1 Master Thesis Political Science: International Relations
How Does Secession Alter the Concept of Sovereignty and a
State’s Authority to Govern Its Own Affairs?
Author: Flora Brooke-Turner
Student Number: 10861548
Supervisor: Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins Second Reader: Dr. Stephanie Simon
Research Project: Geopolitics, Borders, and Conflict Date of Submission: 26-06-15
2
Abstract
Secession has called into question the traditional view of states as the unilateral holders of sovereignty. This thesis will look at how secession impacts the way scholars have traditionally viewed the concept of sovereignty. Drawing on the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and the potential secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom, it will gather evidence to explain why we must acknowledge the different holders of sovereignty other than the state. The argument considers John Agnew’s ‘territorial trap’, among other theories, of the territorial state as natural and inevitable. First, it begins with the argument that states are not containers of society, given that self-determination is a widely regarded principle granted to the Kosovo Albanians and the increasing recognition of internal self-determination of the Scottish within the United Kingdom. Next, it looks at how the principle of territorial integrity maintains the centrality of states but emphasises the need to look beyond states as spaces of sovereignty and control, as a state’s sovereignty rests on its ability to protect the interests of its people, for example, by providing groups with internal self-determination. The last chapter considers how secession is deemed legitimate and the consequences which the acceptance of cases of secession has on the international community of states and traditional theories of state sovereignty. It will argue that the wider acceptance of secession in state practice, has promoted the right of groups to self-determination and the authority of people to govern their own affairs, if the state fails to do so. Ultimately, sovereignty rests with the people of the state and this fact must be respected. The best resolution would be to have a more flexible understanding of the concept of sovereignty.
3
Contents
Title Page ... 1 Abstract ... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ... 4 Chapter 2: Methodology ... 11Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ... 13
Chapter 4: Explaining Self-Determination Against the Theory of States as Containers of Society... 21
Chapter 5: Territorial Integrity and States as Spaces of Sovereignty and Control ... 33
Chapter 6: Assessing the Legitimacy of Secession... 41
Chapter 7: Conclusion... 49
4
Chapter 1: Introduction
Research topic and objectives
Sovereignty is central to International Relations (IR) and the world system of states enshrined by the purposes of the United Nations (UN) as ‘based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members’ (Charter of the United Nations, 1945). Sovereignty is commonly thought of as interchangeable with the concept of the state, where the sovereign is ‘the representative (be it a single person or an assembly of persons) authorised to act on the part of the state, and yet that the powers exercised by this sovereign are the rightful possession, not of the representative who wields them, but the state itself’ (Eudaily and Smith, 2008, p. 316). However, the existence of a state is dependent on its ability to respect the interests of the people that occupy it, as this provides the state with the legitimate authority to govern its own affairs. Eudaily and Smith (2008) conceptualise the ‘sovereignty paradox’ as a ‘sovereign state with territory as a necessary condition for its ability to articulate power; however, this territorial imperative must first be satisfied by some sovereign legitimate authority’ (Eudaily and Smith, 2008, p. 314). This thesis will investigate how sovereignty is both enacted and violated when secession occurs, assessing the legitimacy of particular cases, in order to determine how it may alter traditional understandings of the concept of sovereignty.
Secession, defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, is ‘the effort of a group or section of a state to withdraw itself from the political and constitutional authority of that state, with a view to achieving statehood for a new territorial unit on the international plane’ (de Villiers, 2012, p. 82). Scholars have recognised the limits of international law in guiding the rules of secession, for example, Maalim (2008) identifies that ‘there is no international treaty or clear rules of international customary law that regulate secession’ (de Villiers, 2012, p. 92). Generally, in practice the international community of states is ‘hostile to secession’ (Anderson, 1996, p. 44). Groups often use violence in attempting to claim self-determination and control in territorial disputes within a state. A reaction by the state, as we have seen in past instances, is to resort to military force in an effort to prevent secession (Knight, 1999, p. 214).
5 International law has a role in providing the normative framework for secession. This is due to the continued expression of the ‘peoples’ right to exert self-determination in secessionist conflicts and the appeals that have been made to international law in order to achieve secession (van der Linden, 2009, p. 2). International law, embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, dictates state behaviour and creates norms that determine state actions which are deemed acceptable and those which are not. Although only the actions binding upon nation-states are those cited under Chapter VII, defined as Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, the Charter sets clear guidelines and boundaries to limit the likelihood of war and unprecedented aggression by states (Charter of the United Nations, 1945). Moreover, international law ‘recognizes the integrity and sovereignty of existing states and the authority of states to protect their territorial integrity and to resist, within democratic means, efforts to secede’ (de Villiers, 2012, p. 83). Despite this fact, it is also recognised that sovereignty exists in a people’s right to self-determination which can take alternative forms that are ‘less intrusive on state sovereignty than secession’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 111).
Research question: How does secession alter the concept of sovereignty and a state’s authority to govern its own affairs?
The research question will attempt to uncover where sovereignty is situated when a group secedes from the territory of its state. An understanding of the malleability of sovereignty in secession will show how territory is produced and reproduced exceeding traditional ideas of the state as the unilateral holder of sovereignty. It is an important focus of study for political science given the lack of international law regarding secession. This ensures that the perception of legitimacy, by states, in each case of secession is central to the acceptance of the changing nature of sovereignty. This will have consequences for the reflections of the thesis by discovering whether secession can take place legitimately beyond reliance on international law, or whether it must be reconciled and thus, demands a more explicit statement under international law of where and in which cases secession is accepted. Contextual question: Is secession a matter for law or politics?
Borgen (2007) notes that ‘Whether and how a group may secede from an existing state—put more bluntly, when a country may be dismembered—is a politically charged question that goes to the heart of the stability of the modern state system’ (Borgen, 2007, p. 486). Whether secession is a matter of law or politics is central to this discussion and will
6 form the contextual basis of the research question. Borgen’s statement highlights the importance of gathering a wide and varied selection of documents, both political and legal, to attain an appropriate combination of existing discourse to help finalise the outcome and solutions of this thesis.
Formulation of the problem
There are two competing principles to assess where international law stands on secession: territorial integrity and self-determination. Territorial integrity, regarded as ‘one of the basic tenets of international law’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 104), is the governance over a territory by the sovereign authority (Navari, 2014, p. 1308). It is upheld in international law as ‘a fundamental norm of the present world system of states and state sovereignty’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 104). However, Hannum (1998) suggests that the principles of sovereignty and self-determination are not absolute rights but are limited by other rights and international obligations (Hannum, 1998, p. 13). The role of the international community of states and the application of international law is to decide pragmatically when, and in which cases, the people should be able to exercise their right to self-determination through secession. The ultimate decision is thought to rest on international consensus of each case of secession, as the international community determines the recognition of the secessionist region as a new country and decides within which borders this new country lies (Tir, 2005, p. 715).
Self-determination is a right or set of rights given to a defined group of people, or minority group, which may consist of ‘simply political and representative rights within a central State, on the one hand, or may amount to remedial secession and ultimately independence on the other hand’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 109). Polat (1998) observes that the central ‘paradox’ in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) and the Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970) is the mention the principle of self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity alongside each other (Polat, 1998, p. 221).
The principle of territorial integrity is viewed as the overarching principle where claims of self-determination are exercised, creating an ‘effective paralysis of the principle of self-determination’ (Polat, 1998, p. 221). This paradox is captured in a question posed by Sterio (2012) ‘How can we reconcile the principle of territorial integrity with minority rights, and in particular, with the idea of self-determination – that every “people” ought to have a nation State?’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 103). However, if a state is unable to protect or provide rights
7 for the people living under its control, a state might lose its right to territorial integrity on the grounds of failing to comply with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (Gudeleviciute, 2005, p. 61). This thesis will look at how these two principles act against one another where, most often, self-determination claims are subservient to territorial sovereignty. This will determine how some self-determination claims are acknowledged while others are not and whether the chosen cases are perceived as successful or legitimate cases of secession.
Case selection
The selected cases are Kosovo and Scotland. These cases of secession are both very different examples, but are used in this thesis to illustrate the complexities of secession and to determine why and how some instances of secession are regarded as legitimate and some are not. This will demand extensive research into the preconditions for secession and the reasons behind why self-determination claims are realised, as well as how sovereignty might be altered through the legitimate secession of a people from a state. It is important to note that secession is dealt with firstly by the constitutional arrangements of the government of the state in question. However, this thesis looks to the outcome of secession and the recognition of states. It will take an international perspective assessing the legitimacy of secession in the international community beyond the politics and legalities of the particular state. This will narrow the scope of assessment focussing on secession more generally, and where it sits in international law.
1. Kosovo
The Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, formally withdrawing from Serbia, was announced on 17 February 2008 (Jaber, 2011, p. 926). It was previously established as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija in 1946, in the Socialist Yugoslavia, as a province within the Republic of Serbia and later become the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo in 1974. The autonomous status of Kosovo in Serbia was upheld until 1989 when it was abolished under the nationalist President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) Slobodan Milošević (Jaber, 2011, p. 927). The tensions that arose in the lead up to the dissolution of the SFRY were later resolved in the secessions of four of the constituent republics. Kosovo, having declared independence at this time, remained under the possession of the new state of Serbia and Montenegro by the principle of uti possidetis (as you possess), under the Badinter Arbitration Commission on the
8 dissolution of Yugoslavia (Hilpold, 2009, p. 47). The significance of the Kosovo case is that it was ‘in many respects independent of Serbia’ as it existed as an autonomous republic within Serbia and the SFRY, which meant that Serbia did not have sole legal and administrative control over it (Simon, 2011, p. 112).
After Milošević’s removal of the autonomous status of Kosovo, two organizations, the Association of Philosophers and Sociologists of Kosovo and the Writers Association of Kosovo, created an underground civil society for Albanian Kosovars (Simon, 2011, p. 115). The Democratic League of Kosovo was formed and in 1991 led a peaceful movement calling for an independent and sovereign Kosovo. However, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) acted out against this, which led to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention and a three month bombing campaign on Serbia in 1999 to try to ease the fighting between the KLA and Serbian forces (Simon, 2011, p. 115). Following this campaign, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1244 which gave the Security Council control of the situation in Kosovo and further led to the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and a NATO-led peacekeeping force (Hilpold, 2009, p. 51). The Kosovo case is situated within a context of the collapse of the federal Yugoslavia, culminating in the ‘clearest case of state fragmentation which took the form not only of violent separation along territorial lines but also along ethnic, political, economic and arguably religious lines’ (Economides, 2013, p. 826).
Kosovo independence was highly disputed in the international community on the grounds of NATO’s ‘illegal but legitimate’ intervention (Navari, 2014, p. 1311). There are two competing strands of opinion about the Kosovo case that make it significant to study: firstly, that it has been considered a ‘precedent’ for other secessionist movements, and secondly, that it is a sui generis, or a ‘unique’ case in international law (Ker-Lindsay, 2013, p. 837).
2. Scotland
Scotland is used as a case to identify how self-determination claims might legitimately be achieved and will provide a useful analysis of the contrasting examples of secessionist movements. Scotland has been coined ‘one of the most prominent cases of secessionism in today’s Europe, and indeed the Western democratic world’ (Dardanelli and Mitchell, 2014, p. 88). A national referendum was held in Scotland on 18 September 2014 posing the question ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ (Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013). The Treaty of Union was established in 1707 to bring together the kingdoms of Scotland and
9 England to unify the Parliament but the existing Scottish institutions remained (Dardanelli and Mitchell, 2014, p. 89). The Scottish National Party (SNP) spurred the independence sentiment and after winning a landslide victory in the Scottish Parliament election in 2011 they were given a mandate to stage the vote (Black, 2014). Scottish independence is considered to have been called for as early as 843 prior to the unification with England in 1707 (Black, 2014).
However, the 2014 referendum failed to receive a ‘yes’ vote for independence which means that Scotland remains a devolved part of the United Kingdom (UK). Dardanelli and Mitchell (2014) state that in the debate over Scottish independence ‘identity is important, but does not explain everything’ (Dardanelli and Mitchell, 2014, p. 93). The rise of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence contributes to a larger trend within other Western democracies which include the people of Quebec, Catalonia and Flanders who consider themselves as a ‘stateless nation’ (Dardanelli and Mitchell, 2014, p. 100). Dion (1996) identifies that secession in democracies has been particularly rare, rather ‘there has never been a single case of secession in democracies if we consider only the well-established ones … with at least ten consecutive years of universal suffrage’ (Dion, 1996, p. 269).
Moreover, some have considered that Scotland may have an impact on ‘disgruntled regions to cut ties with their mother countries’ (Keating, 2014). In order to analyse these two cases, the documents will be selected and the context, author, date, language, purpose and type of document will be noted. In analysing the documents, certain statements will be categorised to indicate where they might be necessary as evidence for the argument. An interpretation of the debate and events surrounding the independence of Kosovo and the unsuccessful independence of Scotland will provide useful evidence to be able to answer the main research question and to reflect on the wider, contextual question of this thesis.
Chapter outline
The thesis is attempting to uncover how secession alters the concept of sovereignty and a state’s authority to govern its own affairs. The introduction has highlighted the research topic and formulated the problem at the centre of this question. The next chapter will outline the methodological process used to gather the information to formulate an argument based on the theory and the empirical data and analysis. Following this, the theoretical framework will observe the different themes in the theory relevant for the discussion of the changing nature of sovereignty and the production and utilisation of territory by states and different actors.
10 Chapter 4 will begin the discussion of the discourse indicating how secession alters the concept of sovereignty, focusing particularly on Agnew’s ‘territorial trap’ and refuting the claim that states exist as containers of society. It will show that self-determination grants autonomy to differing nations and ethnicities, and this is used in exercising self-determination when they are subjugated or alienated from other groups within the state. The question that will be used to frame this discussion is: How can states contain societies when the nations or ethnicities that make up that state are incompatible?
Chapter 5 also addresses Agnew’s ‘territorial trap’ assumption that the state is central in IR as a space of sovereignty and control. However, it looks at how the principle of territorial integrity has maintained and emphasised this belief. It will address the question: Should we move beyond a question of realpolitik and the centrality of states in favour of minority rights and the importance of the people that make up the state in order to understand secession? The previous chapter, regarding self-determination will show that the people who occupy the territory have a central role in providing sovereignty and existence to the state, and this chapter will show how this is circumscribed after assessing the sovereignty held by the state.
The final chapter analysing the empirical data will incorporate a discussion regarding how secession is enacted in practice despite the lack of a statement in the law on secession. An understanding of the legitimacy of secession is important for displaying how competing claims of sovereignty over a territory can be reconciled when there is no one overriding sovereign actor in the international community. The nature of this chapter will be guided by the question: Following the view that the legitimacy of the state is based on the idea that it provides certain rights to the people that make up the state, without which it would have no claim to its territory. Should this necessitate secession under all circumstances or, in which circumstances would the case of secession be considered legitimate?
Lastly, the thesis will sum up with a conclusion that draws the different arguments together, weighing up the theory with the empirics gathered in a discourse analysis. It will arrive at an informed conclusion of the research question and will make recommendations for further research addressing the contextual question.
11
Chapter 2: Methodology
Method selection
This thesis will take the form of a discourse analysis as this will provide insights into the discussion of secession, considering the lack of emphasis on secession in international law. Therefore, a discourse analysis commanding my own interpretation of the rhetoric and nature of the literature and empirics will be essential to proceed in this investigation. Discourse analysis attempts to ‘illustrate how … textual and social processes are intrinsically connected and to describe, in specific contexts, the implications of this connection for the way we think and act in the contemporary world’ (Milliken, 1999, p. 225). This method of research, often considered a ‘critical discourse analysis’ seeks to locate discourse within a ‘particular conception of society’ and adopts a ‘thoroughgoingly ‘critical’ attitude towards that society’ (Hammersley, 1997, p. 237).
As understood and made evident in the literature, there is no legal right to secession expressed in international law. However, there is a common recognition of secessionist movements that have been deemed legitimate. It is necessary to explore the discourse of secession, including, in which cases it is deemed appropriate to grant groups claims to self-determination over territory. This will involve an analysis of the legal documents and the decisions made regarding the chosen cases of Kosovo and Scotland.
By gathering the definitive legal rights and duties of states as well as the various ideas and theories about secession, this thesis will be able to make a judgment upon whether self-determination claims can be legitimately exercised beyond the reading of the law. With a lack of legal statements regarding secession it is necessary to incorporate an analysis of documentation, speeches, statements, transcripts and cases, as this information regarding the discourse using both the language of the law and of politics will resolve this research question and the continual debate on secession that surrounds it. It will address the existing legal framework regarding the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, and where sovereignty is situated. Moreover, a discourse analysis claims to ‘unify theory and practice’ in order to evaluate the consequences of the discussion and to instigate political action which brings about ‘radical and emancipatory social change’ (Hammersley, 1997, p. 238). It will put forward the theoretical foundations of the research question and will use an
12 interpretation of the discourse as evidence to arrive at an informed conclusion connecting the theory and the empirical data.
Limitations of research
There are various noted limitations of discourse analysis including the fact that it is considered a ‘deviant community’ moving away from positivist approaches due to its lack of ‘testable theories or empirical analyses’ (Milliken, 1999, p. 227). Moreover, this method of research is limited in creating a certain ‘construction’ of society which can always be constructed differently (Hammersley, 2003, p. 765). In this way, there is no ‘single method for analysis and abstraction along these lines, but rather a number of ways that scholars can identify key aspects of significative practices’ (Milliken, 1999, p. 231). The limitation of this method of research is that all the data gathered will be assessed through a personal judgement based on a particular view of what the discourse might be indicating. There is a vast array of opinions on secession and its legitimacy, ranging from the political interpretations to the legal qualifications. There will only be an interpretation of two cases which are relevant in answering this research question. Moreover, as a student of political science the legal explanation will be lacking. It will attempt to provide a basic explanation of where secession sits in international law and to build on this, using the skills from political science to assess the politics of secession and how this affects sovereignty as opposed to determining its legality.
13
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
Introduction
This thesis is about the tension between the territorial integrity of states as bounded units of sovereign space and the rights of people to self-determination. The theoretical framework will provide grounding for this investigation by developing an understanding of why self-determination claims are expressed and how or why this may lead to secession. The Westphalian system of states, derived from the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which brought about the acceptance of Westphalian sovereignty as the principle of international law which defines all states as equal and each state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, has been the foundation of the modern state system. It recognises that the sovereignty of states over territory is fundamental to the existence of a state. There has been much scholarly discussion over the priority of states in the international system and as to how far the Westphalian state system still holds for the concept of sovereignty, especially, in light of recent secessionist movements.
It will be necessary to look at the principle of sovereignty and the assumptions it holds for the possession of territory. It will look at how territory has been utilised by states in providing meaning expressed both as a physical thing and an ideological concept. It will address the theoretical foundations of why state boundaries exist, what political and social practices exist within the delimited borders of territorial state, and will particularly focus on the discussion by John Agnew, a Professor of Geography at UCLA, of the territorially bounded state as a ‘container of society’ (Agnew, 1994, p. 59). This discussion attempts to draw the links between the physical concept of territoriality and the meaning of human territoriality, and the significance a territory has on a state’s people who consider it a ‘homeland’. Understanding the meaning of territory for people will lead to a discussion of the permanent nature of territorial states, particularly as containers of society and spaces of sovereignty and control. It will then look at the normative theories of secession proposed by Allen E. Buchanan, the James B. Duke Professor of philosophy at Duke University, a prominent scholar on the theories of secession. This will outline how secession has been incorporated into IR, the conditions by which secession is made possible and to determine in which cases secession should be considered legitimate, if, at all.
14 The meaning of territory
The state has largely been viewed, in IR literature, as a ‘fixed territorial entity (even if its actual boundaries can change) operating much the same over time and irrespective of its place within the global geopolitical order’ (Agnew, 1994, p. 54). Territory is situated at the heart of the normative theory of statehood as an essential criterion for becoming a state (Sterio, 2012, p. 105). Gottmann (1951) advocates that ‘one cannot conceive a State, a political institution, without its spatial definition, its territory’ (Elden, 2010, p. 800). Territory gives the state a ‘physical basis which seems to render it inevitable and eternal’ (Elden, 2010, p. 801).
Others have contested the viewpoint that territoriality is a ‘basic vital instinct’ rather; it is a geopolitical strategy (Elden, 2010, p. 802). For example, Sack (1986) argues that ‘territories typically serve to clarify and powerfully communicate power relations’ by facilitating control over space by giving them ‘concrete material and ideological significance’ (Murphy, 2013, p. 1216). In this way, he views territory as a social construct, contrary to much of the literature regarding territory as a natural fact: ‘a state is territorial much like life on earth is terrestrial’ (Agnew, 1994, p. 54).
Territory, therefore, acts as a spatial articulation of sovereignty and the essential object by which states can perform their functions including the protection of people ‘from the depredations of the state of nature’ by establishing and enforcing ‘a coherent system of laws’ (Kolers, 2009, p. 69). Agnew (1994) argues that states have been thought of as ‘fixed units of sovereign space’ in IR and without sovereignty over the territory, a state would cease to exist (Agnew, 1994, p. 59). The dominant assumption is that ‘if there are states then there must be sovereignty’ (Agnew, 1994, p. 60). Moreover, the centrality of states is upheld by the view that sovereignty refers to centralization, not fragmentation, or ‘the monopoly of power and/or authority in a particular territory’ which is held by the state as the unit of sovereign space (Walker, 1990, p. 9).
The ‘territorial trap’
Agnew’s ‘territorial trap’ theory suggests that one important assumption in IR literature is that the territorial state exists prior to and as a container of society (Agnew, 1994, p. 59). Enclosed in this container are the people that are made secure from the world outside which Realists believe to encompass danger, realpolitik and the use of force (Agnew, 1994,
15 p. 62). Moreover, world security is constructed around this idea of the state system (Walker, 1990, p. 3). Agnew (1994) argues against the traditional assumptions of IR literature by theorising that the way territorial units were fixed was not an inevitable or a natural ordering of society (Agnew, 1994, p. 59). Thus, as Reid-Henry (2010) argues there is ‘no ontological basis for societies to be organised into territorially discreet parcels of land’ (Reid-Henry, 2010, p. 753).
Borgen (2007) asserts that ‘Westphalia is dead’, but states still remain the central actors in the international system due to a lack of viable alternatives (Borgen, 2007, p. 534). Agnew (1994) critiques the IR literature that suggests that a zero-sum-game of territory, where one state gains what is lost by the other, and sovereignty is inevitable; rather, he proposes that we look beyond these sovereignty regimes (McConnell, 2010, p. 762). McConnell (2010) takes a step beyond the critique by noting that there are polities, or small populations regarded as ‘anomalies’ which she believes ‘fundamentally reconfigure the relationship between sovereignty and territory and can provide an invaluable window on international legal processes and the nature of ‘conventional’ statehood’ (McConnell, 2010, p. 763). This interpretation of Agnew’s critique of the ‘territorial trap’ provides useful insights into thinking about how secessionist groups come to assert claims over territory in a traditionally viewed system of fixed territorial states.
Furthermore, she identifies an alternate form of sovereignty that moves away from the dominant discourse of de jure sovereignty, or ‘exclusive authority exercised over enclosed territory’ which assumptions of the ‘territorial trap’ are based (McConnell, 2010, p. 764). Rather, she points to the idea of de facto or ‘effective sovereignty’ or the ‘ability and capacity to exercise power, this is sovereignty released from purely legal definitions’ which allows greater scope for thinking about sovereignty simply in terms of the notion of the bounded territory (McConnell, 2010, p. 764).
Values attached to territory
Toft (1965) describes territory as both as ‘divisible, quantifiable object’ and an ‘indivisible and romantic subject’ (Toft, 1965, p. 1). This reflects the importance of territory physically and as a ‘placemaker’ upon which we bound and control space and provide the rules of ‘who or what may be in the place and how it may be used’ (Kolers, 2009, p. 69). Territory is considered more than merely land as it enforces the concept of ‘space’ into political categorising through processes of ownership, distribution, mapping, calculating,
16 bordering and controlling (Elden, 2010, p. 810). Murphy (2013) suggests that territory continues to ‘exert a powerful hold on the identities, ideologies, and geopolitical aspirations of peoples around the world’ (Murphy, 2013, p. 1213). Moreover, Kolers (2009) notes that ‘the territoriality of the state is important because it is partly constitutive of the identity of the citizens of that state’ (Kolers, 2009, p. 70). In other words, the citizens that make up the territory are responsible for attributing meaning and sentiment to a territory.
Human territoriality
It is evident from the literature that territories carry great significance, as essential to the making of the state and for the control and existence of the people within the state, or as the ‘object to which other attributes are assigned’ (Murphy, 2013, p. 1216). Diener and Hagen (2009) assert that the ‘compulsion to secure land’ or the ‘territorial temptation’ derives from the zero-sum nature of territory, suggesting that the division of the world’s land into sovereign states is bound to ensure any territorial gain granted to one state means a territorial loss for another (Diener and Hagen, 2009, p. 1201). Furthermore, territory carries cultural and historical significance for the people that inhabit it. Stilz (2011) notes that territory is central to the idea of a cultural nation and, therefore, should be reason enough to grant group rights over the territory (Stilz, 2011, p. 575). However, granting a minority nation the right to secede in order to advance their self-determination would pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the mother state (Sterio, 2012, p. 103).
Contextualising self-determination
A discussion of the importance of territory to states, and the people that make up states, is essential to understanding the origin of territorial rights and secessionist claims and for understanding Anderson’s (1983) concept of ‘imagined communities’ which provides meaning for the people who live on a piece of land. Moore (1998) identifies two distinct principles that are used to ‘justify the incorporation of territory by the group aspiring to be determining, and to deny the rights of other peoples living on the land to self-determination’ (Moore, 1998, p. 141). These principles are the ethnic principle and principles based on the shared history, traditions, ethics, or religion of the national community (Moore, 1998, p. 141). Borgen (2007) defines self-determination by ‘the right of a people of an existing state “to choose their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development”’ (Borgen, 2007, p. 483). Stronger notions of self-determination can be understood as ‘sovereignty or complete political autonomy’ (Buchanan, 1991, p. 47).
17 Furthermore, Navari (2014) considers the principles of (collective) self-determination, as read in international law, as ‘the vanguard of and a necessary requisite for the provision of individual human rights’ (Navari, 2014, p. 1306). This is why groups seeking self-determination are prepared to die rather than be removed from their homelands or be ruled by alien people (Anderson, 1996, p. 75). This is an expression of sovereignty being enacted through self-determination which can often lead to violence, over the desire for the legitimate control of the territory, by competing groups occupying the land.
Understanding borders
The importance of territory provides an understanding of why territorial disputes are so frequent and often violent. Border studies are used here as an extension of the categorisation of states and societies. The arbitrarily demarcated lines distinguish insiders from outsiders and act to enclose different communities, creating a tension that may contribute to ethnic and secessionist conflicts. Therefore, a brief overview of some scholars’ opinions on borders is necessary to show how the drawing of boundaries has affected the social relations and interactions of peoples within the territorial spaces of states. Murphy (2013) suggests that it is not possible to see the division of the earth in terms of ‘neat territorial spaces’ but is necessary to vision territory and its borders as interconnected and fluid (Murphy, 2013, p. 1224). Similarly, the idea of the territorial space has been regarded as a ‘continuously relevant form of social spatiality complementary to networked and fluid spaces’ (Murphy, 2013, p. 1214).
Scholars have argued that the issues lie at the borders, considered sites of ‘active contestation’ (Diener and Hagen, 2009, p. 1208), and their arbitrary nature (Sterio, 2012, p. 4). The international system is continuously dealing with conflicts of interest where state borders cut across the national, ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities (Diener and Hagen, 2009, p. 1203). De Villiers (2012) determines that borders are a construction of humans at a certain point in time so we cannot take them as absolute (de Villiers, 2012, p. 83). Moreover, Newman (2006) assures that it was the socially constructed superimposed borders dividing tribal and ethnic territories between more than one state or, including various ethnic groups in a single territory, that has led to ethnic strife across Africa and parts of Asia (Newman, 2006, p. 174). The problem in the case of secession, as discussed by Brilmayer (1991), is that groups seek to create a nation-state that would require that the original territorial boundaries be redrawn; however, this would violate the principle of
18 territorial integrity of the existing state (Brilmayer, 1991, p. 178). This is an expression of the contention between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination and the role existing borders play in inhibiting the claims from being achieved and preventing groups from exercising their desire for independence.
It remains difficult to question these demarcated boundaries when international law favours the status quo of international borders (Diener and Hagen, 2009, p. 1201). Scholars have considered an international legal system that puts less priority on states and makes it easier for secession to occur by redrawing boundaries, where necessary, to unite co-nationals (Borgen, 2007, p. 529). Where control over territorial borders and a population is seen as an essential precondition of being a state, it proves difficult for secession to occur without dispute. This is due to the nature of the right to secede as a rejection of ‘the state’s own conception of what its borders are’ (Buchanan, 1991, p. 327). El Ouali (2010) argues that ‘effective territoriality is not limited to the control of space as it does also extend to peoples’ (El Ouali, 2010, p. 89).
Understanding secession
Toft (2003) emphasises that a discussion of territory provides reasons for why actors may engage in violence, for example, looking at the relationship between territory, settlement patterns and homelands, we can gather an understanding of how ethnic groups legitimate their claims and mobilize populations (Toft, 2003, p. 10). Violence is a factor resulting from territorial dispute as ‘possession of land is the determinant of power’ (Elden, 2010, p. 806). The question of secession is a case where ‘the majority of people in an area want the boundaries of that area to be the boundaries of the state and a minority do not’ (Moore, 1998, p. 134). Secession is therefore, the actualisation of minority groups’ right to self-determination achieved through secession from a larger entity with the aim of creating their own nation-state. Secessionist claims actively ‘seek to alter the political status of the territory’ (Kolers, 2009, p. 161). Thereby, calling into question existing geographical boundaries and the traditional assumption of the state as a container of society. Territory is largely compartmentalized and space is drawn up in terms of actual states and states-in-making (Borgen, 2007, p. 479-480) which gives rise to the goal of secessionist movements to gain international recognition of the states they seek to create (Brilmayer, 1991, p. 177).
19 Theories of secession
Buchanan has developed two normative theories of secession that come under the headings: Remedial Right Only Theories and Primary Right Theories (Buchanan, 1997, p. 34). He emphasises that ‘moral theorizing about secession’ can make a significant contribution for international legal reform if it exists in consort with elements of existing law (Buchanan, 1997, p. 32). Borgen (2007) suggests that the nature of secession is a ‘serious undertaking’ so, to avoid the general breakdown of the state system, it must be a last resort (Borgen, 2009, p. 506). Hence, there is scepticism in international law in deciding the legal legitimacy of secession and recognising the newly formed state.
The remedial right only theory dictates that the general right of secession is possible when ‘(a) the physical survival of its members is threatened by actions of the state, (b) the group has suffered irreparable injustices, (c) the state has seriously violated human rights, (d) when the state engages in uncontroversial discriminatory policies towards the minorities, or (e) if the territory in question has been taken unjustly, in which case secession is simply taking back what was unjustly taken’ (Chandhoke, 2010, p. 8). The remedial right to secession dictates that secession, in the exceptional case, is a last resort. Furthermore, there would be strong conditions for the protection of people in the seceding territory who may have disagreed with secession and may be in a minority position in the new territory (Wolff and Rodt, 2013, p. 817). This theory determines a more restricted right to secede that, arguably, is less threatening to the territory of existing states and is thus more likely to be adopted into international law (Buchanan, 1997, p. 45.). However, ‘doubts remain as to whether the right to self-determination can be used to legally contravene the territorial integrity norm’ (van der Linden, 2009, p. 3).
Conversely, the primary right theory states that ‘a group can have a (general) right to secede even if it suffers no injustices, and hence it may have a (general) right to secede from a perfectly just state’ (Buchanan, 1997, p. 40). By denying this general right to secession the state would be disregarding the wishes of the separatist group which, in turn, would violate the principle of popular sovereignty (Brilmayer, 1991, p. 185). However, Borgen (2007) claims that it is ‘exceedingly rare’ that the international community would grant secession without a justifiable reason such as ‘serious violations of human rights’ (Borgen, 2007, p. 492). Providing this general right to secession would pose the danger of allowing any groups to secede from the polity creating ‘instability and insecurity’ (Anderson, 1996, p. 41).
20 Moreover, this theory of secession explicitly counters the principle of territorial integrity and does not place high value on the state system (Buchanan, 1997, p. 51). Chandhoke (2010) argues that after 1989 a stark increase in secessionist movements across the world has pushed for political philosophers to develop a solution through the construction of theories as a guideline for whether and in which circumstances secession is justified (Chandhoke, 2010, p. 6).
21
Chapter 4: Explaining Self-Determination Against the Theory of States as
Containers of Society
Sub-question
How can states contain societies when the nations or ethnicities that make up that state are incompatible?
Introduction
Secessions, defined as ‘unilateral acts intended to carve out a state of one’s own out of an existing state, and out of populations, which, till then, have been citizens of an existing state’ (Chandhoke, 2010, p. 1). Or, considered ‘merely an attempt to diminish the territorial scope of one state’s authority and replace it by the authority of another state’ (Buchanan, 1995, p. 54). This chapter will propose a discussion of the principle of self-determination as the primary motive for groups to exercise sovereignty and legitimately claim a right to govern themselves, often involving secession from the mother state. It will look at how the principle of self-determination has developed in international law and the disputes that follow it, for example, a demand for the borders of territorial states to be adjusted to suit the will of its peoples to govern themselves.
The primary theory that will provide the platform for this discussion will be the assumption in Agnew’s (1994) ‘territorial trap’ that states exist as bounded units of space and as a container of society. The chapter will compete with this viewpoint by suggesting that the examples of self-determination claims exercised, have shown to counter this assumption in attempting to answer the chapter sub-question posed above. Different nations that exist within a state may struggle to coexist due to their differing ways of life or to hostilities created by their differences. This may lead to aggression of one group towards another and the incapability to coexist peacefully on a shared piece of territory. Self-determination grants a certain amount of autonomy to groups. This chapter will investigate how this autonomy is exercised and to what extent this goes against the idea of the state as a container of society as groups can no longer coexist which leads to competing territorial claims within the state. An understanding of the need for self-determination to be defined in international law provides the basis of the contestation that states contain all societies; in fact, the reality is that the arbitrarily drawn borders do not encompass homogenous and stable societies. Hence,
self-22 determination claims have succeeded in granting independence to minority groups and in the formation of new states.
Examining self-determination, international law and the practical implications of these
The 1945 United Nations Charter is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization governing the behaviour of states in the international community. It is considered ‘to have given expression to the doctrine of self-determination’ according to a report on the international law perspective of Kosovo for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Office of Information and Press (Kumbaro, 2001, p. 9). The Charter lays out the principle of self-determination in Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, Article 1, defining it in the second principle of the purposes of the United Nations ‘To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace’ (Charter of the United Nations, 1945). This definition emphasises the primacy of the principle of self-determination in international law due to its mention in the first article of this treaty. It considers that a respect for this principle by all nations will ensure ‘friendly relations among nations’ and will contribute to ‘universal peace’. In this respect, self-determination is highly regarded as promoting a stable international community and a disregard of this principle is likely to have dramatic effects.
The principle of self-determination is cited in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 (The United Nations, 1960). This further emphasises the need for ‘stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations’ through the observance and respect of equal rights and ‘self-determination of all peoples’ (The United Nations, 1960). Declaring that ‘All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’ (The United Nations, 1960). The principle is outlined in this document in consort with human rights and the subjugation of peoples in the colonial context. Hurst Hannum (1993), a prominent Professor of International Law, provides an extensive outline of how the principle of self-determination has developed in international law noting that this reading of international law ‘under the moral and political imperatives of decolonization’ translates the ambiguous ‘principle’ of self-determination into the ‘right’ to self-determination (Hannum, 1993, p. 12). The extent to which this declaration can be
23 provided to peoples outside of a colonial context is disputed, but it still provides a useful document representing the evolution of the concept of self-determination as read in international law.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1966 proposes a definition of self-determination in line with human rights. Described as ‘the most definitive legally binding statement of the contemporary right of self-determination’ and ratified by over 110 countries (Hannum, 1993, p. 18). Article 1 declares the following two statements:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations
(United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1976).
The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States 1970 (Friendly Relations Declaration) defines self-determination in the following statement:
all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter (United Nations General Assembly, 1970).
There is recognition in these legal citations, and in ongoing state practice, that the right to self-determination has become ‘jus cogens, a customary norm of international law’ (Harris, 1999). Hannum (1993) suggests that ‘no contemporary norm of international law has been so vigorously promoted or widely accepted’, yet he states that an understanding of this right ‘remains as vague and imprecise as when it was enunciated by President Woodrow Wilson and others at Versailles’ (Hannum, 1993, p. 2). Anderson (1996) expresses the complexity of the principle of self-determination as it assumes that the people should decide but, the decision is only determined until someone decides who the people are (Anderson, 1996, p. 40). Gudeleviciute (2005) suggests that the term the ‘people’ relates to ‘non-self-governing territories’ and so, must ‘refer to the entire population of that territory’ (Gudeleviciute, 2005, p. 57). The principle is strongly linked with the protection of human
24 rights and the rights of individuals, ‘the principle of (collective) self-determination is in the vanguard of and a necessary requisite for the provision of individual human rights’ (Navari, 2014, p. 1306). As such, it is considered ‘freedom from one important kind of domination by others’ (Buchanan, 1991, p. 46). Or, as Sterio (2012) emphasises, that ‘We must reinstate the human rights component of self-determination, and reinstate the belief that the state exists for the benefit of people, rather than the reverse’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 107).
This principle is inherently concerned with the people: ‘effective territoriality is not limited to the control of space as it does also extend to peoples’ (El Ouali, 2010, p. 89). Hannum (1998) observes that it is necessary ‘to reject the notions that every ethnically or culturally distinct people, nation, or group has an automatic right to its own state’ (Hannum, 1998, p. 16) as ‘no group can claim exclusive control over a territory forever’ (Hannum, 1998, p. 17). However, a territory is ‘central to the identity of a cultural nation’ and the group sentiment towards this territory considering it a ‘homeland’ is arguably, reason enough to grant the group rights over the territory (Stilz, 2011, p. 575). Moreover, there are various factors contributing to this sentiment which all derive from the idea of the ‘power of place’ (O' Loughlin and Tuathail, 2009, p. 612).
External self-determination
Self-determination is a right or set of rights given to a defined group of people, or minority group, which may consist of ‘simply political and representative rights within a central State, on the one hand, or may amount to remedial secession and ultimately independence on the other hand’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 6). As observed in the legal documentation, self-determination is largely considered a right of colonial entities. Chandhoke (2010) suggests that once freedom from colonial domination was achieved by ‘virtue of the principle self-determination’, no other forms of separation of the state were to be tolerated (Chandhoke, 2010, p. 2). Moreover, there has been much debate as to whether the legal right of external self-determination goes beyond the colonial context (Wilde, 2011, p. 152). James Crawford, a well credited legal scholar in the discussion of secession and self-determination, cites in a Report to the Government of Canada concerning unilateral secession by Quebec:
Self-determination outside the colonial context is primarily a process by which the peoples of the various states determine their future through constitutional processes without external interference. Faced with an expressed desire of part of its people to secede, it is for the government of the state to decide how to respond, for example by insisting that any change be carried out in accordance with
25
constitutional processes. In fact no new state formed since 1945 outside the colonial context has been admitted to the United Nations over the opposition of the predecessor state (Crawford, 1997).
This statement refers to the necessary application of domestic and constitutional law within the mother state. However, an important point is that when the people ‘blocked from the meaningful internal exercise of its right to self-determination are entitled, as a last resort, to exercise the right via external self-determination, or secession’ (Kumbaro, 2001, p. 29).
Moving beyond the colonial context, self-determination has been categorised as both political and representative rights within a central state, ‘internal self-determination’ or remedial secession, and independence or ‘external self-determination’ (Sterio, 2012, p. 109), a right which is exercised only in ‘extreme cases and under carefully defined circumstances’ (Kumbaro, 2001, p. 24). The focus for this thesis will be on external self-determination and the ‘impact of the practical application of the self-determination principle’ in upholding the assumption that ‘control over discrete, sovereign territories is the key to self-determination’ (Murphy, 2013, p. 1220). Wolff and Rodt (2013) cite that external self-determination is regarded as the exception rather than the rule (Wolff and Rodt, 2013, p. 806). The principle is thought to be inherently violent and considered a ‘dangerous dogma’ due to its exclusionary nature and the false perception that smaller homogenous states will create better democracies (Polat, 1998, p. 222). Whereas, Chapman and Roeder’s (2007) study on Partition as a Solution to Wars of Nationalism assumes that ‘peace would be more secure and democracy would be more likely to flourish if we partitioned those countries rather than attempted to keep them whole’ (Chapman and Roeder, 2007, p. 677).
Buchanan (1991) suggests that self-determination, understood as ‘sovereignty or complete political autonomy’, would equate to secession for all groups within a state consisting of more than one group with a share in governing (Buchanan, 1991, p. 47). The principle of self-determination is considered a right of all peoples that make up the territory of the state. The principle is linked with the sovereignty of the state that is held by all individuals thus, a state’s territorial integrity must ‘only be respected so long as the state protects the basic rights of its people’ (Diener and Hagen, 2009, p. 1204). Moreover, the state is granted legitimacy upon the protection of the rights of its peoples and denying this would remove its legitimate claim to territorial rights and the principle of territorial integrity (Stilz, 2011, p. 588). Buchanan (1995) advocates that secession is conservative as it does not challenge the dominant conception of the nature of sovereignty but ‘merely seeks to replicate
26 sovereignty without questioning it’ (Buchanan, 1995, p. 54). The state has a duty to uphold the rights of its citizens to be able to claim the legitimacy to govern them. The primary right only theory might exceed the conservative nature of sovereignty, as it may cause the disruption of all states with more than one ethnic group. However, the remedial right only theory is more compatible with the belief that a state must protect the basic rights of its peoples, as it suggests that external self-determination can be achieved when ‘the physical survival of its members is threatened by actions of the state’, amongst other factors.
Analysing the cases: Kosovo
Wolff and Rodt (2013) suggest that Kosovo’s independence outside of the decolonisation context remains ‘a highly controversial, deeply divisive issue in the theory as well as the practice of contemporary international law and international relations as they relate to the notion of self-determination’ (Wolff and Rodt, 2013, p. 815). This belief is common among scholars, which makes Kosovo an important case for this investigation as a means of highlighting the complexities of the principle of self-determination and the contestations with the exercise of the principle as a right of external self-determination. Hilpold (2009) identifies the position of Kosovo following the dissolution of Yugoslavia:
As it is known, within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo has never been constituted as a Republic, but only as an autonomous territory and, starting with the year 1974, as an autonomous province. There was a clear purpose behind this choice: no legal basis for a demand for self-determination (accorded by the Jugoslav constitution to the single republics) should be created
(Hilpold, 2009, p. 48).
The Kosovo case is situated in a complex context culminating with the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in the 1990s, a large multi-ethnic state, into smaller states over a period of time. Kosovo, an autonomous province under the SFRY, had almost the ‘same degree as the constituent republics of the SFRY, albeit lacking the constitutional right to secede from the SFRY’ (Amnesty International, 1998, p. 4). However, the autonomy provided to Kosovo was revoked under the Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević and the Serbian authorities since 1989 in attempting ‘to ‘Serbianize’ Kosovo, and to reverse the process of ‘Albanization’ of Kosovo’s society after 1974’, according to a report made for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Office of Information and Press regarding the situation in Kosovo (Kumbaro, 2001, p. 42).
27 The actions of Milošević and the Serbian regime are crucial to an understanding of the repression of the ethnic Albanians, which make up ninety per cent of the Kosovo province alongside just ten per cent of Serbs as the map below indicates (OSCE, US Institute of Peace, cited in Vallely, 2008).
This map, taken from the OSCE, Peace Report and found on The Independent online, suggests that the makeup of Kosovo as predominantly Albanian shows that the ethnic Albanians were a significant part of the territory and were considered a people with a right to the territory and to self-determination. The treatment of Kosovo Albanians by the Serbian authorities provides a background of why self-determination claims were expressed and the situation was resolved with international invention by NATO (Kumbaro, 2001, p. 41)
The territory and people that occupied Kosovo were considered a crucial part of the Serbian state, as Milošević referenced in a resounding speech made at Kosovo Polje to the Kosovo Serbs in April 1987. He promotes a sense of ‘brotherhood and unity’, a phrase mentioned six times in the speech, in trying to overcome the ‘weightiest problem’ of Kosovo, also considered a ‘political crisis’ (Milošević, Translated by: Skorick, 1987). Moreover, he
28 leads the people to believe that Albanians are not a minority in Yugoslavia but are among various other nationalities that live together under ‘equal rights with other nations’, a statement that loses meaning when observing the human rights abuses that occurred against Kosovo Albanians in the 1990s (Milošević, Translated by: Skorick, 1987). He warns that the Albanians would become isolated if they tried to pursue an ‘ethnically pure, economically and politically autonomous, untethered Kosovo’ as he suggests they are an ‘underdeveloped people’ and the overall feeling of the speech is resonated in the final statement: ‘Yugoslavia and Serbia will never give up Kosovo!’ (Milošević, Translated by: Skorick, 1987). This speech is significant in the investigation of the position of Kosovo Albanians in their plight for external self-determination and the independence of Kosovo.
A Select Committee of the British Government produced a report on the Kosovo crisis after May 1997 which suggested that ‘something must be done’ regarding Milošević’s actions against the Kosovo Albanians, after having placed sanctions on Serbia following the ‘atrocities’ against the Kosovo Albanians (Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report, 2000). However, the report suggests that the sanctions ‘brought about no reduction in action against the Kosovo Albanians’ and notes Milošević’s lack of ‘concern for his people and his country’, which ensured that the international efforts at peacemaking in Kosovo were more difficult than expected (Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report, 2000). The Kosovo Albanians suffered hugely under the Serbian leadership and, according to an extensive human rights report produced by the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission from October 1998 to June 1999:
The mass killing at Racak/Recak (Stimlje/Shtime municipality) on 15 January 1999 was an event both definitive in terms of establishing international recognition that human rights violations were at the core of the Kosovo conflict, and (together with two other incidents later that month in Djakovica/Gjakova municipality, at Rogovo/Rogove and Rakovina/Rakovine) indicative of what was to follow in the period from late March (OSCE, 2003).
Another notable situation in which the security of the Kosovo Albanians was circumscribed was the Serbian ‘Operation Horseshoe’, a plan by the Serb military and police to attack the KLA and civilians from three sides in attempting to destroy the KLA’s bases and force civilians out of the area (Beaumont and Wintour, 1999). A news article from The Guardian online reporting on ‘Milosevic and Operation Horseshoe’ cites it as the ‘unfolding of the most appalling humanitarian disaster in Europe in half a century’ (Beaumont and Wintour, 1999). The plan was revealed by the Bulgarian government in a documentary on
29 ‘Operation Horseshoe’ by the private Bulgarian channel bTV, which notes its two goals to destroy the KLA and to ‘cleanse’ Kosovo of ethnic Albanians (novinite.com: Sofia News Agency, 2012). The secrecy and downplay of this operation was a result of the disputed NATO intervention and its justification to instigate the bombing campaign on Serbia as a result of this supposed ‘ethnic cleansing campaign’. A blog on the World Socialist Website states that the ‘alleged existence of plans for an “Operation Horseshoe” was a critical element of NATO’s war propaganda’, suggesting that the media consistently treated this propaganda as fact and that the plan ‘hardly amounts to a plan of systematic “ethnic cleansing”’ (Schwarz, 1999). This source is limited in its content and credibility as a blog but gives an idea of some of the feeling toward NATO’s intervention and the competing motivations regarding the situation.
Analysing the cases: Scotland
Scotland is a country in itself but is joined with England, with whom it shares a border. Together with Wales and Northern Ireland they make up the UK. Scotland and England have had a long and turbulent history since the Scottish-English Union of 1707, the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain by the Acts of Union and devolution in 1999, providing Scotland with greater self-government. The Acts of Union brought together the parliaments of Scotland and England to form a single Parliament of Great Britain at Westminster and, according to the Scotland analysis on devolution and independence by the UK government, ‘marked the beginning of a single multi-national state, which has become one of the most successful partnerships of nations in history’ (HM Government, 2013, p. 16). An Opinio Juris blog states that ‘we have seen unfold in Scotland a distinctly modern form of self-determination colors this entire exercise’ (Scheffer, 2014). Scotland carries with it its own sense of uniqueness in cases of secession as it is regarded that ‘Nowhere else are the facts even similar regarding this remarkably peaceful and progressively building process of devolution leading to the renewed independence of a once sovereign nation’ (Scheffer, 2014). Scotland has the advantage of self-government and is in a position to push for further powers to the devolved government at Holyrood, whereas the Kosovo Albanians experienced a gradual loss of autonomy.
The context of Scottish secession largely differs from Kosovo, for example, its lack of ethnic in-fighting or the repression of internal self-determination of the Scottish people by the UK. However, the right to self-determination is still relevant and must be respected
