Skip to main content

The Dark Side of Self-Determination

National self-determination, the rallying cry of post-Habsburg Europe and post-colonial Africa, has turned out to be an ambiguous moral principle. Today, with less than 10% of the world’s states being homogeneous, treating self-determination as a primary moral principle could have disastrous consequences in many regions.

CAMBRIDGE – National self-determination seems a straightforward moral principle, but it is fraught with problems. After Russia sent troops into Georgia in August 2008, it recognized the independence of two breakaway Georgian provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. When few other states followed its example, Russia pointed out that the NATO countries had used force to help Kosovo separate from Serbia.

Self-determination is generally defined as the right of a people to form its own state. This is an important principle, but who is the self that is to do the determining?

Consider Somalia back in the 1960’s.  Africans used the principle of self-determination to end colonial rule. Unlike many other African states, Somalis had roughly the same linguistic and ethnic background. In contrast, neighboring Kenya was formed by colonial rule from dozens of different peoples or tribes, with different linguistic backgrounds and customs. Part of northern Kenya was inhabited by Somalis.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Subscribe

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

https://prosyn.org/FkzQ2Sk;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.