Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:19:27.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-building, and the Alternative Federal Option. By Edward McWhinney. Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. 133 pages.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Zoran Oklopcic*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Department of Law, Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews / Recensions de livres
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jennings, I., The Approach to Self-Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956) at 56.Google Scholar

2 Etzioni, A., “The Evils of Self-Determination” (1992) 89 For. Pol. 21 at 21.Google Scholar

3 Verzijl, J.H.W., “The Right to Self-Determination,” in Verzijl, H.W., ed., International Law in Historical Perspective, Volume 1 (Leyden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1968) 321 at 321.Google Scholar

4 Simpson, G., “The Diffusion of Sovereignty: Self-Determination in the Post-Colonial Age” (1996) 32 Stan. J. Int’l L. 255 at 257.Google Scholar

5 Crawford, J., “Right of Self-Determination in International Law: Its Development and Future,” in Alston, P., ed., Peoples’ Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 7 at 10.Google Scholar

6 Prakash Sinha, S., “Is Self-Determination Passé?” (1973) 12 Col. J. Transnat’l L. 260 at 260.Google Scholar

7 McWhinney, Edward, Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-building, and the Alternative Federal Option (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007) at 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Ibid. at 45.

9 See generally Lalonde, S., Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002);Google Scholar Radan, P., The Break-up of Yugoslavia and International Law (London: Routledge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannum, H., “Self-Determination, Yugoslavia and Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles?” (1993) 3 Transnat’l L. & Contemp.Probs. 57 Google Scholar; Pomerance, M., “The Badinter Commission: The Use and Misuse of the International Court of Justice’s Jurisprudence” (1998) 20 Mich. J. Int’l L. 31 Google Scholar; Ratner, S., “Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States” (1996) 90 A.J.I.L. 590 Google Scholar; Frowein, J.A., “Self-Determination as a Limit to Obligations under International Law,” in Tomuschat, C., ed., Modern Law of Self-Determination (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) 211.Google Scholar

10 Caplan, R., Europe and the Recognition of New States in Yugoslavia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 69 [emphasis added]CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a different and arguably mistaken opinion, see Dugard, J. and Rai, D., “The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession,” in Kohen, M.G., ed., Secession: International Law Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 128 Google Scholar. Dugard and Rai are right to claim that the European Community justified the independent statehood of the Yugoslav republics by recourse to self-determination of peoples. However, they are wrong in attributing that opinion to Badinter’s Commission.

11 Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 554 at para. 25 [emphasis added].

12 Ibid.

13 McWhinney, supra note 7 at 62.

14 Ibid. at 63.

15 Ibid. at 84.

16 For an account of “constitutional nationalism” that contributed to Yugoslavia’s demise, see Hayden, R.M., Blueprints for a House Divided: The Constitutional Logic of the Yugoslav Conflicts (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Reference re Secession of Québec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.

18 Ibid. at para. 92.

19 Ibid. at para. 96.

20 McWhinney, supra note 7 at 91.

21 Ibid. at 87.

22 Ibid. at 91.

23 Ibid. at 92.

24 Ibid. at 93.

25 Ibid. at 126.

26 “U.S. Recognizes Kosovo as Independent State,” Department of the State, <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/02/100973.htm> [emphasis added].

27 “Albania Recognizes Kosovo,” Balkan Insight (19 February 2008), <http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/8009/>.

28 See, for example, the stance of the Canadian government, which closely mirrors the United States’ position by emphasizing “the unique circumstances which have led to Kosovo’s independence.” “Canada Joins International Recognition of Kosovo,” Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada News Release, 18 March 2008, <http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.aspx?isRedirect=True&Language=E&publication_id=385955&docnumber=59>.

29 McWhinney, supra note 7 at 87.