Professor Valerie Epps has written an interesting article for the Korea Times discussing the evolution of international law as it relates to state sovereignty, then applying it to the secession in Kosova and the recent conflict in Tibet. She stresses that the United Nations has generally walked a fine line between favoring the right of self-determination and opposition to secessionist movements, undoubtedly reflecting the desires of the existing member-states.
One point bears repeating: Small states are not inherently unstable. Prof. Epps cites Liechtenstein and Luxembourg as examples, but there are any number of small countries throughout the world that exist peacefully -- consider the small Caribbean and South Pacific island nations, the Arab sheikdoms, and African countries like Gambia, Lesotho, and Swaziland.
Bloodshed occurs, not because territories want to secede; but because the ruling élites in the larger nation do not want to give them up, and are willing to use force to keep them. It's as simple as that.
2 comments:
I am glad that the western world cries out against this violent oppresion of Tibet and Taiwan's national sovereignty. They don't seem to see, however, the parallels to what Lincoln did to the Southern States. Perhaps THAT is what the Chinese are refering to when they talk about the double-standard of western media....
Yup.
Post a Comment