What is Self-Determination?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

This is a video I have wanted to make for ages. Self-determination is a concept we hear a lot about. But it is far less straightforward than many imagine. But is it time for a rethink? Let me know in the comments below. (By the way, I plan to slowly roll out two videos a week. The Friday ones will remain the familiar deep dives on a world issue. These other ones - either on Tuesdays or Wednesdays - will be more diverse, including Q&A videos, series, and maybe even interviews. Let me know what you think.)

[@dfl2384]

@JamesKerLindsay Dear professor, many thanks for the video. As a Gibraltarian, I found it very interesting. How do you see Gibraltar's aspirations for self-determination balanced against Spain's view on territorial integrity? Two competing views, but perhaps both are valid? Many thanks for your time. Dominic

[@Gulitize]

Considering that the map on the map on the thumbnail is missing both Kosovo and Montenegro the video must have been in the works for a very long time

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

@@dfl2384 The Gibraltar issue I understand that it is related to the independence of Catalonia (Treaty of Utrecht 1713) and to the concept of the Kingdom of Spain as a modern state based (or not) on the rule of law. The incorporation of Gibraltar into Spain would imply the resignation of the governorship over Catalonia if a new treaty is not made before. I would like to be able to share my analysis but KZbin does not offer the necessary agility to contrast it and lately I only use Twitter for these topics. As far as I can I remain at your disposal.

[@reddixiecrat]

I didn’t find this video helpful, because you didn’t mention how this applied to Yugoslavia and Kosovo. This set a precedent that Russia often uses to justify self determination in Ukraine.

[@tkm238-d4r]

Good day Prof. With so much argument over Kosovo and in some cases Taiwan, perhaps the Global South's relatively soft attitude towards Russia is really just about 1 thing. They want the West to lose in Ukraine. The reasoning is that should the West lose in Ukraine, much of the self-determination, human rights and democracy talk in the West is likely to vanish. The Baltic nationalists, who have never given much thought to the Global South, are starting to realize this and are beginning to panic a little bit.

[@wildbestia]

International Law: If you are strong and can win the war you have the right to have your own country. If you are weak and can't win the war then it's "territorial integrity".

[@FilipPetrovic999]

But what if you are weak, but other empires support you, and win war for you?

[@ryandaverayla4910]

​@@FilipPetrovic999protectorate or puppet state

[@Tomislavr7]

Yeah, in the end, it's all about power. Laws are a thing only because people/countries agree to give them power, too.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

Not really, it is more timing and if the other country accepts it. Somali land for example have done all u said but isn't recognized.

[@LudihemicarBg]

@@wildbestia Or if you can get the stron player to win it for you

[@joeletaxi7956]

Occupied Western Sahara by Morocco is the sad example of unfinished decolonisation by Self Determination despite the 1991 peace accords signed by Morocco and Polisario Front Morocco is supported in its occupation endeavour by Israel, US and France…

[@9delta988]

My heart goes out to them.

[@PeterJordansonn]

Western Sahara is as much Moroccan as Texas is American.

[@joeletaxi7956]

​@@PeterJordansonn Attending course with Prof Ker-Lindsay on international law or even listening this video would avoid you writing non sense... PS: Texas is indeed part of the USA!

[@quzunarqozi5171]

Greetings from the outlawed Kurds, dreaming about independence…

[@zombiekilldemon]

Hola! From the American colony of Puerto Rico, also dreaming of independence with you.

[@Brandon12-M]

Silav hêval

[@quzunarqozi5171]

@@Brandon12-MSlav û rêz keko

[@quzunarqozi5171]

@@zombiekilldemonHola hermano!

[@TheShacharZiv]

Greetings from Israel, dreaming of independence to Palestinians.

[@electricVGC]

Thanks for putting this together professor. Once its been released to regular viewers, I'll share it around to a few people. It is good to have precise and well put-together summaries of important international relations issues.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. It’s such an important concept and yet so misunderstood. I can’t tell you how often I see comments under videos saying “but they have a right to self-determination”. Yes, but not in the way people might think.

[@electricVGC]

@@JamesKerLindsay I think in future, it may be helpful to present settled historical examples to illustrate how it applies in practice.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@ Thanks so much. You hit on a really important point. I try to avoid giving examples for a couple of reasons. The teacher in me wants viewers to think about cases that might apply to them. If you give examples, people will often focus on those and won’t necessarily think about other cases. The other problem is that it often then focuses the debate on those examples. This can detract from the broader message. You might notice that in my regular Friday videos when I introduce a concept, I very rarely refer to other cases. This is why.

[@electricVGC]

@JamesKerLindsay while I think that makes sense for IPR your contextual videos, which I'd compare to a more second or third grade university level, I think this series might work better as a 101 - perhaps at least pointing to other videos you've made that engages with the topic. Giving examples expands accessibility at some cost to depth of engagement, but I think these videos may serve better on the accessibility side. Just food for thought.

[@Arshahan]

Interestingly, while mentioning Woodrow Wilson, one could argue that the first concept of Remedial Secession (that is the right of a nation to secede and exercise its right for external self-determination from a State that has denied internal self-determination to that nation and has pursued policies amounting to genocide or ethnic cleansing against that nation; a right which was applied for Kosovans against Serbia) was applied with the US President Woodrow Wilson's Arbitral Award on the Delimitation of the borders between Armenia and Turkey in 1920, whereas the Armenian nation, victim of genocide under the Turks, gains independence from the Turkish State (that is the Ottomans) to establish their own State in their homeland to guarantee the viability and safety of the Armenian nation. Woodrow Wilson had calculated that under the given borders, Armenians would've constituted 40-45% of the population with 25% Turkish, 25% Kurdish and 5-10% made of other minorities and an Autonomous Status for the Pontian Greeks in the Trabizond region, since they were also subject to persecution under the Turks, but were far from Greece. The Turks, Kurds and other minorities were to have their own constitutional rights, but was also assumed they would've left for Turkey or Kurdistan. Armenia was to gain access to the Sea through Trabizond in exchange of abandoning the region of Kharpert (Elazig and Tunceli today) to the planned Kurdish State.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I plan to return to remedial secession in another video. It is a fascinating topic.

[@ivancertic5197]

Nowdays Serbs are almost ethnically cleansed from Kosovo (from 20% to 1% of population). Who's the real victim here?

[@19Szabolcs91]

Before watching the video: the right to self-determination is just a nice coat of paint over might makes right. The powerful, their allies, and the winners of wars are granted that and it’s justified after the fact.

[@nikolabolesnik]

Exactly what I came away with as well.

[@54032Zepol]

Yeup that's right! A lot of people have forgotten that in wars there are losers and winners and the losers don't get to dictate which lands they get to live on let alone what borders are drawn where.

[@DiMacky24]

Was going to make this comment myself. There is no such thing as "international law". The mighty make the rules, and when powers shift, those rules shift.

[@pwp8737]

true, but it's the little white lies we tell ourselves that makes life bearable for many.

[@pwp8737]

@@54032Zepol somebody please tell the arabs that in Gaza and the West Bank, I don't think they have realized that they are not the victors.

[@douglassun8456]

The Professor reminds me of one of the key takeaways that I got from Margaret McMillan's book on the Versailles Treaty. It sounds like Wilson really threw a spanner into the works because he didn't take into account how "self-determination" would play out in the complicated ethnic and linguistic mosaic of Europe. It could have very different practical effects depending on which level of government you're talking about. A group could be a majority at the local level, but a distinct minority at the county level and so on up through provinces to the nation as a whole. And let's not forget that in his memoirs, General Heinz Guderian used Wilsonian self-determination to justify the annexation of the Sudetenland. Hoo boy!

[@Barsoncars]

Turkey is occupier in Kurdistan and Kurds must be independent and free! ☀️🔥🕊️

[@54032Zepol]

Yeup alot of people have forgotten that the Arabs and Turks are the original colonizers

[@TurkishCulture-ce9di]

@@54032Zepol Very true, except that people misunderstand the demographics of Modern Turkey, Anatolian Turks are not the same Turkic colonisers that claimed Anatolia, but the population is in fact largely Native Anatolians that are Islamised. With a small population of Oghuz (Original Colonisers) and others. The Population has some Turkic mix, but in contrast to peoples wild imaginations, Anatolian Turks are actually far more Native and legitimate to Anatolia then Greeks even are… Tell me why there are barely no Turkic Asiatic features and in fact far more Mediterranean features that would be exclusive to a Mediterranean environment?

[@excentrik5725]

The Kurds just need USA to back them up and they will have an independence, they just need to be ready to fight bloody wars, though

[@hulu2025]

Against the strong armies of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. US is only there to get oil.

[@gregcampwriter]

There's a good deal of "we got ours, and you're too late" going on in contemporary interpretation.

[@billyosullivan3192]

Wilson's 14 points were far more moderate than people think. It didn't call for independence but only for autonomous self development, which German minorities in Danzig, South Tyrol etc did have.

[@pwp8737]

Have you read up on how the Italians treated the ethnic Germans in South Tyrol? As far as Danzig, why under the 14 points was East Prussia separated from the rest of Germany, when the areas accorded to a newly created Poland were inhabited by mostly Germans? Why not keep Germany whole and accord Polish minority local rights? Might makes right is the answer. A bitter medicine that the givers hopefully will be made swallow at some point.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@pwp8737 Danzig back then did not have a German majority. And the interwar territory of Poland was majority Polish. The areas that would later be incorporated into Ukraine had a Ukrainian majority and a Polish minority. Germany back then was an Empire built on conquering and subduing other people. Poles shed blood and died to be free from all their occupiers, whether Russian, German or Austrians. In addition, the partition of Poland was one of the most tragic an unjust acts in European history. They carved the country up like they did with colonial territories. That historical injustice had to be corrected.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@pwp8737 have you actually read the 14 points? It literally called for the creation of the polish corridor

[@billyosullivan3192]

@pwp8737 the Germans chose might makes right when they rejected the 14 points in January 1918

[@pio4362]

@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Poland spent hundreds of years in the Middle Ages/Early Modern period as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. They had a good run, they were themselves an empire, an occupier, you name it. They made a dire miscalculation in 1525 by creating the Duchy of Prussia that would later back to haunt them.

[@zacklewis342]

The problem with determining rights, is that they don't exist. All 'rights' are actually permissions.

[@OrwellsHousecat]

✔️

[@keifer7813]

Do you have a right to not be punched while walking down the street?

[@toby9999]

I thought that was the point of the UN? To move past the might is right where a bully always wins. Obviously it's not working given ruzzia's invasion of Ukraine.

[@BellicoseNation]

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” -Abraham Lincoln

[@Aleph-alpha]

@@BellicoseNation Except for the Confederate.

[@soundmind9772]

@@Aleph-alpha Timing is everything.

[@VTh-f5x]

You saying bro was a hypocrite? 😂😂

[@predragnikitz9106]

And the biggest problem in this analysis is Kosovo. there was no colonial rule there, Kosovo was a region in Serbia, then the Ottoman empire, then Yugoslavia and Serbia again, Kosovo was never a state in it's history, and Albanian people already have their state- Albania. What Slobodan Milosevic was doing to the illegal army on the territory of Yugoslavia, was less then 1% of what Netanyahu is doing to the Palestinians, and yet the west is supporting with the money and weapons and what ever it needs to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and Netanyahu is a hero, and Slobodan Milosevic was a Balkan butcher, Yugoslavia was illegally bombarded for 78 days, and Kosovo was illegally cut off from state Serbia and said to be a state. Please don't get me wrong, I support the west, and me and my family were fighting againt and voting against Milosevic, but this logic I really do not know how to address.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I agree completely. Kosovo is a problem precisely because it went against these rules. I have written extensively about this. I am going to do a video on this soon.

[@Монархија]

@@JamesKerLindsaythe West Country’s already admitted that Kosovo is not product of law it is product of need and one of a kind that can’t be used as any example or can’t be argued against it…..when Putin occupied Ukraine he use Kosovo as legal example that his actions are legal by west understand of law after his state he got answer that I write on beginning after that Putin make referendum on occupied territories and close the topic with west argument, west countries are using law when they need and when they are wrong they just explain the same law completely opposite, that’s why international laws have no meaning any more

[@soundmind9772]

@@JamesKerLindsay The ICJ advisory opinion on Kosovo went against these "rules" because international law has evolved to finally acknowledge and capitulate to the supremacy of self-determination of Peoples over States that fail to fulfill their duty to protect and thus understandably lose allegiance irrespective of special circumstances. Kosovo is now precedent. Looking forward to a video soon.

[@kume1985]

"Recognition of Kosovo's independence by several major world powers is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face." Vladimir Putin

[@ometriaslong3069]

​@JamesKerLindsay Okay, Kosovo violates the " rules". Nevertheless, it set a precedent. There should be an evolution of the " rules " to accommodate self - determination and secession.

[@gokublack7904]

Language, Ethnicity, Common History / Ancestors, Culture and Mentality are the pillars of self-determination.

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

In the Catalan case I have seen the pillar was the use of the force (in 2017 and in the 18th century).

[@mitchyoung93]

@gokublack7904 But so much of that is changing or outright made up. Read Hobsbawm Nations and Nationalism Since 1798: Program, Myth and Reality . Or Benedict Anderson Imagined Communities

[@donaldlee8249]

All of that can be systematically modified to fit a certain narrative within one or two generations. You are creating dangerous excuses for ethic cleansing, population swapping, brainwashing, etc

[@OvwieogheneObie]

What happened to Yugoslavia? International law is important till it stands against National interest. Might makes right. Know this and know peace

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I will cover Yugoslavia in another video.

[@OvwieogheneObie]

@ good, will subscribe to your channel so I can keep an eye on that

[@dzonikg]

In Yugoslavia west always say they had right by constitution. Which is total lie .It was much more complex ,every republic had constitution people and only if they all agree they can make referendum. In Bosnia it was Croats,Bosniak Muslim and Serbs and they could only succeed if all 3 people agree .In Croatia it was Serbs and Croats .SO in Croatia and Bosnia constitution was braked which lead to a war.In Macedonia it was Macedonian and ALbanians

[@aleksandarmatevski1258]

Jugoslavija was a federation made up by six republics, according to its own constitution. The constitution even gave the republics the right to leave the federation. That the break-up led to war is a different - but obviously closely related - story.

[@OvwieogheneObie]

@ but Kosovo was not a republic. Even the professor addressed this in his recent post. Acknowledging that the west set the bad precedent which Russia is using at the moment. If west can do it then surely Russia can do it

[@joshuaguste6883]

What is funny is that this topic is one of the sources of conflict as well as drives several plots in the Mobile Suit Gundam saga.

[@kummaar1]

The Kurdish people deserve external self-determination because they live closer to each other in a continuous land but their areas' political boundaries separate them by their nationalities. The laws of self-determination should be changed in order to free their community from these occupying countries and to get an independent state.

[@RamondeMey]

Turkey is a NATO member, Iraq was under US and NATO occupation and Northern Syria was under Kurdish occupation (with US and NATO support). Why then was nothing done? The Southern border of Turkey was only created to remove the Arabs from the multiracial, multilinguistic and multicultural Turkey. The fear of separatism thereafter explains why there was no revisionism and no policy from Turkey or the West to allow distinct legal and political rights for Kurdish people speaking a distinct Iranian language in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

[@zacklewis342]

Meh. They wouldn't need self-determination if they were simply treated humanely. We need to stop treating the symptoms and address the underlying cause.

[@lenabo9929]

@@kummaar1 they need autonomy within their current state. Which is more achievable than getting an independent state.

[@casey203]

Kudos for making a video attempting to tackle this idea. Self determination seems soo simple until it’s applied to reality.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. A great way of putting it!

[@graysonk6695]

Great video as always, but you left me wondering at the end: if groups have no recognized right to break away from their internationally recognized country to which they belong, why do so many countries recognize Kosovo? And why was South Sudan quickly accepted into the international community?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. South Sudan was recognised because its secession was accepted by Sudan. (In fact, Sudan was the first country to recognise it.) Kosovo is a far more complex case. I hope to make a separate video just about this very soon. It comes up a lot.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@JamesKerLindsay I don't think Kosovo is a separate and more complicated case. It is quite simple. The law of the mighty was applied. That is why Kosovo is independent and recognized by many. They mighty subdued Serbia's right to protect its territorial integrity and carved up a region into an independent state. Then they tried to bend international law to their will. But the precedent has already been made, and now Russia is exploiting it in its former Soviet sphere of influence to its full extent. Actions have consequences, even unintended.

[@moanguspickard249]

​@@Kalimdor199Menegrothexactly. Im sure this esteemed PhD guy will bullshit a reason, but the truth is NATO backed the separatists otherwise serbia would retake Kosovo. Same NATO doesnt wanna back Russians in Crimea. If west didnt have double standards, they wpuld have no standards at all

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@moanguspickard249 Well the reason is bullshitted. They invented the term 'republic in all but name'. Which is cringe from a legal perspective. If you are not a republic in name, then you are not one at all. The West is desperately trying to fit Kosovo into the same scenario that legalized the breakup of Yugoslavia. The problem is that the legal framework based on which the breakup of Yugoslavia was accepted, does not apply to territories that were not republics, but had autonomous status within a republic. Because that is what Kosovo. An autonomous territory within the Republic of Serbia that had veto power within the Serb Republic. It was not a Republic in all but name. The Constitutional article that allowed secession for Republics and which has been parroted by the west to justify the breakup of Yugoslavia did not concern Kosovo.

[@dzonikg]

@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Back all the way in 2008 i wrote here on youtube comment how other powers will use what west did with " Kosovo AND METOHIJA" (Real name) .Well i was right .There is no international law ,only law off power

[@ashbarian7400]

The vast majority of conflicts on the planet earth today relate to one issue: the conflict between the concept of permanent state borders and the rights of nations for self-determination. For instance Taiwan, Punjab and the most tragic of them all, Artsakh. Think about it, a piece of land, Artsakh, populated by ninety eight percent Armenians who were living on that piece of land for at least two thousands of years was given by a criminal group of communists to a country whose only national idea was and still is to kill Armenians. As of today we have become silent witness of total ethnical cleansing. Until humanity manages to create a peaceful mechanism of resolution of the conflict between the concept of permanent state borders and the rights of nations for self-determination we are predestined to witness one blood conflict after another.

[@zacklewis342]

That peaceful mechanism is called unity. Less divisions, not more.

[@g1u2y345]

@@zacklewis342 You can't have unity with those who want to erase you.

[@tkm238-d4r]

Not sure if Taiwan can even truly differentiate itself as a nation other than being the non-Red side of the Chinese civil war. The independence movement never really got its act together. It was always an anti-Chiang movement and largely remained as such.

[@VTh-f5x]

​@@g1u2y345 sometimes the divisions are fueled by outsiders when neither party is looking to harm the other. Like in Punjab for example.

[@VTh-f5x]

Punjab was the most hilariously artificial conflict cooked up by the americans avenge pakistans dismemberment from 1971 war. The two communities to this day worship at each others Temples and intermarry without any hindrance from anyone. Yet americans through enough money managed to create a cartel like crime organisation which operated under the garb of a freedom struggle. Their main business was extortion amd narcotics.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

As with everything, it’s complicated. Humans are involved.

[@fe6767]

This is an excellent explanation of the rarely mentioned distinction between internal and external self-determination. Ironically this distinction between internal and external self-determination is made easier by the concept of overseas empire. The break up of 2 of the biggest continguous empires (Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman) at the end of WW I meant that the most obvious remaining empires were overseas ones (the USSR and USA didn't call themselves empires and China stopped calling itself an empire without giving up territory). Hence some empires tried to avoid external self-determination (decolonization) by giving citizenship to their previously subjugated people (especially France, but also Russia/USSR, China and to a limited extent the USA and Portugal). The lack of discussion and understanding of this distinction between internal and external self-determination is one of its biggest problems. If very few people recognise this distinction can it be enforced? Or will seccessionists in Texas, Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Scotland, Catalonia, Dombas, Kurdistan etc still see themselves as having the same rights to self determination as ex-colonies.

[@BYTEBITE07]

I am going to support the man who will bring back bophuthatswana.

[@lenabo9929]

Self determintion to me does not emply independence. It emplys autonomy. Michael Keaton has argued this in the Scottish context.

[@zacklewis342]

Autonomy without independence simply does not exist. They are synonyms.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@zacklewis342 Uhm no, it does exist. There are many cases of people having autonomy, but not independence. Look at European states. Plenty of examples. Self-determination implies that the people have the right to determine their status. Some may want to remain part of a state, under a special status. Others want to breakaway and form a new state or unite with another.

[@lenabo9929]

@@zacklewis342 that is enterly utrue. Autonomy does not mean you get everything you want. The Basque country is autonomous controls most taxation powers bar vat i believe. Quebec have a large degree of autonomy over element of social security and have input on immigration. Independce does not make you free. It letd you choose but small nations will be pushed into choices they would rather not make because they have to for economic reasons.

[@mishapurser4439]

I like the idea in your post of interviewing experts on IR. The topic of this video, the federalisation and breakup of the UK, and the future evolution of the British-Irish Council and Common Travel Area are of particular interest to myself.

[@tommyschmierer4627]

Yes this is apparently a complicated issue for sure ... I think a good example is the former Yugoslavia ... Serbs expelled from the krajina region in Croatia (as well as other parts of Croatia) which in turn helped to destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina... And then serbs not being allowed to have their own self determination with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina and also in Kosovo while at the SAME TIME many nations recognizing Kosovo as an independent state ... And on top of all THAT using NATO (a supposed defensive coalition) to attack Serbia (incidentally a LONG TIME ALLY!) ... and it's NO surprise that Serbia resisted the way they did considering the past (in WWII) with the Ustasha and the renewed ethinic cleansing of over 200,000 serbs from Croatia in the 1990's ... Talk about societal PTSD!!! ...smh ... What a hot mess in the former Yugoslavia ... oh and how bout the Kurds?! ... But anyway..., yeah self determination is a real mouth full ...lol And thanks again for a great video professor James!!! 💪🏽🫡... ✌🏽❤️

[@markdowding5737]

I never understood why under international law if I have a territory connected to my mainland I am entitled to do whatever I want to the people in it (even downright massacring them) even if they have nothing to do with my group or societal values. But if those same people live a couple of hundred kilometers disconnected from my mainland territory under international law they are fully entitled to independence even if they have little cultural and ethnic difference from my group (Ex: Canada and Australia). I mean, what is the distance criterium. Would the Azores be entitled to secede from mainland Portugal because the distance between the two is quite big? (Azores are even part of the North American Plato). Honestly, and I would like to hear the professor on this, this interpretation of self-determination seems to have been made by the two victorious powers of WW2 (the USA and the Soviet Union) with the goal of cementing their power and abolishing possible competition from the likes of France and the UK with their large colonies and resources).

[@TurkishCulture-ce9di]

There is no cultural difference between “Australia” and “Canada” because that is exactly it, Anglocentric culturally British Settler Colonies that are part of the wider Anglo-Saxon world, the same ones that repeat Multi-Culturalism like a Mantra yet shoves the English Language and British ways down immigrants throats making them lose their own culture and identity, besides the fact that is they are not even real “Nations” but British Settler Colonial States established illegally on unceded Native Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land, exactly that the US, Canada, Latin American Parts, New Zealand and other places are illegally established European States with a subjugated Native Population almost invisible to the world.. India was close to a similar fate if it wasn’t for its large and properly diverse population with their own untouched languages and cultures.. The First Nations in these Colonies are that, the true legitimate Nations of peoples who never ceded their land to invaders and have every right to kick them out and establish their own Nations by their own legitimate right, not just vassal like states under a established European one, but one you can point to on a map.. Because at this point the illegal immigrants and others in Europe have the right to do the same to the Natives of the UK and European Mainland, because it is the same thing….

[@fe6767]

@@TurkishCulture-ce9di If Canada is a British Settle Colony then surely the USA is too.

[@mayoite160]

this video helped delineate the outlines of the principle which i had been only vaguely aware of..... but, IMO the video would've been even more helpful if you would've included some post-WWII non-colonial examples such as Bangladesh, Kashmir, East Timor, Western Sahara, Xinjiang, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia, the USSR and the application of the principles of self-determination and the nation-state concept in these cases

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Someone else brought this up. I didn't do this for two reasons. If I name specific examples, some viewers would fixate on those and wouldn't think more broadly. Not naming examples forces viewers to think about where it might apply. Tied to this, by naming specific examples, you then spark a pointless debate on just that case. This closes down the wider conceptual discussion. I wanted to leave it open to avoid that. Let's think of it more broadly.

[@markfp9705]

Excellent

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much!

[@markfp9705]

@JamesKerLindsay I worked for the UN and I didn't know this!

[@petarjovanovic1481]

8:20 I guess not in the case of Serbia. Our western overlords said that Albanians in Kosovo and Metohia have that right and recognized them as an independent state. Maybe you can mention that exception. While Abhazia and South Osethia are not states and have no right to be.

[@Vuosta]

The word overseas could very well be dropped from the classifications for external indepence. How is the rif gaining indepence from Spain or the Algerians from France external, but not the chukotkans or sakha from Russia?

[@rpgbb]

Clearly explained, thank you. However, did Kosovo’s independence basically destroy all these assumptions? One could argue that Russia annexation of Crimea in 2014 was Putin’s revenge for Kosovo’s independence. He even held a referendum. East Ukraine was just next in line. How do you square that circle? The West set a dangerous precedent after Kosovo. Why in this case was acceptable but it’s not acceptable for Catalonia, the Basque country, Tirol, Tibet, Kashmir, Aceh, etc, etc

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. You are right. I have written extensively on Kosovo and argued that it did violate these principles. (Although I think that consensual separation is still the best outcome for a variety of reasons.) I plan to do a video on Kosovo soon.

[@soundmind9772]

Yes you are correct. The West did set a precedent and will continue to shoot itself in the foot.

[@Lexus3377]

​@@JamesKerLindsay It didn't violate anything. Kosovo has more rights to be independent than Croatia and Slovenia in 1991. ICJ rulling is clear on Kosovo.

[@DuckDudgers]

Thank you for this more abstract video which will inevitably get less views ! With so much talk about all kinds of "self-determinations" these days it is all the more necessary to have common definitions upon which meaningful discussions can be carried out. I wonder where Taiwan falls into this discussion. Can it be called a case of self-determination if it was never under PRC control ? As most things about China and Taiwan, I guess it's complicated.

[@thomassenbart]

The wilsonian 14 points, self determination idea, was arguably one of the worst concepts in history that has caused immense human suffering, wars and chaos everywhere it us adopted. All reasonable people should reject it.

[@fricatus]

Very interesting video, Professor. Thanks!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much!

[@edmundflett474]

Excellent video Dr Ker-Lindsay, thank you! To your question - is it time for a re-think? I say no: redrawing borders in response to aspirations of different groups is a project for a stable world. But we don't live in that world, and cannot afford greater instability. National rights within states are far from complete, and external rhetorical or legal support for secession is fuel for bloodshed and the deeper denial of those rights. Jurists, philosophers, and academics may advocate for separatists with the best of intentions. But every state has has an interest in the Balkanisation of their enemies. Leave Pandora's box locked.

[@achmedaan]

I'd like to ask a question regarding internal autonomy within a state. Are there any specific requirements for this? If Israel put a puppet palistinian leader in charge of palestine, and annexed it in a manner similar to how China administers Tibet as an "autonomous region," would that be enough to counter the claim of Israeli colonization against Palestine? If not, why?

[@IMaSUPERman2]

@@achmedaan Palestinians would not be able to vote thus it would be apartheid.

[@achmedaan]

@@IMaSUPERman2 That's not how it works. Many autocratic systems do not allow their people to vote, or just fabricate the results like with minorities in Iran. Yet no-one calls Iran an apartheid state or claims that Iran has colonies.

[@michaelthomas5433]

Self-determination so long as it is not inconvenient. Otherwise choke such aspirations down. "It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law."

[@VladTevez]

Very interesting and useful

[@markward3981]

The modern international system is ineffective and should be dumped for something that serves the world rather than being a tool for a handful nations.

[@louisgiokas2206]

James, actually it was Woodrow Wilson who talked about self-determination in his 14-points in 1918. That makes the concept at least 106 years old. One could also make the case that the American revolution, about 250 years ago was about self-determination.

[@pio4362]

No, in 1918 it was about self-determination for indigenous peoples in Europe (but by no means all of them). In late 18th century North America it was "self-determination" only for the settler-colonial class, not the indigenous Native Americans, nor the African-Americans who would remain slaves.

[@louisgiokas2206]

@@pio4362 You are applying contemporary norms to the past. That is both intellectually dishonest and silly. There are no "absolutes" in foreign relations. Do you know the reason why? Think about it in an objective sense. You might learn something.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

I'd just like to say, I don't f*cking care about how the UN defines self-determination. All nations have a right to their own state

[@donaldlee8249]

They you don’t deserve any protection from international law, good luck when a great power decides to come grab your country as free real estate.

[@AMEurope333]

For such a process as self-determination, the ethnogenesis of the ethnic group and territory must be taken. Unfortunately, the case of Yugoslavia is a classic example of political interference and redrawing of borders with the creation of synthetic nations that have no historical basis.

[@danicic87]

Sooooo Did Kosovo had right to declare its own state or not ?

[@moanguspickard249]

Guy is a hypocrite

[@2004milten]

No. Kosovo does not have right for self determination. It is said on the end of the video.

[@lenabo9929]

@@danicic87 theortically not. I think it would not of occurd if it was not of serbian actions.

[@gentreshtani826]

Of course it has. Kosovo's case is unique amongst other regions - the history is too long go through. The bottomline with Kosova, though, is that kosovars don't want a serbian government, and the serbian government doesn't want kosovars. It's an awkward situation that is ultimatelly fixed with independence, recognition and respecting of the rights of minorities. I just wish we didnt have the Balkan foresight of screwing things up but rather work together.

[@19Szabolcs91]

@@gentreshtani826Kosovo's case is not unique whatsoever, only in the sense that the global powers during the 90s were OK with punishing and weakening Serbia which was kind of a pariah state, and their big ally Russia was still licking its wounds. Because guess what, Turkey doesn't want Kurdish people either, and the Kurds don't want a Turkish government. But Turkey is A) strong, B) an important ally of even stronger nations, so Kurdistan is not gonna happen.

[@existentialvoid]

Fantastic explainer of the concept of self-determination. As a followup - an explanation of Wilsonian and Jacksonian principles in international relations could be a good way to further this. I

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

Some ideas: "the Mexican professor Pablo González Casanova named it 'internal colonialism' and that Lafont adopted, theorized and disseminated well in the book "Sur la France" (fr) to discuss the Occitan case". Brest Charter! (Wikipedia). Vilaweb adopted these ideas by means of Marçal Girbau or Vicent Partal itself to translate the internal colonialism to the different Catalan Countries (Catalunya, València, Balears, etc).

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. This is a great concept that would certainly widen the debate considerably. I just don’t think anyone wants to open that box. It would apply to a lot more countries. Russia would be a prime example. But it would also apply to the United States, Britain, France and China. All have “internal colonies”.

[@emikke]

The modern interpretation isn't valid. Because the rules were recognized by states we cannot assume that states would ever go against their own self-interest. It's a right for any and all people's to determine their own destiny, and to be independent.

[@milanrakonjac3812]

NATO nations determine self determination if it suits their interests!

[@faridafandiyev3596]

Very useful video.Thanks a lot,professor.Already waiting for the video on Kosovo case.

[@avkan1980]

Thank you for your ample explanation.

[@nabilalhami1681]

I thought you already made a video on self-determination years ago, Mr. James. Or maybe that video is outdated in current context?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank, Nabil. I did indeed. But it was a very long time ago. I thought it was time for a refresh - and a reminder. :-)

[@SuryaJinping]

Denying sef determination is just an excuse. You are just saying some groups are more equal than others to deserve their state but others can't have them. For me it's either all or none. A Ukrainian have no bigger right to have a Ukrainian state than a kurd to have Kurdistan or Hindus to have a Hindu state.

[@2004milten]

Thank yooou. Kosovo does not have a right for self determination i. e. it is not a country.

[@yotk1406]

Thank you professor for another great video. Regarding, Israel Palestine. What does the right of self determination mean for the Palestinians and for which territory?

[@tkm238-d4r]

The concept of self determination as people generally understood had its origins in criticism of the ancien régime in the 18th Century. In other words, rejecting the absolute or near-absolute authority of the monarchy, aristocracy and clergy. The 1776 revolution took place in this background. Self-determination for French under the French nation, but no self-determination for Corsicans if they wanted to secede from France. Similarly, the British North American colonies were deemed as a separate entity because they were never formally annexed into the UK. Neither did they had significant representation in the UK itself. Self-determination for WASPs living under British rule in North America. As for Jews, Catholics, Blacks and the people then known as Indians, the concept of self-determination did not necessarily apply.

[@hopseshopsidis]

very enlightning video, professor! thank you very much for this video, i think this has greatly improved how the concept should be understood and the historical context around it. i wonder whether in your eyes, changes in this international framework would be beneficial in conflict resolution.

[@AliHassan-hb1bn]

This game is called divide and rule.

[@alanrobertson9790]

Most people agree that self-determination is a good idea but applied at what level? Scotland got a referendum but could Yorkshire or Cornwall secede, London? Confederate States of America, Biafra? There is no agreement on when the principle can be applied.

[@mikemcnamara3777]

Well done.

[@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156]

I have a question about a specific case. I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just curious to have an answer with some genuine academic value: How does Québec independence relate to notions of decolonization?

[@GuLolo]

This international "law" is disgusting. "Oh you were conquered, your people and culture were butchered causing your nation's demise? Yeah, unlucky mate. Now go on and be a good citizen for your occupants! "

[@benwarnock]

You’ve inspired me to start my bachelor in IR. Thank you :)

[@seberangjaya]

I am definitely sure that this topic has been covered before. Nevertheless I still enjoy it. Keep up the good work sir.

[@abdidaud896]

Dr. James. Thanks for the video. I noticed you put Somaliland in videos without explaining what you mean. Somaliland case is special as per the African Union fact finding mission. It is not a case of secession but rather state continuity Somaliland should be grouped with the Baltic states who were under illegal de facto union which later collapsed.

[@ДмитрийБочарников-б1ь]

For western racists only Albainians from Kosovo have right for self determination, but Serbs or Russians don't have it.

[@poketlucky3249]

Can you do a video about how can non independent countries Can get independent. Like Kurdistan or Catalonia

[@makariosblessing]

Yet another well thought through video. They are really interesting and thought-provoking. My mind went back to Somaliland, which wants independence from Somalia (Something Mogadishu and the African Uniion have not been open to). Although I would love to see them given a chance, it would likely open a Pandoras box given how many African nations states are made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups. (Kenya alone has 42 and has suffered from post election violence along tribal lines). Self determination ends up being not only about one particular group but the knock on effect

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. Somaliland is a curious case, almost the exception that proves the rule. It briefly existed as an independent state. But then unified with Italian Somalia. It argues that it has the right to regain that independence. And an African Union mission agreed. But the AU as a whole hasn’t endorsed this. And until It does, no other country will recognise it. (Although, usually, the principle is that once a state gives up its independence it can’t reclaim it later. A topic for another video!)

[@H92P]

@@JamesKerLindsaySomaliland made a big mistake 😢

[@muhammadtahir3327]

Prof, I think that ultimately, the concept of devolution of Power and evolution of Policy making will be the fate of our geopolitical map. There will be smaller and smaller so-called sovereign units from one pole to the other one. However, the policies and agendas will be directed by international organizations like The UNO.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

By now, Europe is almost broken to ethnic microstates, but repeateng process in Asia would create even bigger series of wars.

[@sirsimone1524]

What about the case of Biafra who got independence from 1967-1970 recognised by several independent states but were defeated and reabsorbed into Nigeria, does the rule of self determination apply?

[@NikolaHD]

Awesome video professor! Given the principle of self-determination and the historical, cultural, and linguistic ties of Crimea’s population to Russia, could Crimea’s decision to join Russia be seen as a legitimate expression of the people’s will, even if the central Ukrainian government opposed it?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks, Nikola. No. Crimea is considered Ukrainian sovereign territory. Russian speakers have a right to internal self-governance of own sort or another, but not a right to break away and join Russia. I think the best way to highlight the inconsistency of Russia’s position is to ask whether Russia would accept the right of minorities within its borders to break away and have independence or join other countries. I think we both know the answer.

[@NikolaHD]

@@JamesKerLindsay While it’s true that Russia would likely not accept secession within its own borders, international support for self-determination has not been consistent either. For example, Western nations supported Kosovo’s secession from Serbia, despite Serbia’s opposition and a lack of a clear legal basis. Some might argue that if self-determination can apply selectively, then the Crimean people, expressing a clear preference in a referendum, should also have the right to decide their political future. Additionally, the Crimean people’s decision could be seen as a reaction to political instability in Ukraine at the time, rise of ultra nationalist (there are documentaries about that i.e. Vice News) where some residents feared marginalization and threats while Ukrainian government did nothing at the time to stop that. If other nations are willing to support secessionist movements in cases they favor, doesn’t that raise questions about the fairness of denying Crimea’s right to join Russia based on its people’s will?

[@rodag7831]

@@NikolaHDIf Russia did not exist then they would have a right to self determination but Russia exits and they are Russian. It would be the Ukrainians who should be given a right to Independence and sovereignty not the Russian speaking population at the border of a country they can exist in.

[@PeskyWabb1t]

⁠​⁠@@JamesKerLindsayby the Profs logic the USA shouldn't have seceded. There was already a country for Anglos. They shouldn't have been allowed to create a new state….

[@markopinteric]

The Russians already have their nation-state, Russia, so their right to self-determination is already fulfilled. This means that the RU in UA are a minority and should be protected as a minority.

[@nubilan]

How former Yugoslavia fits into that framework?

[@ofed242]

This is great question for almost all ex-yu countries, not only Kosovo, having in mind that every single entity that claimed one-way independent went against mentioned rules.

[@MyReiners]

The problem is a UN charter. You can neglect the UN as we see at this moment, and you can interpret it like you want, and the UN cannot enforce it. The UN has now the same ineffectiveness as the League of Nations. And international rules can change. It did it in the past, so it can be in the future. You can also say what if the government of a federation takes away the rights of a federated entity? Is it an occupation? An example was Yugoslavia, The Serbs first deleted the rights of the autonomous province of Kosovo (which was clearly a breach, and sending police/armed forces as such was an occupation). Then Serbia attacked, basically the Federation of Yugoslavia. The six constituent republics. The anti-bureaucratic revolution overthrew the government of the Socialist Republic of Montenegro as well as the governments of the Serbian provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo and violated the 1974 Yugoslav constitution and as such internal self-determination. That treat was also made against the other republics. As such, the independence or external self-determination comes in effect by violating the internal self-determination. And that is practical, what happens in every independence struggle. The government disregards the internal self-determination (oppress and occupies) and as such violates its own signing of the UN charter and basically their own constitution. Nowhere is it determined that on occupation must be a military one. A political occupation is also an occupation. So external self-determination becomes again legit.

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

I got surprised that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (ICCPR) is not mentioned. Spain signed it in 1977 but refuses to apply it to Catalans from the land "Catalonia" (part of the former Principality of Catalonia which was part of the lands populated with catalan people) arguing the Catalan people do no exist). Sentence 31/2010 Constitutional Court let the territory without voted law of dependence of Spain (Estatut2006). Catalan people tried to vote the independence (self-determination) in 2009-2010, 2014 and 2017 but it was declared illegal by Spanish Court. People with language, culture, history (different own laws) but it's the milky cow of Spain.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. The point was to keep it straightforward. There were a lot of texts that could have been included, principally UNGA Resolution 1514. The key was to show that self-determination has come to mean two things, depending on the background context. But it has also come to mean one thing overall. Groups living within existing recognised states don’t have a given right to independence.

[@mitchyoung93]

Catalans were perfectly happy being a part of and benefiting from the Spanish empire until it went south. Same thing can be said for the Scots and the people called Ukrainians

[@jh5401]

It's sad that colonisation will outlast decolonisation. Glad to have seen the progress we have made though, of course.

[@OrwellsHousecat]

Cornwall

[@joancampbell9157]

Scotland as well wants independence and as soon as possible.

[@OrwellsHousecat]

@joancampbell9157 they had their chance

[@SomeoneFromBeijing]

The thing about Palestine and Israel is that both sides think the other side is occupying their land. Historically, the West Bank was known as Judaea and Samaria. So Israel can claim that the Arabs have colonised and occupied their land. But then the Palestinian Arabs are claiming Israel is occupying a piece of land they ruled for 1400 years. So who is "more indigenous"? The group that originated from the area since at least 3000 years ago, or the ethnic majority of the area for 1400 years? Personally, I side with Israel because the Arab rule was more similar to colonialism. The Arab empires never had a capital in the land, but Israel's capital has always been there. Israel's wars, since 3000 years ago, were all about defending the land. But the Arabs had to invade to area to take it.

[@khalidqawdhan3265]

The United Nations proclaims self-determination as an inherent right, yet concurrently upholds the principle of territorial integrity for nation-states-a stance that one might perceive as inherently contradictory, would you not agree? Consider the example of Somaliland, which possesses the right to self-determination. However, the United Nations insists that Somalia's territorial integrity must be respected. When Somaliland seeks dialogue with Somalia to negotiate a resolution, Somalia declines, while Britain asserts that Somaliland’s future is a matter for Somalia to determine. How inequitable this appears. By the way good video James and good elaboration indeed.

[@soundmind9772]

Self-determination of Peoples supersedes territorial integrity--which is limited to relations between states. Many "experts" conveniently and intentionally ignore this very obvious reality.

[@GigaNormie]

The balkans don't need self-determnation but rather unifications and federalization

[@Jaywalker45]

@@GigaNormie this wont work either way

[@FlamingBasketballClub]

The Balkans might be finished 💀

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

That has been tried with Yugoslavia. It failed. You can't federalize the Balkans, much less unite the various people. It has been tried with Bosnia too. We all see how that worked out. Nobody wants to live there and nobody is pleased with the outcome of the war.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@GigaNormie I wonder if that has been tried before. How did it go?

[@Al-fz2qi]

I think that what is misunderstood is that the principle of territorial integrity applies between states. France can't grab a part of Spain for example. Territorial integrity does not mean that the Catalans cannot exercise their right to self-determination either internally (e.g. autonomous region within Spain) or externally as an independent country. The principle of territorial integrity does not trump the right of self-determination. The 2014 coup government of Ukraine failed to respect the right to self-determination of the peoples of the Donbass (language rights, federal arrangements, ignored Minsk accords). Since their rights were not accommodated internally, the peoples of Lugansk and Donetsk opted for independence. The Ukrainian government criminalized and terrorized these peoples, depriving them of their entitlements and in the case of 12,000 to 14,000 citizens of their lives. Leaving legalistic arguments aside on the criteria of statehood, this is a simple case of natural justice. In short, the principle of territorial integrity cannot be used to deprive peoples of their right of self-determination - this is the great misunderstanding.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

You are right, in one sense. (And this was confirmed by the ICJ in 2010 Kosovo advisory opinion, which argued that there is no general prohibition on declarations of independence.) But states need to be recognised. That’s where territorial integrity kicks in. UN members are obliged not to recognise secessionist efforts. That’s what matters. So, yes, Donbas can proclaim independence or union with Russia, but that isn’t accepted internationally. (Or by Russia. Just see what Moscow does when its minorities want to break away.) Again, as I said, there is a right to internal self-determination in the firm of some degree of self-rule. But no right to statehood.

[@Al-fz2qi]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for the reply Prof. International law and natural justice seem to be in conflict. The position remains contentious since countries tend to take positions based entirely on self-interest - Russia no to Chechnya but yes to Crimea. USA yes to Kosovo but no to Lugansk and Donetsk. This tends to undermine international law and create conditions for a free for all. The right to self-determination (internally or externally) is a right, so am I correct to conclude that that right should not be dependent on being recognized internationally - i.e. if you have a right, no one else has the right to deny you that right. You are a state if you meet the Montevideo conditions of statehood, you do not require international recognition, no matter how desirable that might be for practical purposes. What options do peoples have when their right to self-determination is brutally denied? Call in NATO bombers in the case of Kosovo? Call for Russian intervention in the case of the Donbas? The call for humanitarian intervention belied the undeclared motive to acquire rich mineral resources, in both cases. The UN would seem to be toothless, its legal framework contradictory.

[@victoriablogp5704]

TO approach was is right or not, we can not approach any issue with the idea of self determination, there are more concepts to find a balance or get close to the right

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

6:05 "External subjugation" where there is colonial rule or military occupation or even without military occupation if the state says that that culture (people) is internal in spite of they are doing ethnic cleaning trying to destroy that culture and sending big amounts of migrants (200% or 300% as in Catalonia in the las century). Impossible to understand! The people (culture) threatened try to get rid of the oppressor state (where the rule of law is biased). If the only way the state can not avoid the independence is war it will be difficult to obtain the self-determination in others ways and the internal and external self-determination will be interchanged (as Ireland already did). I cannot believe the proposed solution for them is to go to war (with dead people and destruction)!

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

6:40 Many wars in former colonies have become because it is not possible any stable rule of law to set a self rule or any federalism. But… what can be understood as a colony? Are only colonies if a ship is necessary to move from one territory to another. The UN set a list of "colonies" that the powers desired, but they did not want to know the real claims of the subjugated people.

[@siphomogale779]

It depends how powerful you can fight or your friends fight for you example is Eswatini and Lesotho inside South Africa

[@gamelot12093]

The problem I have with using language as a basis for independence is that many English speaking countries are independent from Britain. Ireland has been English speaking since the Famine. But Ireland didnt want to remain in the British Empire. Neither did the United States. Same with African Anglo-phone countries. Certainly it can be a factor. but it isnt always the case that someone's language determine's what state they want to be part of. Religion is sometimes a factor too but not always e.g. Belgian independence from the Netherlands in 1831, South Sudan in recent years. America left the British empire largely over "no taxation without representation", and opposition to restrictions on American colonial trade e.g. the Wool Act, Molasses Act, the East India Company's monopoly.

[@davidlegrice4207]

I'm curious, has there ever been any attempt to enforce the right to internal self determination? There are a number instances where foreign intervention, military or diplomatic has given increased autonomy or rights, but was the right of self determination ever cited as justification in any such cases? And what could it take for the international community to do something to enforce this right where it it's fragrantly being denied? There several instances where doing so could have prevented ethnic cleansing or serious oppression such as in Nagorno Karabach and Darfur, but where instead nothing was done.

[@christineyoung8345]

The moral (as opposed to the legal) principle of self-determination says: a group of people have the moral right to govern themselves. Now, the state borders, especially those carved by colonial powers, often violate this moral principle. They group together ethnic groups who don't want to be joined underbthe same government. Since the legal notion of self-determination from the UN aims to protect these borders, the UN endorsed self-determinism violates the moral principle.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

No doubt. But the legal and political principle wins, largely because states have every reason to ensure it does.

[@mariakatariina8751]

Satan is not sovereign, but merely a slave angel. INRIX

[@WorldTravelerCooking]

So I want to bring this back to one important question that could come up in the aftermath of the Ukraine war. Suppose at least hypothetically that following some sort of peace deal that some sort of reunification talks with the LPR, DPR, and the other two breakaway oblasts are allowed to go forward. We can assume that these breakaway regions would likely drive a very hard bargain because worst case, they can feel secure as part of the Russian Federation and therefore aren't under much pressure to accept terms they don't like. Of course Russia would not be negotiating this, just allowing these groups to return if they can work out a deal they both can live with. Assuming that one actually has reunification talks, and assuming that a deal is not forthcoming, then how do you see self-determination fit into that hypothetical? Would it be safe to say "Ukraine doesn't want to give them autonomy within Ukraine and give trade policies they want, so they can stay in the Russian Federation?" Or independence perhaps within the CSTO (meaning a joint territorial defense with Russia)? Or do you think in that case international pressure should be brought to force reunification under terms neither side is happy with?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. The official international position is that the areas are all Ukrainian sovereign territory. The problem is that now Russia has annexed them, it seems hard to see Moscow giving them up. This is the biggest problem here. Had Russia not formally claimed them, then I think a compromise could have been reached based on autonomy. Now, Putin has got to nullify a decree that has made them part of Russia. This is politically a lot more difficult. But equally, if Ukraine signs them away, it will have realised the principle that military conquest is acceptable. The effects of this on global peace and security will be enormous. This is why I believe that Russia has torn up international law, and why its actions in Ukraine represent a fundamental threat to the world. It is essentially abandoning the post-1945 system of international law.

[@soundmind9772]

@@JamesKerLindsay In defiance of U.S. exceptionalism, can you blame Russia for playing tit for tat? And now with Israel's recent defiance of international law with U.S. support, what is the moral basis for continuing to criticize Russia? All but evaporated.

[@Evemeister12]

A nation isn’t a nation until the USA recognises it as one .

[@DonikaJorgo-l7e]

Every law has two options it's dependent what's interest is. The law it's evil too

[@rms7999]

That is, the status quo shall remain forever. I don't like that ideia and would fight for change in that principle.

[@9delta988]

7:47 are you forgetting about western Sahara?

[@thomasbenian4701]

OK, what about Kosovo? Did they have a right to self determination? To continue along your lines, if self determination can happen only within the borders then the question is - how much self determination? No matter how one defines it, the question of self determination will always hang on power. Ukraine did not allow autonomy to the rebellious Donbas. What should Donbas have done?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

I have answered Kosovo in another comment. And, no, the denial of internal self-determination does not create a right to external self-determination.

[@keifer7813]

Though independence is not an internationally legal right for any group within a country that wants to secede, wouldn't you say it's morally a right? Assuming we believe in respecting the will of the people. I mean take Scotland for instance. If they have another referendum and make it very clear they want to leave, is it morally right for the rest of us in the UK to refuse them independence?

[@010Jordi]

Kosovo can break away from Serbia but Catalunya can't brake away from Spain that not explainable

[@bilic8094]

Spain dosent recognize kosovo either.

[@mitchyoung93]

​@@bilic8094Precisely because of Catalunya

[@soundmind9772]

Political will, international support and timing explains it.

[@bilic8094]

@@soundmind9772 Precisely the timing was in the 90's when the soviet union was falling apart nato probably never would of thought that Russia would regain strength and use it as a precedent in the future like we see today but at the time when you have all the power you think you could do whatever you want and break all rules.

[@williamwong7820]

Self Determination, as may be seen from your elucidation of the subject, is a slippery word. Every few years it changes meaning, or take on extra qualifiers (such as external or internal) so that eventually perhaps even a single person can demand self determination. Words in the mouths of politicians too much breath give

[@youknow6968]

Haven't you missed self determination for Jammu and Kashmir, it's a right enshrined by United Nations resolutions.

[@VTh-f5x]

The conditions for self determination have been irretrievably altered by parts of territory being handed to China and the demography of remaining regions being purposefully altered.

[@youknow6968]

@VTh-f5x that literally makes no sense. The territorial limits are broadly the same since those United Nations resolutions to which India had agreed, you're trying to muddle the discussion by spreading lies. Furthermore, their right to self determination is not defined by any local disagreements or events, that right stands alone without prejudice to other factors.

[@VTh-f5x]

@@youknow6968 the UN mandate has very specific conditions before self determination. First one is- "all of Kashmir is to be demilitarised from pakistani army" Now that Shaksgam Valley has been gifted to China by pakistan army. That UN mandate stands irretrievably unenforceable unless pakistan takes back Shaksgam Valley from China. Not to mention the millions of punjabis that pakistan has distributed kashmiri identity cards too thereby altering demographic integrity of any self determination.

[@youknow6968]

@VTh-f5x Pakistan does not need to withdraw, there are multiple resolutions, please read all of them. Both parties are allowed to keep minimum forces for security, otherwise either party can simply walk in and take over, no party is purely a good faith actor, that's why you have fair conditionalities. Shaksgam valley is an empty barren land, not a single individual lives their. And Pakistan did not handover anything, it was already under Chinese control. Pakistan and China agreed on a principled settlement of their borders to avoid any disagreement, but it's on the basis of the settlement of the kashmir dispute, it's not a fait accompli, it's linked to the referendum for self determination for Jammu and Kashmir. Those so called Punjabis are refugees from the 1947 genocide in Jammu area, when hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed, many more forcibly expelled, and Jammu was transformed from being a Muslim majority area to a Hindu majority area, many of those Hindus are not even locals but outsiders. Either you don't know anything, or you're just trying to spread misinformation by lying expecting others not to know.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@youknow6968 There was no 1947 genocide in Jammu area. Nobody other than Pakistan labeled it as such. Also, Kashmir opted to join India during the partition plan, not Pakistan. So it is Pakistan occupying Indian lands. China intervened as well and occupied Kashmiri lands. Kashmir can be settled easily, by Pakistan and China retreating from occupied Kashmiri territories and its full incorporation into the Indian state.

[@alex990ism]

funny how european nations were able to have self determination to form their own countries , while nations like kurds tamils cantonese and the mess that is all of sub-saharan africa, nations in a lot of cases with more people than germany or france don't have their own country

[@jaumejoseoranies7948]

Poland did not exist from 1795 to 1918. Catalonia disappeared in 1714 and still has not recovered its independence.

[@alex990ism]

@@jaumejoseoranies7948 siberia is basicly a russian colony

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Very true. But it is also worth pointing out that while the ideas of self-determination emerged in Europe, the rules limiting its application are in fact now most jealously guarded by non-European states.

[@alex990ism]

@@JamesKerLindsay states, but not the aformentioned nations that are in those states, my view is that national self determination in africa and asia is an unfinishet project that would lead to a lot more wars in the future untl this dispute is settled, either by those nations finally having their own country or are genocided or are culturally asimilated. i think if we were to live in a saner world we would recognize that the decolonization process was incomplete and badly done after ww2 and we would all sit down , china europe the us and others and discuss how we can finally fix this issue and create a framework for the world that is more fair to everyone, and i'm not refering to the present russian and chinas imperial ambitions, and we can finally close this dark chapter in humanitys history. these tensions still will exist if we aproach them or not, and if not adressed then russia and china will adress them in their own despotic ways and install their own bad solutions. we should at least need to talk about these issues that more than 2 bil people on the planet face otherwise others will and it will be to late

[@soundmind9772]

@@JamesKerLindsay the slave dreams not of freedom but of having their own slaves

[@vizibilibende5194]

Scotland and Wales definitely deserve independence. as a turkish ı love scottishs and wales

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Watch the video. It’s not whether anyone deserves independence, it’s whether they have a recognised right to it. Many peoples probable deserve it. Very few will be given a chance to have it.

[@vizibilibende5194]

@JamesKerLindsay Freedom is not given, it is taken..... 🇹🇷❤️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇹🇷❤️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿