How likely is a partition of Turkey?

It is generally held that the right to self-determination may be viewed as a certain group's entitlement to determine its fate and mode of governance; however, the groups which are entitled to exercise this right are not clear in specific cases. There are no generally accepted rules and standards on this matter. The principle, currently formulated as the right to self-determination, was not designed by Wilson to be universally applicable. It was conceived as a resolution to ensure that the peoples ruled by the states that were defeated in World War I had an independent and sovereign state.

No generally acceptable rules have been formulated to ensure the application of the principle of self-determination. In addition, there are a number of vague and controversial points with respect to its implementation. These include the fate of the peoples who apparently have no ability to govern themselves but a strong aspiration for independence. Secondly, it is not obvious as to what extent the rights of the majority will be undermined in the presence of the minority's right to self-determination. Thirdly, if the exercising of the right is to be made via a referendum, it will not be easy to determine the scope and content of these popular votes. Fourth, when an ethnic group is recognized as having a right to independence, there will most probably be another minority. For instance, what will happen to the Georgian minority if the independence of South Ossetia is recognized?

The UN Charter makes mention of a peoples' right to self-determination; however, the emphasis on the principle is pretty weak. The charter treats the notion as a principle -- and not as a right or standard. But it is possible to talk about two periods where self-determination met with wider acceptance both as a right and a principle. It should be noted, however, that this right was recognized in both periods for specified ethnic groups and had a limited application. The first period is the aftermath of World War I, during which Wilson sought to ensure the independence of some communities in Europe. The second period is the aftermath of World War II, where the overall tendency in the practice of self-determination was to conclude the partition of overseas empires without causing instability to the international system. It is obvious that self-determination, which was frequently consulted during this period, also known as the process of decolonization, lost its impact and popularity when this era was over.

If self-determination refers to the right of a people to choose their modes of governance, future regime and political institutions, obviously this contradicts the right of a state to remain territorially intact. For this reason, the UN has remained cautious with separatist movements and has not endorsed and legitimized secessions based on the principle of self-determination. The primary reason is that it is rather likely that the UN will be in a difficult position if it allows such threats to the territorial integrity of its members.

Considering this brief explanation, it is impossible to suggest that Turkey may be partitioned by virtue of the principle of self-determination. It does not seem possible to argue that the practices of self-determination in the modern world can be presented as justification or as a model for Turkey's partition. For this reason, groups and communities in Turkey cannot ask to secede from Turkey just because peoples have the right to determine their future in principle. Therefore, neither the basic principles that shape the international system, nor the principle of self-determination allow the partition of Turkey.

How could Turkey be partitioned?

But this explanation should not be taken as a guarantee suggesting that Turkey cannot be partitioned. The current international system is significantly different than the one prevalent in the 20th century. Superficially, it is possible to say that this change and difference is partially about the shift in the focus of the system. While the 20th-century world placed emphasis on national states, the current global system also considers human security -- at least in principle. Of course, it would be naïve to argue that the system is entirely focused on individuals and their rights. But it is at least possible to assert that there is an overall tendency in which human security and human rights are seriously considered.

The concrete consequences of this tendency have become visible in the independence of some states in the post-Cold War era. Even though it is possible to talk about self-determination in the cases of independence in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans, a different custom and pattern has become influential in other examples, including the independence of East Timor and Kosovo.

~ more... ~