematic effort to settle post-USSR grievances and rebuild a stronger, hegemonic Russian Federation.
    [Show full text]
  • Irredentism Revisited
    Stephen M. Saideman, R. William Ayres. For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. xi + 288 pp. $35.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-231-14479-7. Reviewed by Anna Batta Published on H-War (August, 2016) Commissioned by Margaret Sankey (Air University) After the end of the Yugoslav wars in 1995, it the cases which “did bark.” This edition of the appeared that violent irredentist efforts, during book includes a well-written new introduction which groups wanted to reclaim lost ethnic kin, that highlights the changes that took place over has become less frequent and less important, at time and the authors provide a convincing expla‐ least in Europe. However, Russia’s annexation of nation as to why the Russian case has become vio‐ the Crimea in 2014 and its support of separatist lent, even though it was dormant for many years. rebels in eastern Ukraine has brought the impor‐ Irredentist efforts can escalate into wars and tance of this topic back into the forefront of politi‐ such conflicts can be some of the most intractable cal discussions. Indeed, the above incidents high‐ and long-lasting struggles in world politics. In lighted that irredentism is far from extinct and a fact, both world wars started as irredentist wars. determined leader can use a minority as a pretext Serb intentions to create a Greater Serbia led to to destabilize Europe on its eastern border. the outbreak of World War I, and Hitler’s plan to Stephen M. Saideman and R. William Ayres’s reunite lost German folk in Sudetenland contrib‐ book, For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, National‐ uted to the start of World War II.
    [Show full text]