We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination

Abulof, Uriel

doi:10.1177/1354066115595096

Cited by 23 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 85 publications

(86 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diachronically tracing political concepts (Palonen, 2002) can benefit from a quantitative analysis via corpus linguistics. A recent such study demonstrates a high correlation between the talk and text on self-determination and the establishment of new states, with discourse variation typically preceding trends in state-formation, indicating an overall, albeit fluctuated, decline since the early 1960s (Abulof, 2016). An update including recent years indicates a divergence (Figure 1), discussed at the conclusion.…”

Section: Theory: the Speech-act Of Political Hopementioning

confidence: 99%

Taming self-determination: The trials of a political speech-act

Abulof

2019

International Political Science Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The right of peoples to self-determination lies at the heart of the modern quest for statehood. This century-old principle warrants a world of true nation-states, where national boundaries make state borders, not the other way around. I argue, however, that the concept of ‘self-determination’ has been effectively (ab)used to foil, rather than foster, its original goal, and explain why and how this paradox transpired. In theory, self-determination is a potent ‘speech-act’: by uttering, en masse, their demand for self-determination, people(s) can change their politics, even create new states. In practice, however, powerful actors have tried to tame self-determination – by appropriating this right from the peoples, and delimiting its applicability to oppressed, non-ethnic communities and to substate solutions. In the tradition of conceptual history, this paper traces the dialectal process through which ‘self-determination’ evolved, from its Enlightenment inception, through its communist politicization, to its liberal universalization and its current predicament.

show abstract

Section: Theory: the Speech-act Of Political Hopementioning

confidence: 99%

Taming self-determination: The trials of a political speech-act

Abulof

2019

International Political Science Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Roepstorff 2012). However, the realisation of the ambiguities and limits of the right to self-determination discussed above also explains the ostensible decline of its political appeal (Abulof 2016), and even its relative displacement by other notions, such as the ‘right to decide’, first proposed by Basque and Catalan nationalists in the past decade (cf. Beck 2013; Gillespie 2015).…”

Section: The Right To Self-determination and The Politics Of Norms Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond self-determination: norms contestation, constituent diplomacies and the co-production of sovereignty

Cornago

2017

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The idea of a perfect national political community, entirely confined within the contours of a corresponding state, is one of the foundational fictions of global modernity. Its formal crystallisation in the legal grammars of the right to self-determination has been however, particularly in the post-colonial era, highly problematic and full of ambiguities. Drawing on this background, this article contends that diplomacy offers frequently a more promising venue for dealing with the challenge of political pluralism than appealing to either the unstable grammars of the right to self-determination or a reified understanding of the principle of territorial integrity of states. In so doing, firstly, the right to self-determination is critically examined. Instead of attempting to articulate its formal content, the malleability of its legal grammars and political realities, will be emphasised. Secondly, based on the discussion of a variety of historical cases, the notion of ‘constituent diplomacies’ will be advanced, aiming to show how the agonistic accommodation of political and territorial pluralism through diplomacy was crucial not only in the formative processes of modern sovereign states but also nowadays. Finally, this relational understanding of the historical forms of governance of political pluralism within and beyond state boundaries will be re-examined, beyond its ethno-political dimensions, through the prism of the complex interplay between the material and ideational conditions for the co-production of sovereignty in the context of new global capitalism.

show abstract

“…Realist arguments suggest that neither side to a territorial boundary dispute has much to gain from prolonged stalemate (Simmons, 2005: 827). Predictability in the international territorial order is also desirable from the perspective of neighbouring states (Zacher, 2001: 234–235), and in any case international law has been moving in the direction of stressing the legitimacy of existing territorial borders (Abulof, 2016; Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). It seems likely that the British–Irish relationship has not been immune from this pressure to settle, a pressure that would have been all the more immediate and explicit after the two states became fellow-members of what would become the European Union (EU) in 1973 (Hayward, 2006, 2009; McCall, 2011, 2014; Tannam, 2007a).…”

Section: Legitimising Disputed Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving international border disputes: The Irish experience

Coakley¹

2017

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on international border disputes has in recent years focused increasingly on the role played by norm transition in promoting or facilitating new political compromises. This article explores the value of a specific model of norm replacement in accounting for the circumstances leading to Ireland's Good Friday agreement in 1998, which formally and finally settled the long-running territorial dispute between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Drawing on the theoretical literature, it identifies three phases in this process. First, from the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 until the civil unrest in Northern Ireland peaked in 1972 the irredentist norm was substantially unchallenged. It was embedded in the 1937 constitution, which defined the national territory as extending over the whole island of Ireland-including Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. The second phase, from about 1972 to 1998, was one of norm competition. The irredentist norm was severely challenged by new political realities in Northern Ireland, and was potentially destabilising for the state itself. It was increasingly challenged by an alternative 'consent' norm, one embracing in effect the geopolitical status quo. The third phase, from 1998 onwards, was one of consolidation of the new norm, now written into the Irish constitution to replace the wording of 1937. The article suggests that this model plays a valuable role in accounting for the changing status of the Irish border, but also that the Irish experience has implications for the broad shape of the model.

show abstract

We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination

Cited by 23 publications

References 85 publications

Taming self-determination: The trials of a political speech-act

Taming self-determination: The trials of a political speech-act

Beyond self-determination: norms contestation, constituent diplomacies and the co-production of sovereignty

Resolving international border disputes: The Irish experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About