No description available.

No description available.

This thesis demonstrates that by redefining the notion of nationhood and by treating nations and national minorities equally with respect to self-determination, it is possible to formulate basic principles of the international legal system, which would promote territorial integrity and stability of multinational states better than the existing system. I demonstrate that theories dealing with self-determination based solely on human rights or cases of secession address the problem with inadequate tools. I also show that minority-rights approaches do not accommodate self-determination claims of national groups properly. / I offer a new idea of nationhood as a political culture of self-determination with which people self-identify. It includes beliefs about co-nationals' mutual membership in a political community, which is perceived by them as having a self-determining power. Definitions of nationhood which use the notion of culture, but not political culture, are both too inclusive---they fail to distinguish between national and ethnic groups, and too exclusive---they overlook multicultural nations. / Contested secession has received much attention in recent scholarship. Since, however, contested secession is based upon the disagreement of two or more national groups concerning their self-determination within particular boundaries, I consider secession within the scope of a systematic approach to the regulation of relations among national groups. I propose that international legal principles should be based upon the recognition of states and national groups as the two basic elements of the international system, and the equal recognition of nations as political cultures of self-determination. I interpret self-determination as a claim to equality within the boundaries a multinational state, and formulate a criterion of minimal justice for states. It requires that states respect equality of self-determination of national groups on their territory. National groups can secede from multinational states either by mutual agreement, or if their they are persistently denied a status with respect to self-determination equal to that of other national groups.

Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 1988. / Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universiteit Leiden, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [453]-480) and index.

No description available.

Thesis--Sarajevo, 1952. / At head of title: Miroslav, R. Đorđević. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

Recent events in East Timor and other regions have highlighted the dangers of leaving issues of self-determination unresolved for too long. Despite the tact that self-determination is one of the guiding principles of the UN Charter, many controversies over its precise meaning and application continue to preclude a coherent, comprehensive approach to the principle by Stales. This thesis analyses the main controversies over the right of all peoples to self-determination and suggests some conclusions as to the present status of this right under international law. The author also analyses potential approaches to enforcing a legitimate right to self-determination and concludes that there appears to be no effective enforcement mechanism, unless one has the support of a sovereign State in advocating one's cause. Historically, realisation of this right has more often involved a successful campaign of violence or coercion against the party denying the right, and subsequent recognition by the international community of the legitimacy of the campaign. Clearly, this situation is not conducive to international peace and security. The author argues that international criminal law may provide the only effective means of enforcing legitimate rights to self-determination at this time. This conclusion is drawn with reference to Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni's theory of five stages through which a human right evolves, from a mere aspiration, to a right whose breach attracts penal proscriptions. Bassiouni argues that, in international law, a human right becomes a suitable subject for international criminal law when effective enforcement modalities for that right have failed. The thesis concludes with a suggestion that the right to self-determination may be one of the rights protected under the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, within the definition of the crime against humanity of "persecution" (article 7(1)(h) & (2)(g)).

This dissertation examines the theoretical aspects of communication and coexistence among different and sometimes competing national cultures in contemporary liberal-democratic states. As its primary example, the study focuses on the quest for self-determination of Canada's indigenous peoples, but the theoretical significance of the project extends well beyond the bounds of this particular case. With this end in mind, the dissertation advances and defends a set of normative political principles which could, with certain necessary modifications, serve to guide just, equitable, and stable relations among different national cultures in a broad range of cases and contexts. The discussion opens with the development of a model of cross-cultural understanding and accommodation, which in turn is used to demonstrate the manner in which the theory and practice of liberal democracy often serves to legitimate the assertion of the authority of particular national cultures over their relatively smaller and weaker rivals. / In opposition to this more conventional liberal approach, the dissertation proposes a reformulation of the theoretical and institutional bases of liberal conceptions of national sovereignty and self-determination. This alternative approach bypasses any attempt to identify authentic or foundational liberal values which must frame and govern the principle of national self-determination, and which assert their categorical primacy over competing normative ideals and traditions. This approach to self-determination balances, on the one hand, the importance of more localized national ends, ideals, and institutions with a concern, on the other, for universal standards of democratic conduct, responsibility, and governance. What results is not a grand theory of national self-determination, but rather a set of flexible principles which can be attuned to different cultural contexts and circumstances, and which are subject to the democratic consent of the nations or peoples concerned.