In the 21st century we have to change the conception of state. State and nation are two different concepts and according to my opinion the right to self-determination can be realized within the conception of nation

This is a question that is set by actual political struggle. The right to self determination only becomes an issue to the extent that it is being asserted by a region or territory within a larger state. As such it is a challenge to the sovereignity of the larger state.

Since the late 19th century the tendancy has been for the right to self determination to tend to win out against the sovereign powers.

Neither principle is superior. Both are deeply-rooted in international law, and will continue to remain in tension with each other. If the principle of territorial integrity were abandoned, or significantly weakened, it is difficult to see how order could be maintained within or among states. On the other hand, if political communities were categorically refused the right to declare independence, this could often (though not necessarily always) amount to perpetuation of states of injustice.

International law differentiates between internal and external self-determination, with the latter meaning a right to be an independent state. It recognizes the latter only in a colonial context and only with regard to different racial groups (as opposed to ethnic, linguistic, or religious groups). The right to internal self-determination is also mostly theoretical. Democratic countries allow various ethnic/religious/linguistic groups to express grievances, etc. and such states may grant them autonomy or even independence, but this is not a requirement in international law as it falls under a state's sovereignty. This means Spain, for example, is under no obligation to grant Catalonia independence if the people there vote for it. It may find this politically desirable, however (though I believe a constitutional amendment would even be required in that case).

As recent cases show, though, international law is often the least important factor. (Power) politics reigns supreme.

Dear Charles, what about Scotland (I prepared my PhD at The University of Edinburgh and I discussed a lot about Scotland's independence with my landlord, member of the clan Armstrong)

Hi Guido,

The UK is under no obligation under international law to allow Scotland to secede (that falls within a state's right to sovereignty and territorial integrity), but as I mentioned, it may be politically a better choice (and politics is often more important than international law anyway in determining what will happen). The UK Government has agreed to let Scotland go ahead with a referendum later this year and to honor the result. So if the Scots vote to leave the UK, the UK will let them go. It's a consensual union. When the Southern States in the US wanted to leave, the Federal Government did not agree and fought a war over it (though there was no ethnic/national case to be made there). I'm also not sure if Canada's government had said it would honor the results of a referendum in Quebec, but I do know that Canada's high court ruled that it was not obliged to and that the people of the Quebec had no right to "external" self-determination under international law because they enjoyed the internal sort within Canada's system of government.

Right to Self-determination is superior.

Obviously the process for the self-determination is objective and free of intimidation. Governing even in the western nations where democratic process has been in place is not representative of the people. Political corruption and power hungry politicians consistently violate their legal responsibilities without repercussions. The only course of action then is self-determination. The stick of self-determination will help in instilling integrity to governing.

I think we all would like to believe that the right to self-determination takes precedence in a globalized world, but in practice state rights are the default. The conditions that justify external intervention in defense of self-determination or individual rights are rare and limited. And, typically, when a state intervenes in another to support self-determination, there are underlying motives and human rights or democracy or self-determination is the rhetoric used to justify action.

What about vulture funds and the Argentine vulture debt case? there's no region or territory within a larger state asserting the sovereign rights of a country here. Is it fair for any country/state/nation to be deprived of exercising any of said principles? I'd love to hear opininios here.

The question is valid only with in the free and democratic construct. The concept of self-determination can happen at many different levels. Governing happens at many levels. Country, State, County and city or any such similar structure. The concept of self determination is to gain freedom from one of the entity when they significantly fail to deliver on their governance responsibilities and there is no options available within the governance structure. For example in California, which is a big state with diverse population and needs. But one dominant group controls the power and fail to respond to many other groups. A proposal to split the state into several states so that the respective groups can determine the course of action that is more suitable for them.

Divide et impera? Dangerous place to stand in these days. Doesn't it represent the failure on the part of national of polics? Who benefits financially? Divide and rule is the game of the financial capitals. Workers unite is the cry we can hear when there are productive capitals around.