Search

Begin New Search Topic Self Determination Publishing Institution Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University

1. Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

Author:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
This report is the Chair’s Summary of a colloquium on the theme of reconciling self-determination and territorial integrity, “Models of Self-Governance as Tools to Promote Peace and Stability in Europe,” which was held in Triesenberg, Liechtenstein, from March 20-22, 2016. The report conveys key points from the discussions among academics, experienced mediators and diplomats, aimed at considering new and innovative ways of thinking about self-determination that do not equate it with independence or secession, in particular, in the context of ongoing conflicts in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe area. The meeting was held in collaboration by Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University and the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations.
Topic:
Governance, Self Determination, Political stability, and Peace
Political Geography:
Europe

2. Grand Strategy and Self-Determinatio

Author:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
This report is the chair's summary from the colloquium, "Grand Strategy and Self-Determination," sponsored by the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University, November 19-20, 2014. The notions of “grand strategy” and “self-determination” are of critical significance in today’s world of multiple international crises. At once potentially highly interactive or mutually exclusive, complementary or self-reinforcing, these concepts, however, are rarely analyzed simultaneously. Grand strategy—the utilization of all available means to achieve desired ends—retains remarkable importance, as it continues to shape approaches to the complexities of contemporary policy-making. Yet present-day grand strategy is challenged by evolving notions and distributions of power in the global context. Contentious debates emerge over the state of the international system, with challenges stemming from the role of scientific and technological developments like robotics and nanotechnologies, proliferation of information accessible in real time through social media, the radicalization of religious movements, unequal distribution of income, and high rates of mobility. Today’s world offers no shortage of short- and long-term crises, including the role of power and leadership, economic, financial, energy, environmental and health challenges, a reemergence of nationalism, great-power geopolitics, terrorism, and as-yet unimagined disruptions to or within the international system, with the resulting difficulty of defining and achieving the necessary elements of a toolkit for strategy and diplomacy. Self-determination has been both a source of peace and stability and also an objective and even an instrument of actors in this global context. At the same time, the powerful and often-contested matter of self-determination interacts with and further challenges ideas and norms of strategy and governance. It is here that these two central notions meet, with the conceptual interaction between an individual striving to “determine one’s destiny” and search for greater influence in governance challenged by a status quo which still encourages control and power by national governments. A truly successful grand strategy must, in fact, harness the potentially revolutionary power of self-determination, weaving together the threads of these two paramount principles to face the emerging challenges of the 21st century.
Topic:
Power Politics, Self Determination, and Mobility
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Toward a Sovereign Afghanistan

Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
The Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University (LISD) convened the conference, “Toward a Sovereign Afghanistan,” October 20-22, 2011, in the Cecilienhof Castle of Potsdam near Berlin, Germany. More than 40 leading experts from Afghanistan and 14 other states participated in the private, off-the-record conference. The colloquium was opened by Ambassador Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy for Afghanistan of the UN Secretary-General; Dr. Rangin Spanta, Afghanistan National Security Advisor; Ambassador Michael Steiner, Special Representative of the Germany for Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Ambassador Vygaudas Ušackas, Special Representative and Head of Mission of the EU's Mission for Afghanistan. Wolfgang Danspeckgruber, LISD Director, chaired the colloquium.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Civil Society, Economics, Islam, Peace Studies, and Self Determination
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Germany

4. We the Peoples? The Birth and Death of Self-Determination

Author:
Uriel Abulof
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
This paper traces the discourse of self-determination, its rise and possible demise. Self-determination evolved in three phases. The concept emerged from the intra-socialist debate on how to reconcile socialism and nationalism. The Bolshevik Revolution subsequently transformed this ideological debate into a “speech-act,” an act predicated, practically and ethically, on a specific speech. The concept was then universalized by Western diplomacy. Drawing on both content and discourse analysis, I argue that while self-determination as a political concept is still alive, as a universal speech-act it may be dying. Three trends undermine self-determination's ideal of duality (pertaining to both the individual and the collective) and mutuality (for the self as well as for others): (1) overshadowing the self-determination of peoples with the other-determination of states; (2) increasingly excluding non-colonized and ethnic peoples from the realm of eligible groups; (3) defending existing states while denying statehood to stateless peoples, due to both globalization and the rising emphasis on the state's functions, to protect and to represent, as prerequisites for self-determination. I conclude by suggesting that self-determination may be gradually developing to focus less on advancing new polities and more on justifying existing ones.
Topic:
Nationalism, Sovereignty, International Affairs, Political Theory, and Self Determination