3 ms·

Who Gets Self-Determination?

24 points by smitty1e 5y ago

anikan_vader 5y ago
Another consistent take is simply that international borders should mostly stay as they currently are, particularly in cases where the de jure status matches the de facto. This stance has the benefit that it condemns almost all wars of territorial conquest, including those which have some kind of twisted historical justification. Similarly, this stance implies that regions within sovereign nations do not have the unilateral right to declare independence, as doing so would change the current international borders. (This often leads to war when existing states are unwilling to cede territory). >> Somebody’s going to ask “but what about the Confederacy?” The position that most tempts me is “The Confederacy had every right to secede, because every region that wants to secede has that right - but immediately upon granting them independence, the Union should have invaded in order to stop the atrocity of slavery”. I won't make any claims about what the US "should" have done in the 1860's when the Confederacy declared independence, but I will note a few key points. Firstly, Confederate troops opened fire on US military positions, commencing the outbreak of hostilities. Secondly, the United States had by that point a storied history of seizing the lands of its neighbors for expansion (in accordance with the idea of manifest destiny). See, for example, the Mexican-American war. It is, then, hardly any surprise that the US chose to use its larger military, population, and industry to conquer a smaller neighbor that had limited transportation infrastructure and almost no foreign allies.
- rayiner 5y ago
  These rules would avoid war between states only to encourage civil wars within states. People will only put up with being forced into the same body politic with people they don’t consider to be their own people for so long before they start shooting each other. War is an essential form of conflict resolution. War should be avoided, but not at the expense of allowing intractable situations to fester. My parents’ generation went to war to secure a country for our ethnic group (Bengalis). It was a good thing—we managed to get out of Pakistan before it’s slow descent into being a failed state. Your principle would have caused a bad situation to get worse.
rayiner 5y ago
Great article. It’s sad that you see so much written about Ukraine and so little engaging with high level concepts like self determination. Self determination is one of the most important concepts in international affairs. As the article points out, it literally Part I, Article I of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/.... It’s also devilishly difficult to administer in practice.
petre 5y ago
> Russians and Ukrainians “are one people" Andrey Kurkov, an Ukrainian writer born in the same city as Putin, who writes mainly in Russian, thinks differently. See after 5:00. https://youtu.be/4MZYut4rD7Q https://youtu.be/4MZYut4rD7Q

24 points by smitty1e 5y ago

Another consistent take is simply that international borders should mostly stay as they currently are, particularly in cases where the de jure status matches the de facto. This stance has the benefit that it condemns almost all wars of territorial conquest, including those which have some kind of twisted historical justification. Similarly, this stance implies that regions within sovereign nations do not have the unilateral right to declare independence, as doing so would change the current international borders. (This often leads to war when existing states are unwilling to cede territory). >> Somebody’s going to ask “but what about the Confederacy?” The position that most tempts me is “The Confederacy had every right to secede, because every region that wants to secede has that right - but immediately upon granting them independence, the Union should have invaded in order to stop the atrocity of slavery”. I won't make any claims about what the US "should" have done in the 1860's when the Confederacy declared independence, but I will note a few key points. Firstly, Confederate troops opened fire on US military positions, commencing the outbreak of hostilities. Secondly, the United States had by that point a storied history of seizing the lands of its neighbors for expansion (in accordance with the idea of manifest destiny). See, for example, the Mexican-American war. It is, then, hardly any surprise that the US chose to use its larger military, population, and industry to conquer a smaller neighbor that had limited transportation infrastructure and almost no foreign allies.

rayiner 5y ago
These rules would avoid war between states only to encourage civil wars within states. People will only put up with being forced into the same body politic with people they don’t consider to be their own people for so long before they start shooting each other. War is an essential form of conflict resolution. War should be avoided, but not at the expense of allowing intractable situations to fester. My parents’ generation went to war to secure a country for our ethnic group (Bengalis). It was a good thing—we managed to get out of Pakistan before it’s slow descent into being a failed state. Your principle would have caused a bad situation to get worse.

rayiner 5y ago

Great article. It’s sad that you see so much written about Ukraine and so little engaging with high level concepts like self determination. Self determination is one of the most important concepts in international affairs. As the article points out, it literally Part I, Article I of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/.... It’s also devilishly difficult to administer in practice.

petre 5y ago

> Russians and Ukrainians “are one people" Andrey Kurkov, an Ukrainian writer born in the same city as Putin, who writes mainly in Russian, thinks differently. See after 5:00. https://youtu.be/4MZYut4rD7Q https://youtu.be/4MZYut4rD7Q