Should the international community allow ethnicity to determine country borders as a principle?

The Ukrainian region Crimea is predominantly ethnically Russian (or at least Russian speaking). If the citizens living in this region want to secede and join Russia or form their own nation state, should they be allowed? According to the Ukrainian constitution, secession is not allowed by a plebiscite unless all Ukrainian are allowed to vote. I find this question quite fascinating and we are likely to face many such questions in the future. 


All inhabited land on earth has strong prior claims from existing nation states. Under what conditions is it legitimate for a subset of citizens in one or more nation states to create a new nation state? Currently, there is not much in international law regulating the issue. Most (if any) nation states do not have a constitution that describes the process of secession. Does that mean the process in some way is illegal? Legal scholars would differ in their response. The question is difficult and ultimately cannot be settled by legal sophistry. Recent secession movements have either been peaceful (e.g. Scotland, Quebec, Czech and Slovak republics) or violent (e.g. Kosovo, Eritrea, Basque region in Spain). One of the few academics that have written on the subject is philosopher Allen Buchanan. He makes a distinction between two types of reasoning:

• Remedial Right Only. A group has the right to secede only if it has suffered certain injustices and only as a last resort.
• Primary Right. A group has the right to secede even in the absence of any injustice. A further distinction is whether the group has to have a common ethnicity/religion or whether any group of individuals can secede.

One of the most important principles of international law is the principle of the territorial integrity of existing nation states. That is why the first type of theory has the upper hand. So only after a lot of human suffering will borders be redrawn. The existing nation states reign supreme.

It seems to be needlessly hard not to allow a region to secede. Some ethnic groups currently have their own nation states and others do not; largely by historical accident. France is a nation state, but Provence is a part of France. Turkey is a nation state, but the Kurdish territory is part of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. China is a nation state, but Tibet is part of China. Fair?

Graham Robb has written a fascinating book about how France became French. 150 years ago, in around 35% of the provinces, French was a minority language. The central government in Paris had a strong policy of Frenchification of all the territory. The eradication of regional ethnic groups was very successful. Most people living within the French nation state, consider themselves French today. Such a policy of ethnic homogenisation would certainly not be possible in today's Western Europe. Minority cultures have strong rights today. However, ethnic and religious cleansing is alive, for instance in portions of the Middle East and Africa.  

I believe that the ethnic groups that we have left in the world will over time demand their own nation states. The international community needs clear rules regarding secession movements. Personally, I would like to see a world, in which each ethnic group, if possible, would have the right to their own nation state. There has to be some practical conditions, e.g. viability of the territory, majority in an plebiscite. The nation states are carriers of culture and language, but also most legislation and taxation. In addition, there has to be international organisations tying the nation states into various kind of communities of nations (e.g. European Union, NAFTA, ASEAN). Many of the challenges facing mankind cannot be solved by nation states acting independently. Furthermore, there would also be a need for protection of minority ethnic/religious groups in each nation state.

Existing nation states must understand that they do no longer become wealthy by owning a lot of territory. Education, innovation, and trade are far more important venues towards wealth. In fact, it is conceivable that the optimal size of a nation state is much smaller than the size of India, China, and even the United States. And it is conceivable that the amount of integration in the European Union and the United States have gone too far. 

Understandably, but unfortunately, the political establishments in most existing nation states are not interested in giving up territory. Let us go back to Ukraine. Would it be easier for Ukraine if Crimea and maybe also the very eastern provinces seceded to Russia? The remaining Ukraine would predominantly be populated by Ukrainian speakers. And to the extent still relevant, a larger portion of the territory would have been part of the Austria-Hungarian empire 100 years earlier. I believe it would be easier for Ukraine to grow into a prosperous nation state without having the added difficulty of a bi-ethnic society. 

In the European context, we have very few political parties that favour the nation state and the European Union. The balance has probably tilted too far towards the union. The far right parties in Europe want to strengthen the nation state, but they do not have any viable policy on the European Union, except being against. 

I am less optimistic about Africa and the Middle East. Large portions of Africa probably needs wholesale redrawing of borders and forced resettlement based on ethnicity/religion. However, that will not happen. Instead we will see further ethnic/religious cleaning - a more brutal way of achieving the same end result. 

Whether India and China, but also Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, and the US are too large for their own good is a very interesting question worthy of further study. I do not know. Here I am not primarily concerned with ethnicity, but with the complexity of governing a very large nation state.