The study is the result of an international collaborative project supported and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. This multi-year venture has involved a research team of some forty chapter authors and commentators. The research has been accompanied by three major workshops on project methodology, initial chapter reviews and final discussions. A point was made of including both scholars and practitioners involved in power-sharing settlements in the review process, in the hope that more would be learned about the actual implementation of the settlements under investigation. The project team was united in its wish to explore whether long-standing secessionist conflicts have been addressed effectively through the significant number of self-determination settlements that were generated in response to the wave of internal conflicts of the 1990s. It was also committed to testing whether consociationalist and integrative techniques of conflict settlement really are as mutually exclusive as is sometimes supposed, or whether they can in fact be mutually reinforcing. Finally, the project derives its impetus from the necessity to critically rethink the doctrine of self-determination. One may question whether its traditional, restrictive interpretation will be adequate in confronting the wide variety of future challenges to the territorial integrity of states.

Self-determination conflicts outside the colonial context have previously appeared virtually impossible to settle. Long-running and very destructive internal armed conflicts have been the result. Since the termination of the Cold War, however, there has been a veritable wave of self-determination settlements. While some of these trade the claim to secession for internal autonomy in order to safeguard the territorial unity of the state, a number of innovative solutions have been adopted, going beyond this traditional approach. This article reviews over 40 settlements and draft settlements in order to identify an emerging post-modern pattern of practice of settling self-determination disputes. The article also assesses the impact of this practice on the classical, restrictive understanding of the doctrine of self-determination.

Living in the age of American 'hyperpower' the relevance of both international law and conflict resolution have been called into question. Hannum and Babbitt, highly respected practitioners in these respective fields, have collected a series of experts to examine the relationship between these two disciplines. Focusing on self-determination, a particularly thorny issue of international law, Negotiating Self-Determination takes an in-depth look at what an understanding of conflict analysis can bring to this field and the impact that international legal norms could potentially have on the work of conflict resolvers in self-determination conflicts. Allen Buchanan's philosophical writings consider the goals of secessionists, Erin Jenne uses quantitative analysis to explain the conditions under which secessionist movements come into existence, and Anke Hoeffler and Paul Collier study the economic basis for secessionist movements. This well-researched volume looks beyond the international law and policy fields of the editors to philosophy, anthropology, political science, and economy to assist in gaining a more complete understanding of self-determination and conflict prevention.

Throughout the world many sovereign states grant one or more of their territories greater autonomy than other areas. This arrangement, known as asymmetric autonomy, has been adopted with greater regularity as a solution to ethnic strife and secessionist struggles in recent decades. As asymmetric autonomy becomes one of the most frequently used conflict resolution methods, examination of the positive and negative consequences of its implementation, as well as its efficacy, is vital. Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflicts assesses the ability of such power distribution arrangements to resolve violent struggles between central governments and separatist groups. This collection of new case studies from around the world covers a host of important developments, from recentralization in Russia, to "one country, two systems" in China, to constitutional innovation in Iraq. As a whole, these essays examine how well asymmetric autonomy agreements can bring protracted and bloody conflicts to an end, satisfy the demands of both sides, guarantee the physical integrity of a state, and ensure peace and stability. Contributors to this book also analyze the many problems and dilemmas that can arise when autonomous regions are formed. For example, powers may be loosely defined or unrealistically assigned to the state within a state. Redrawn boundaries can create new minorities and make other groups vulnerable to human rights violations. Given the number of limited self-determination systems in place, the essays in this volume present varied evaluations of these political structures. Asymmetric state agreements have the potential to remedy some of humanity's most intractable disputes. In Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflicts, leading political scientists and diplomatic experts shed new light on the practical consequences of these settlements and offer sophisticated frameworks for understanding this path toward lasting peace.

Peoples and minorities in many parts of the world assert a right to self-determination, autonomy, and even secession from a state, which naturally conflicts with that state's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The right of a people to self-determination and secession has existed as a concept within international law since the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, but the exact definition of these concepts, and the conditions required for their application, remain unclear. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the Declaration of Independency of Kosovo (2010), which held that the Kosovo declaration of independence was not in violation of international law, has only led to further questions. This book takes four conflicts in the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a starting point for examining the current state of the law of self-determination and secession. Four entities, Transnistria (Moldova), South Ossetia, Abkhazia (both Georgia), and Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), claim to be entitled not only to self-determination but also to secession from their mother state. For this entitlement they rely on historic affiliations, and on charges of discrimination and massive human rights violations committed by their mother state. This book sets out its analysis of these critical issue in three parts, providing a detailed understanding of the principles of international law on which they rely: The first part sets out the contours and meaning of self-determination and secession, including an overall assessment of secession within the Commonwealth of Independent States. The second section provides case studies investigating the events in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabach in greater detail. The third and final section extends the scope of the examination, providing a comparative analysis of similar conflicts involving questions of self-determination and secession in Kosovo, Western Sahara, and Eritrea.

Conflicts over the rights of self-defined population groups to determine their own destiny within the boundaries of existing states are among the most violent forms of inter-communal conflict. Many experts agree that autonomy regimes are a useful framework within which competing claims to self-determination can be accommodated. This volume explores and analyses the different options available. The contributors assess the current state of the theory and practice of institutional design for the settlement of self-determination conflicts, and also compare and contrast detailed case studies on autonomous regimes in the former Yugoslavia, the Crimea, Åland, Northern Ireland, Latin America, Indonesia and Vietnam.