Georgia, Ossetia, Kosovo and the principle of self determination

At least since Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, the self determination of peoples has featured as a principle of international affairs. But who has the right to self-determination?

When Yugoslavia broke up, the international community was willing to recognise the right of its internal units that had the status of republic (such as Slovenia and Croatia) to declare themselves independent, but not to recognise such a right for those that had the status of province (namely Kosovo, despite it having a bigger and linguisticly more different poulation than some of the republics). Recently, some of the international community has changed its mind and recognised Kosovo's independence.

When the Soviet Union broke up, the 15 internal units that had the status of SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) were recognised as sovereign states, but not the "autonomous republics". Some of the SSRs (such as the Baltic republics) had previously existed as independent countries, but others were based on somewhat arbitrary boundaries, many of which were drawn up by Stalin when he was Commissar for Nationalities. Stalin also determined the hierarchy of which groups were to have their own SSR, which an autonomous republic and which merely an autonomous Oblast.

It is not surprising that the legacy of Stalin's frontiers is now causing problems. The South Ossetians do not want to be part of Georgia, for instance, and don't see why they can't be independent.

The Ossetians were bound to see Kosovo as a precedent. And if Serbia had sent its troops back into Kosovo last month, the western countries with troops there would certainly have reacted, as Russia did in Ossetia - but hopefully not over-reacted which the Russian's seem to have done.

The situation is complex and there is no simple right and wrong. More like two wrongs, which of course don't make a right. Georgia was wrong to attack Southern Ossetia, triggering the tragic events of the last few weeks. Russia is wrong to react disproportionately and unilaterally.

But a due recognition by the west of this complexity of the issue would go a long way to avoiding an escalation. As would some more consistent thought on the principles at stake.

It is not that such questions are new. Even in our part of the world, when Ireland opted out of the UK, its right to self determination was contested by some, while others did not accept the right of Northern Ireland to opt out of Ireland. One can safely bet a tidy sum that there would also be different views on the rights of Scotland to leave the UK (and the Shetlands to leave Scotland?), Transdnestria to leave Moldavia, Flanders to leave Belgium, the Basque country to leave Spain or Corsica to leave France.

Some of these would be strongly contested, others less so - but what are the criteria? Is it possible to have objective criteria? If so, who should define them? If not, should any group that so wishes be able to constitute its own state? Should Yorkshire (it's far bigger than Luxembourg!)? Should Gibraltar? Should the Aland islands? What about the Channel Islands?

(By the way, any area opting out from an EU countrty would not automatically become a separate Member State of the Union. It would require either an accession treaty or a treaty amendment, duly ratified by every Member State, some of whom would be reluctant to do so, lest they create a precedent).

Clearly, the right to self determination raises many questions. It is not a subject on which simple assertions of such a right can be made or denied without due thought and consideration.