Suchergebnisse

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

AbstractWalker Connor is seemingly both a primordialist and a modernist: Nations emanate from basic human sentiments but emerged in late modernity. Is this not an aberration, a contradiction both conceptual and causal? Connor, a champion of academic clarity, obviously thought not, and he was right. What accounts for Connor's unique take on nationalism, and why, for many, does it still seem odd? The answer to both quandaries, I argue, lies in Connor's own unique splice: He effectively delved into, and fused, two thorny matters that most scholars shy away from, let alone try to bring together: human nature and legitimation. Both underpin his remarkable scholarship and its solitude standing. I explore both facets: first, Connor's take on human nature; then, more extensively, his analysis of legitimation – via 'popular sovereignty' and 'self‐determination'.

The self-determination of peoples is a fundamental legitimating principle of the international system; it justifies the system's very existence. Through a vast diachronic corpus and pertinent data sets, this article nevertheless reveals a puzzling decline in the public discourse on, and practice of, self-determination over the last 50 years. I identify and assess four structural explanations for this decline: "lexical change" (replacing self-determination with alternative terms); "silent hegemony" (taking the norm for granted); "reactive rhetoric" (echoing conflicts and new state formation post hoc); and "mission accomplished" (rectifying the incongruence between national boundaries and state borders). Complementing these structural causes with agential reasons, I further suggest that powerful state actors and persuasive academics have sought to "tame" self-determination as both principle and practice, retaining the term but altering its meaning from a source of threat into a resource for containing it. Self-determination, however, has not been eliminated, and taming it may yet prove a pyrrhic victory.

AbstractWhen and what is the nation, and nationalism, and when have both emerged in the Arab world? I suggest new ways of approaching these questions, and new answers. Revisiting the 'dating debate', I propose distinguishing between negative nationalism (rejecting foreign rule) and positive nationalism (holding 'the people' as the source of legitimacy), the latter distinctively modern, the former not. Empirically, I examine these theoretical propositions in light of the Arab Spring's dual revolution, vividly captured by its popular slogan: 'The people want(s) to bring down the regime'. I submit that the manifest revolution of toppling regimes pales in comparison with the ideational revolution of engendering positive nationalism. While the former revolution has been a huge surprise, the history of the Arab world abounds in precedents; conversely, Arab societies' subscription to 'the people' as the prime political legitimator – asserting their own inalienable political right to tell right from wrong – is novel. In that sense (positive) nationalism is the revolution of the Arab Spring, challenging both authorities and polities.