scholarly journals Nation-Building Predicament, Transition Fatigue, and Fear of State Collapse

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5.) ◽  
pp. 32-50
Author(s):  
Meressa Tsehaye Gebrewahd
Keyword(s):  
Local Development ◽  
Nation Building ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Federal System ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Self Administration ◽  
State Collapse ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

Ethiopia, evolved from Tigray, is known by its history of having been an empire (e.g., the Axumite kingdom) and having been independent. The fundamental weakness of the Ethiopian state has been the lack of inclusive national consensus, hampered by national oppression and the dilemma of democratizing a feudal state. The post-1991 TPLF-EPRDF-led Ethiopia has been experimenting with federalist nation-building to address Ethiopia’s historical contradictions: national and class oppression. The 1995 FDRE Constitution established a federal system and subsequently recognized the right of nations to self-determination including secession, self-administration, and local development. The constitution also declared that the Ethiopian nations were the “sovereign owners” of the constitution. However, the coming of Abiy Ahmed to power and his policy reforms based on ‘neo-pan-Ethiopianism’ opened the box of Pandora of secessionist, irredentist, and federalist forces opposing his plan to recentralize the ethnic federation, as it happened similarly in the case of former Yugoslavia. PM Abiy’s reforms have been branded as those of the ‘Mikael Gorbachev of Ethiopia’ for his sweeping campaign against the 27 years of federalist control. The article investigates the nation-building aspirations, transition fatigue, the predicaments of secessionist, federalist, and assimilationist narratives, and the subsequent fear of ‘state collapse’ in the post-2018 crisis in Ethiopia.

Federalism in Ethiopia’s Transformation

2019 ◽  
pp. 65-79
Author(s):  
Kidane Mengisteab
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Political Violence ◽  
Nation Building ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Federal System ◽  
Principal Objective ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Socio Economic Development ◽  
The Right

Two highly controversial features characterize Ethiopia’s federal system. One is that the federal entities are drawn largely on ethno-linguistic lines. The second is that the arrangement grants the right to self-determination up to secession to nations and nationalities. Critics claim that the arrangement divides the country along ethnic lines and jeopardizes its unity by politicizing ethnicity. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the arrangement unifies the country by granting ethnic identities protection against marginalization and thereby mitigating ethnically based insurgencies. Despite the controversies, the country has recorded impressive progress in areas of broad socio-economic development. It has also reduced political violence. However, the principal goal of the federal arrangement, which is to bring about a peaceful process of nation building, remains a major challenge. This chapter’s principal objective is to examine why the process of nation building remains fragile.

scholarly journals The Use of Force, Wars of National Liberation and the Right to Self-Determination in the South Ossetian Conflict

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran O'Reilly ◽  
Noelle Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
The South ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
International Attention ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, involving both Georgian and Russian armed forces, attracted much international attention and debate. This article seeks to analyse the international legal framework regarding the use of force which should have applied to this conflict. It will first look at the history of, and circumstances surrounding, the South Ossetian conflict, and then examine the jus ad bellum regarding wars of national liberation and aggression. The concept of intervention to protect nationals abroad will also be discussed. These legal paradigms will then be applied to the events of August 2008 in the region of South Ossetia to analyse the legality of the use of force in this conflict.

Changing African Perspectives on the Right of Self-Determination in the Wake of the Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples′ Rights

1985 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kwaw Nyameke Blay
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Southern Sudan ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter

In the history of modern Africa the issue of self-determination has always been of special significance. For a better part of a century and in some cases more, almost the entire continent was subject to colonisation by various European powers. The end of the Second World War and the subsequent adoption of the United Nations Charter, incorporating the principle of self-determination, heralded a new phase for the African colonies in international relations. Defined in its simplest terms, self-determination is the principle by virtue of which a people freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Selfdetermination is in essence the right of self-government. A territory exercises the right by either opting to establish itself as an independent state, associating with an existing state or by accepting to be integrated into an existing state. Self-determination so defined was thus used as the basis for decolonisation in Africa and provided the foundations for equal statehood for the former colonies of Africa in international relations.After decolonisation, the issue of self-determination still persists in Africa attracting sentiments and implications well exemplified by the conflicts Over Biafra and Katanga in the 1960s and currently in Eritrea, the Tigray province of Ethiopia and the Southern Sudan. The very successful propagation of self-determination as the right of every people to self-government by African nationalists during the colonial days seems to have left behind a legacy of a question for post-independence Africa—is the ideal of self-determination

scholarly journals Shaping Indigenous Self-Determination: Promising or Unsatisfactory Solutions?

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Barelli
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Straightforward Manner ◽  
History Of ◽  
United Nations Declaration ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Self Determination ◽  
Do So

AbstractThe right of peoples to self-determination represents one of the most controversial norms of international law. In particular, two questions connected with the meaning and scope of this right have been traditionally contentious: first, who constitutes a ‘people’ for the purposes of self-determination, and, secondly, what does the right of self-determination actually imply for its legitimate holders. Against this unsettled background, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirmed, in a straightforward manner, that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. In light of the uncertainties that were mentioned above, it becomes necessary to clarify the actual implications of this important recognition. This article will seek to do so by discussing the drafting history of the provision on self-determination contained in the UNDRIP and positioning it within the broader normative framework of the instrument.

scholarly journals History of self-determination of the people of Donbass. experience of the Soviet Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog

2019 ◽  
pp. 148-152
Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Dmitriy A. Babichev ◽  
Natal'ya A. Babicheva
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Status ◽  
The People ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Historical Past

The article is devoted to the burning problem that arose in 2014 in the Ukraine, in the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk, and that concerns the right of the people of Donbass to self-determination. This problem is not only of a local territorial nature, but it is also one of the most complex debatable problems of international law. Since the right to self-determination contradicts the principle of territorial integrity of the state, the consideration and solution of this issue is the most burning for the whole population living on the territory of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. In the article, the authors analyse the concept of "self-determination of the people" and give a generalised characteristic of it, approving that it is the right of every nation to solve the issues of state structure, political status, economic, social and cultural development independently and at its own discretion. The author also examines the historical past of the people of Donbass, where, in terms of the Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog and various documentary historical and legal materials, we come to the conclusion that the population of Donbass has the right to social, economic, cultural, spiritual and other development just as all the recognised countries of the world.

scholarly journals PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THEIR ROLE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN KOSOVO AND CRIMEA. Part 2

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Conflict Situations ◽  
History Of ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The second part of the article considers the issue of the contradiction of the realization of the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity of Serbia and Ukraine on the example of Kosovo and Crimea. It presents an analysis of the legitimacy of the will expression of Kosovars and Crimeans and its compliance with the norms of international law. The preconditions and factors of the ethnopolitical conflict are examined and the main problematic issues that caused controversies between the central and local authorities in Kosovo and Crimea are identified. The article emphasizes that the result of the plebiscites in Kosovo (1998) and Crimea (2014) was the declaration of independence, denied by central authorities of Serbia and Ukraine and met with mixed reactions by the international community. The self-proclaimed republics have only external features of statehood and are subject to external administration of other countries. A latent opposition of geopolitical opponents in the international arena is noted, which is to some extent traced through the position on the recognition / non-recognition of Kosovo and Crimea. The article draws attention to the fact that inconsistent interpretations of certain principles of international law promote secession movements in countries where conflicts periodically arise between central and local authorities. The emphasis is placed on the necessity of a clearer definition of the aforementioned international legal norms and obligations undertaken by subjects of international law. The article holds that in order to avoid such situations as in Kosovo or Crimea, to eliminate conflicts related to the possibility of an ambiguous interpretation and application of the principles of international law, an internationally recognized system of more stringent and comprehensive measures should be introduced to cease and prevent threats to the territorial integrity of countries. A strong position of the international community on the abovementioned principles with the history of the liberation movements of these peoples taken into account should become the measure precluding the aggravation of conflict situations related to the aspiration of peoples for self-determination.

The Soviet Approach to the Right of Peoples to Self-determination: Russia’s Farewell to jus publicum europaeum

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri Mälksoo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The West ◽  
The Real ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of International Law ◽  
The Right

The aim of this article is to explore the theory and practice of the Soviet position on the right of peoples to self-determination in 1917 and afterwards. It is a misunderstanding to mention Lenin’s (the Bolsheviks’) and Wilson’s concepts of self-determination in one breath, as ‘precursors’ in international law. The Soviet concept of the right of peoples to self-determination was adopted for tactical and propagandistic purposes, and it had little in common with the liberal democratic concept of this right that saw the right of peoples to self-determination as an end in itself. The real contribution of the Russian Bolsheviks to the history of international law has, to some extent, been overlooked. Throughout the 20th century, the West and the ussr had different regional standards and usages of the right of peoples to self-determination, thus presenting a continuous challenge to the idea of the universality of international law.

Gorsk ASSR and Problems of National Self-Determination of Kabardin and Balkar Districts (1921-1922)

2020 ◽  
pp. 114-121
Author(s):  
Asker Zh. Shereuzhev
Keyword(s):  
State Building ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Autonomous Region ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

The factors that contributed to the secession of the Kabardin and Balkar districts from the Gorsk ASSR and the formation of the Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Region on January 16, 1922 are considered. Attention is drawn to the fact that during this period in the history of Kabardino-Balkaria important administrative-territorial transformations took place and the foundations of state building, the result of which was the gradual exit first of Kabarda on September 1, 1921, and then of Balkaria on January 9, 1922 from the Mountain ASSR and the formation of the Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Region on January 16, 1922. The article considers the formation of a unified autonomy of Kabardino-Balkaria against the background of the struggle of representatives of the Kabardian and Balkarian political elites for the right to secede from the Gorsk ASSR and subsequent unification.

The Soviet Doctrine on the Right to Self-Determination Revisited

2021 ◽  
pp. 14-56
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Political Principle ◽  
History Of ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Second World

This chapter provides a critical rereading of the history of self-determination by revisiting the Soviet Union’s contribution to its evolution from a political principle to an international legal right. It argues that the history of the right to self-determination as a concept of international law starts with the Russian Revolution and not with Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points. Moreover, it highlights that the Soviet Union was the decisive force behind the codification of the right to self-determination in international legal instruments following the Second World War, while at the same time it modified or even perverted its meaning and content in its sphere of influence, most notoriously through the later so-called Brezhnev Doctrine. A discussion on how self-determination was theorized and debated in Soviet international law scholarship up until the collapse of the Soviet Union completes the picture.

Order and Justice: National Minorities and the Right to Secession

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
The People ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe Versailles Treaty sought to protect minorities by giving them their own state. This practice, labelled 'self-determination' has changed guise considerably post World War II. Paramount to the emancipation of colonies, it came to be the concept that legitimated the 'rule of the people' over that of their colonial masters. However post-colonial 'self-determined' states are often manufactured entities forced into the strait-jacket of Westphalian statehood; and unlike the states that emanated from the Westphalian Treaty, were given no time to evolve by themselves. As a result these states often house disparate sets of minorities that go unrepresented within the Statist discourse. Further, these states have attempted to suppress their minorities through the various policies associated with nation-building. Today, with secession an increasingly attainable form of self-determination, the question arises as to whether these minorities have a right to form a separate state. The international law of self-determination suggests that this is a right of all peoples. It however leaves the parameters of this 'peoplehood' undefined. This paper seeks to examine the discourse of minority rights within that of the international right to self determination. It seeks to trace the history of minority rights protection, and to examine the way in which minority rights are protected within current international law. In addition, it examines the parameters of peoplehood and concludes by looking at two cases where disaffected minorities in a post-colonial state sought to form their own state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document