You do speak about people, not territories. Serbs have their mother country Serbia, so they are forbidden to have another state like Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Albanians have their mother country Albania, so why Kosovo? Kurdistan is the region, they should have their own country! Read about some other cases under my thread!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_referendum_on_full_Scotlands_independence_is_in_progress_How_will_the_results_of_this_referendum_affect_the_European_Union_NATO

Because there are double standards: for some countries it is possible and even necessary, but it is not possible for other countries, and even it is forbidden. If Yugoslavia in 1999 could have defended itself like today's North Korea, then Yugoslavia would have been formerly Yugoslavia in its former borders. Catalonia could well have become an independent country, but it would have created a dangerous precedent in other countries like Italy and Scotland with similar problems. It all depends: Who profitable? Do you think that millions of refugees in Europe are a randomness? NO, this is a purposeful geopolitics with the aim of weakening Europe and making it loyal to the United States. Therefore, we should not be surprised that refugees behave so impudently and with impunity from the authorities. If Kurdistan became independent, this would be a fatal blow to Turkey and would lead to its disintegration, which it can not admit. Why the US does not prevent Turkey from bombing the Kurds? Because Turkey is still a member of NATO and strong enough. That's the whole answer. Otherwise, they would try to make Turkey like today's Yugoslavia. Now only force can protect the sovereignty of the country. That is why North Korea still exists on the political map of the world, otherwise it would have been destroyed long ago.

Dear @Genaddy, thanks for your valuable contribution and facts about my former country Yugoslavia. Double standards and politics of force prevails!!!

Following interesting answers

Why self determination cannot apply in USA with Native Americans - Indians? Why not in France or Germany? Why not in Brazil or Argentina? Why not in Mongolia? Why Turkey has the right to occupy part of Cyprus or Kurdistan? Why not in UK? What is UK? Is there any finacial interest behind these questions? Any powers from the past? Why these attrocities in regions with old civilisations as Syria, Iraq, Iran..... Which science should describe the question of self-determination of people? Any human should be free to determine himself, any nation should defend his history and democracy.

Dear all,

that are good answers, which are hitting the nail on the head. This is not an issue of fairness but of power, eapons and geopolitics.

In the EU currently Catalonia and Scotland would like to become independent. In earlier times a case of war. Now separatistic movements try other means but this remains difficult and not very promising....

Best,

Carsten

What we have to understand is that self-determination or independence is not cheap and easily yielded to by establishments. It takes time, detrmination, conviction, and a concerted effort with sacrifice

While the larger question of how to determine the sovereignty of people is quite complicated, your comparison of why it worked for East Timor and not for Catalonia is rather simple: In East Timor, the referendum for its independence was initiated by the government of Indonesia. In contrast, the referendum for the independence of Catalonia was passed by the local government and not the national government.

There is a very extensive literature on the subject, which da Silva should read. To summarise, there are around 7000 ethnic groups in the world that could reasonably be described as peoples (ethnic groups) with a claim to self-determination. Result would be chaos. Self- determination is a very dubious concept that many would like to drop as misleading if not useless. i) because self-determination is impracticable, the realities of power and inter-dependence make it meaningless in most major areas of life, e.g. economic, military, science etc, where only the big boys benefit. ii) At the time independence may look good for a small people, but times change, often rapidly, and then you can't go back. iii) as in former Yugoslavia people, as ethnic, groups rarely exist in single mono-cultural blocks, invariably there is a confused mix of peoples that does not translate into a simple political (ethnic) people, result: chaos and war. iv) the whole thrust of modern development is towards greater integration, not an increased mix of differences, which especially applies to human rights and equality ideals, which modern identity politics tends to negate. v) at the time of the UN Charter the dominant paradigm was of states, not nations, premised on the breakdown of ethno-religious differences (peoples) for the Enlightenment ideal of universality, of people as part of a single humanity and not peoples (Nazi Germany posed the exact opposite, as do many of the ethnic nationalisms' of today). vi) Lots of small nations (peoples) become easy prey for large multi-national companies, hence they lose much of their self-determination in practice.

Very often the only people who actually benefit from self-determination of peoples are the small clique of nationalist activists who will form the new state bureaucracy and staff its cultural programmes. The rest frequently find themselves worse off and with less real self-determination in their lives. Benedict Anderson, E J Hobsbawm and Ernest Gellner are good starting points to read on the subject.

More on double standards in geopolitics. Marti Ahtisaari is a synonym of such bad politics. He won Nobel Peace Prize!!!

In 2005, Ahtisaari brokered peace between Indonesia and rebels in Aceh province to end 30 years of fighting. Until March last year he led Serb-Albanian talks on Kosovo as U.N. envoy.

He did not help Aceh to become independent!

He was architect of a European Union-backed plan for Kosovo’s independence from Serbia which guaranteed Serb minority rights and was implemented bloodlessly after the wars that tore apart Yugoslavia in the 1990s...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nobel-peace/global-mediator-ahtisaari-wins-nobel-peace-prize-idUSTRE4988VT20081010?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&sp=true

http://www.c-r.org/accord/aceh-indonesia/delivering-peace-aceh-interview-president-martti-ahtisaari

As you all know, that's a very delicate matter, in both conceptual and political terms. I would like to suggest you some possible directions to be investigated:

1.the historical background and the mutual social perceptions of various groups inside a state - by far, in my regard, the most important of all, such situation deserving a separate discussion (Czechs vs Slovaks, as compared, let's say with Serbs vs Albanians). It is also to note that such perceptions are not necessarily stable - Ukrainians vs Russians.

2. the constitutional framework of the state where are very manifest the secessionists movements: UK is (was?) basically a union of Crowns:; the Latvians had the right to self-determination in former USSR, but not the Chechens; the Montenegrins (600.000) had a republic in former Yugoslavia, but the Albanian-speaking Kossovars (2 milllions) had not...

3. the international context: Milosevici's little Yugoslavia had not credibility at all in the eyes of the international community - so that his claims that UCK in Kossovo was a terrorist group were disregarded; the FYROM's UCK came after 9/11, and the government was very keen to involve the international community in dealing with UCK;

4. the means used by the secessionist organization: the West tended to look with some sympathy towards the Chechens during the first Russian-Chechen war, but not after they moved towards terrorist tactics (Beslan);

5. the means used by the government - London vs Belgrade (the NATO operation was supposed to put an end Belgrade's military intervention against a section of its own people)

6. the external support (Russia and UK for Greece in 1820s, Russia for Bulgaria in 1970s, but nobody for the Kurds - neither in 1920s, nor now)

6. the position of the state in international system - Russia vs little Yugoslavia.

7. the coherence of the norm (Nigeria had the right to self-determination inside the British Empire, but the Ibos from Nigeria had not...)

8. the international dynamic and dominant conceptions - the decolonization and the Cold War, or the 1990s vs post 9/11.

9 the general relations between great powers (Concert of Power in the first half of the 18th century, or the 1990s, vs the Cold War)

10. the attention of the international community (Europe vs Africa)

11. technological means (after nuclear....)

12. other general conceptions (the importance of the Human Rights vs sovereignty) etc, etc, etc.

I am quite sure that some other criteria should be found and discussed. But an all-encompassing norm simply cannot be found - unlike the domestic law, the international law cannot be enforced (due to the anarchic nature of the international system)

Dear Radu Sebastian Ungureanu,

I would want to argue with a little bit about some of your phrases.

1. "... Czechs vs Slovaks ... Ukrainians vs Russian ..."

Why does Romania think that Romanians and Moldovans are one people and even want to unite these two states in one great Romania? In my opinion, the Czechs and Slovaks are one and the same people, just like Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians are more than one and the same people who are artificially divided at a given time. They were simply artificially divided. I'm trying to understand one thing: Is Spain and Catalonia one the same people or not? Is England, Scotland and Northern Ireland one the same people or not? I also try to understand why in some countries different people can (or should) live in one country, and in some countries the same people are divided into different countries? It's a double standard, is not it?

2. "London vs Belgrade (the NATO operation was supposed to put an end to Belgrade's military intervention against a section of its own people)"

Here the key phrase is "operation was supposed to put an end". I want to ask you: Was there a decision of the United Nations Security Council to "to put an end"? Show me this solution. It turns out that NATO wanted and took this decision and absolutely spit on the ОН Security Council, as if it does not exist at all. Why, then did the UN was come up with? Again, it's a double standard, is not it?

3. "... Europe against Africa ..."

At first Europe destroyed stable states like Libya and brought chaos and destruction, and then was surprised by the immense arrival of refugees in Europe. The same question is: Was the decision of the UN Security Council?

I would sum it up as follows: NATO vs UN Security Council. It would be more true.

1. in Political Science, it is a distinction made between people/ ethnic/ linguistic group vs nation. A nation is a group that wants to live together, to plan a common future and to self-govern. The Americans are thus a nation, despite the variety of their origins (or the Swiss...), but the Germans and the Austrians are not

There are many situations when the public is not united in this regard. For instance, Romanians and Moldavians are basically identical in ethnic terms, but up to 30% of the citizens of the Rep of Moldova consider themselves Moldavians - as opposed to Romanians (another 30% or such consider themselves Romanians...).

For the Romanian Moldova (historically, Moldova was a unitary political entity, divided by the Russian annexation of Bessarabia in 1812 - half of it is now part of Romania, the other half is nowadays RoM) that makes no sense - they consider themselves first and foremost Romanians. For instance, it exists in RoM a political party aiming to rebuild the medieval Moldova (to annex to the RoM the Romanian Moldova from nowadays Romania), but I don't even think that 95% of the Romanian Moldavians even heard about such a plan, not to discuss its popularity...

The distribution and support is not uniform, e0tiher - for instance, Kishinev is basically a bilingual city (the Russian migration during the Czarist and Soviet times being basically in urban areas, not in the rural ones...), but the rural areas are (letting aside Gagauzia and Transdnistria) virtually entirelly Romanian speaking.

Actually, no important political group seriously in Romania the possibility of unification (for a variety of reasons - the above-mentioned issue being, in my view, by far the most important, but also those of Transdnistria, or the membership to NATO/ EU, the poverty - Romania is roughly 4 times richer than the RoM (in GNP/ capita terms) but not rich enough to deal with such an issue - it is not West Germany, nor, possibly, South Korea etc.

2. UNSC is, actually a political body, not a judicial one. Each of its members enjoys the right to reject any resolution, no matter its reasons. So, in international affairs it is possible to have situation that is neither legal, nor illegal.

3. the Libyan intervention was actually, supported by UN - as long as neither Russia, nor China expressed their veto, and the rest of its members (including the temporary ones - there are 10, with not veto rights) voted in its favour

All NATO states are also UN members. The 2 organizations use different logics. Suffice is to say that 3 of the permanent members of UNSC are also NATO members. But: UNSC is a concert of power (looking for acceptable solutions for the great powers), UN as a whole (the General Assembly) an organism aiming for collective security (defending the peace...) But the members are not equal - no action is possible against a member of UNSC (because it enjoys the vetoing right).

Concerning the International order, have a look at an article published in Le Monde Diplomatique of Feb 2018 (https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2018/02/ROBERT/58353). It puts into context the arguments developped by Radu Sebastian Ungureanub within his points 1/2/3/6/7/8/9/10 from 1945 till today.

Here are some additional personnal comments:

Concerning the point "Europe vs Africa" or "NATO vs UN" on the Libyan case, let's be cautious. We must consider the chronological events in order to consider the actors which intervened (e.g. Europe is a continent, so it did not destroy Libya / NATO wasn't involved the very first days etc...). The Libyan intervention was justified at that time by the concept of R2P (responsibility to protect), so in no case we could speak here about "self-determination" as we had a Libyan movement against the Libyan government. Of course, many specialists are discussing the true rational of the intervention (R2P vs hidden agendas)... But it is another (and very interesting) debate outside of the scope of the question submitted by Diego Barbosa da Silva.

As Ljubomir Jacić righlty pointed out, it is about geopolitics. So for each single case, you could start screening all the points suggested by Radu Sebastian Ungureanu.

A last point: within the European Union, there are plenty of separatist trends (Scotland, Catalunia, Flanders, Lega Nord in Italy etc...). All have different rhetoric’s and historical backgrounds... So within the EU, there is apparently no willingness at all to open the debate for Catalunia because of the spillover risk in others EU member states (we are back to geopolitics’' basics).

I would like to confirm my last conclusion by using some links:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

"17 March 2011: The UN Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, approved a no-fly zone by a vote of ten in favour, zero against, and five abstentions, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany".

"Russia's foreign broadcasting service, RT, has postulated that NATO intervention may have been motivated by Gaddafi's attempts to establish a unified federation of African states that would use the gold dinar as its currency and demand that foreign importers of African oil pay in gold. Despite its stated opposition to NATO intervention, Russia abstained from voting on Resolution 1973 instead of exercising its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council; four other powerful nations also abstained from the vote—India, China, Germany, and Brazil—but of that group only China has the same veto power"

2. The Libyan War and Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-libyan-war-and-obamas-worst-mistake/

3. NATO’s War and the Phony “Rebel Uprising” - Mass graves of Libyans

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/09/battle-for-libya-natos-war-and-phony.html

4. Libya – Documented War Crimes From NATO Bombs

https://libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.org/videos-about-libya-what-others-say-about-libya-and-qaddafis-regime/libya-documented-crimes-from-nato-bombs/

Kosovo has been part of the Ottoman Empire for a long period. Serbia annexed Kosovo without Albania's consent, thus starting the problems for Serbia. For 100 years, Serbia has tried to deprive Kosovo on its Albanian population. What happened during the 90's was a last attempt to increase its limits at the expense of another autocton community. For 100 years, the western civilized countries stood and just watched, but eventually they had to act. Had not it been done, would the moral values ​​of the democratic countries be undermined. Each case is unique in itself, in addition, ICJ has established that the declaration was not illegal.

@Rex, I would like to see the facts behind your answer. Furthermore, Serbia was occupied by Ottoman Empire for 500 years, while , not Kosovo, but Kosovo and Metohija, where within Serbia, under Ottoman Empire.

Why do Albanians do not like to use the full name? Maybe the following sentence bring the answer:

"The name Metohija derives from the Greek word μετόχια (metókhia, metochion), meaning "monastic estates" – a reference to the large number of villages and estates in the region that were owned by the Serbian Orthodox monasteries and Mount Athos during the Middle Ages..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metohija

I use Kosovo by courtesy, the correct name is Dardania. sooner or later everything will fall into place, you can read Dimitrie Tucevic, or Cubrilovic memorandum, etc., with which you will get a true picture of Kosovo. Metohia is Greek word yes but what is important in the context. You are allowed to call it what you wish it does not change the fact that Serbia is based on assimilation and ethnic cleansing. The list is long.

@Rex, I can not agree with your statement " Serbia is based on assimilation and ethnic cleansing." This is not fair discussion at all, it is not civilised and scientific discussion. What you are doing is politics! Just, bring the arguments, I am ready to accept them if they are valid. Facts speak itself, but not the wishes!

https://www.globalresearch.ca/ethnic-cleansing-in-kosovo-and-the-rights-of-the-serbian-minority-ten-years-after-the-march-pogrom-2004/5416867

Why do Albanians do not like to use the full name? Maybe the following sentence bring the answer: This is not politics its wery scientific. 🤔 Please you will find all the answer by reading D. Tucevic!

Kosovo is not the same as Dardania! You use the wrong fact @Rex!

"The borders of Dardania have seen many administration divisions through out the ages while almost always occopying the same region. The region saw some continuity during the Ottoman period of the region under the Villayete of Kosovo while today it occupies the country of Kosovo, the ethnic Albanian regions of Serbia such as the Preshevo Valley in Serbia, Sanjac and the ethnic populated Albanian regions of the Republic of Macedonia ..." WOW! By the way, Sanjac stands for Sanjak (Sanxhak)

https://albanianstudies.weebly.com/dardania.html

I am following all the interesting answers

Basically, the problem is that the right to self determination clashes , at least in the cases of iraq and Spain, with the right to territorial integrity of States. The case of Serbia is more tricky, because it was not a well established State when Kosovo came into being

Following

Iraq is one people and small like other countries has given the Kurdish people more privileges than the citizen in the middle and south and the people of Iraq do not want to tear their land

Unfortunately the world is dominated by the values of interest, when human values prevailed, each individual will find oneself in any country, for me this is the best solution rather than dividing countries. South Sudan was divided, two years later it went to wars, many are demanding more division, but everyone start realizing the bad policies by individuals in shaping the negative or positive attitudes, so the whole issue is related to the sense of Justice.

We cannot unify all cases, there are many differences, so a 'one fit' rule cannot be applied.

For example: in Northern Cyprus there exists a military invasion from Turkey in 1974 and a self declaration of a 'state'.

Should we allow them to be a legal state?

Of course not.

Other cases are different.

"The principle of self-determination of peoples" is a slogan on paper. In practice it has been historically determined (at least during the last century) by brute physical force of Anglo-American imperialism and their agents; Palestine and the whole Middle East are prime examples.

The only way to "self-determination of peoples" is armed resistance of the working people against the aggressors!

Today world countries are emphasizing on equality within humankind. However, the power rules yet. It is same at intra-national and international level.

Differences on the level of ethnicity, sects, regions etc. also divides the humanity and approaches of people related so.

A long distance has to cover before establishing true justice and equality.

I can't speak for cases like Kosovo or Catalonia, but I can offer some explanation on Iraq. In the case of Iraq, the Sykes-Picot established the Kingdom of Iraq after WWI when the French and British carved out the modern Middle East. Thus, Iraq as a political entity, was established by the de facto standard of the era. After WWII, Iraq was one of the founding members of the UN in 1945, again establishing its political legitimacy by the standards of the day. From post-WWI inception to today, Iraq is an established and UN recognized state.

Regarding Kurdistan, the Kurds are an ethnic group within the political boundaries of Iraq. This is where the complexity arises and a lot of the regional issues with Sykes-Picot, ethnic/religious groups were not taken into account and Iraq is a combination of three major groups (Sunni Arab, Shia Arab, and Sunni Kurd) and several minor (Turkomen, Assyrians, some Jews, etc). Given Iraq's history, there is a lot of discord amongst the various groups and any talk of independence is a high political topic, charges with multiple practical considerations if it were implemented.

From a practical standpoint, an independent Kurdistan would be a land-locked country bordered by Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. None of those countries are in favor of Kurdish independence and could make overland trade difficult and drive up the cost of goods. The resulting increase would stifle trade and ultimately hurt the general populations. Oil is major economic consideration and led to several conflicts between Baghdad and the Kurdish regional government over sales and profits. An economic loss such as oil to Baghdad would be difficult to accept. Since oil funds several governments in the region and an independent Kurdistan would have little incentive to confirm to standard OPEC prices, they could undercut the establishment and draw regional economic interests into the fray. Likewise, Iran, Turkey, and Syria have their own Kurdish populations to contend with and the governments could become agitated to act against their populations to prevent a drive towards independence.

Because the rotten European neomarxist/liberal elites view the issue not pragmatically (as they should), but ideologically. To them, multiculturalism is an ideology, and it should be forced even in homogeneous countries like the Scandinavian ones, let alone breaking it in forcefully multicultural countries like the one discussed here. Kosovo population was forced by the West to accept a constitution based on the concept of multiculturalism, albeit over 92 percent of the population being ethnic Albanians. Now, only 5 percent of Serbs in the country have the keys of constitutional changes.

Now, I agree, Kosovo and Catalonia are sideshows of the marching rotten European multiculturalism. The key is destroying Germany, and I think Merkel is doing a great job doing it. So, if those rotten elites are forcing multiculturalism as a means to destroy their countries (and the Western civilization), why would they want pragmatically disruptive solutions in Catalonia and Kosovo? I think not Marx and Engels but Adorno and Marcuse are managing to win the class war, and the end of bourgeoisie is coming not from the proletariat but from the micro-bourgeoisie of the Frankfurt School.

Diego, you are trying to find a logical or empirical response, but you won't get results because you respond ideology with science. The multinational state might have been a historical accident, but the globalist neomarxist elites have turned it into an ideological concept in order to undermine the concept of nation-state as a stepping stone toward undermining the very concept of state. Under the Westfalian concept of self-determination, there is no legal or practical reasons why not let anyone go home, but that would mean the re-emergence of state and a setback for the globalist concept of the multicultural state. George Soros would be very unhappy about that, since countries would be more protective of their national interests (and finances), and he would no longer have a chance to prey on their finances.