For the last few centuries international relations has been dominated by the nation-state model of governance. Essentially countries have agreed to recognize the sovereignty of their neighbors within their own borders. The globe has been carved into national territories based on historic ethnic, economic, political, and cultural associations. Sometimes these delineations make sense and sometimes they are completely arbitrary. Furthermore, borders that once represented a good ‘fit’ with the reality on the ground can evolve into unworkable situations and vice versa.
Inevitably in all this fence building there were going to be those who didn’t appreciate being included under sovereignty of those they did not trust or recognize. However, once the sovereign nation-state was accepted by its brethren there was little opportunity for lesser nations to make their appeals heard at the international level except with the acquiescence of their host state.
The key issue for nation-hood has therefore always been recognition on the international stage. Obviously to be recognized the nation in question would need to be able to demonstrate to the world that it had a legitimate claim to territory, self-governance and sovereignty. It would also need to demonstrate that it had the ability to walk and talk as a nation-state in terms of economic, social and political stability. Finally the aspiring nation would have to overcome the likely protests of the sovereign it was currently a part of.
The recent example of Kosovo demonstrates the inherent ambiguity of international law to the problem of secession under the nation-state model. With no international Leviathan to stand as a final arbitrator of who gets into the club, it becomes a matter of who will shake your hand and who will hand you your coat. These determinations are often driven by the self-interest of the recognizer and not the validity of the claims to nation-hood.
Kosovo’s unilateral secession drew an almost instantaneously negative response from those countries that face secession movements within their own borders for obvious reasons. The Quebecois in Canada, the Basques in Spain, and the Chechens in Russia will want to know what makes the Kosovars so special. There are many answers that can and will be given and many of those arguments are both ethically and rationally persuasive. However the only real answer is that the Kosovars have been able to manage their circumstances such that a significant part of the international community is willing to recognize their independence.
This isn’t always the case. Almost no one recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation-state. Israel is still a non-entity to many Arab states. The nation-states of central Africa have spent the last fifty years expanding and contracting and changing names as they attempt to make political sense out of the arbitrary borders of their colonial past.
It would seem that the law should be more certain and many will claim that the answer lies in the United Nations. However the United Nations is more a forum than a decision maker. Nation-states have guarded their sovereignty jealously and only pass along a measure of that power to the sub or supra national level when they are obligated by the tides of history. There is nothing wrong with the United Nations functioning as a forum but it would be juvenile to expect it to produce a clear answer when it has no real independent voice.
Ultimately Kosovo’s independence will be marked by its economic and political viability lying in the hands of other states. If the EU and the US are willing to carry Kosovo for the immediate future it may emerge over time as a fully functional state. At present its independence is more a recognition of the fact that it could not go back to what it was and it could not remain as it is. International law in the circumstances is merely a matter of matching the reality on the ground within the conventions of the nation-state system.
 |
