The Strategic Use of Legitimizing Norms in Unilateral Declarations of Independence

Does the Russian war in Ukraine presage a change in the rules of the game for secessionisms around the globe? In this article, we explore how the Russian war in Ukraine and the contested international order from which it emerges can affect state contestation and secessionist movements through changing opportunities in the international order. International recognition plays a crucial role in state creation. The Great Powers of a given historical moment have the capacity to raise sovereignty expectations since having “friends in high places” has been essential to obtaining statehood, alongside de facto control of the territory. However, the liberal international order in place since 1945 has given way to a more contested landscape that opens new opportunities for different recognition patterns, which change how secessionists evaluate their optimal strategy for state contestation. The effects have already been notable in conflicts such as Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo, and many other territorial disputes, even “frozen conflicts” over the globe, from Western Sahara to Taiwan. We explore how Russia has created and exploited secessionist claims in eastern Ukraine to justify military aims in the Russian war in Ukraine. Based on a detailed review of the evolution of these claims, we draw different scenarios on the potential effects of a changing world order on state contestation. Our research suggests that the theoretical understanding of secession and secessionists’ optimal strategies need to be reviewed, taking into account the changing contested international order.

An Inflection Point or Business as Usual? Secessionism as State Contestation in Ukraine

Sanjaume-Calvet,

Daniels

2024

Contested Statehood in a Contested International Order: Furthering a Research Agenda

Knotter

2024

This article serves as the introduction to this Special Forum on Contested Statehood in a Contested International Order. The articles in this Special Forum (SF) are premised on the argument that the persistent ontological and epistemological contestations over the nature of such state-like polities are strongly intertwined with recent ontological and epistemological contestations of the broader international order. To introduce such an intellectual project, this paper sets out the themes that inform this SF’s analyses of the relationships between international order and contested states. I first pay heed to the manner in which existing scholarship has already studied the embeddedness of state contestation in their broader international environment. Subsequently, this paper acknowledges that the study of international order itself is becoming a rather saturated field of research, and it therefore refrains from adding too many thoughts about the nature, virtues, and vices of (the transformation of) international order per se. Instead, this paper’s final section will outline three broad “themes of contestation” that intersect between scholarship of contested statehood and international order and that broadly underpin the research contributions to this SF. These three themes revolve around violent and/or peaceful modes of international ordering, inclusive and/or exclusive modes of international ordering, and particularistic and/or universalistic modes of international ordering.

International Society and Its Many Contestations: A Study of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

Kyris,

Brisland

2024

International society debates help us theorize how states or non-state actors matter for the organization of international relations but pay less attention to actors that transcend the state/non-state binary, and especially how contested states that lack recognition and are excluded from international society have engaged with its norms and institutions, particularly in a collective fashion. In order to explore this, we focus on the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), which has been seen as showing a tension between mimicry of the international system and opening new directions and we explore how has the UNPO engaged with international society norms on statehood and to what extent its structures mirror those of other international organizations. We compare the UNPO to other organizations, and we analyze a set of original data, and we find that the UNPO resembles organizations of international society, but it is also a space where international norms are not altogether rejected but “re-imagined,” for example, in ways that seek to strengthen the credentials of contested states. Simultaneously, the purpose of UNPO membership for contested states is to eventually cease to exist, when they join international society, which testifies to the legitimacy that UNPO gives to international society. Thus, our study cross-fertilizes the themes of contested statehood, international society, and the UNPO to offer a missing account of the collective agency of contested states in engaging with international society, which also contributes to debates on international relations from apparently marginal actors.