The Fragmentation of Geopolitical Space

Throughout the last century, the society of sovereign nations has grown steadily, giving rise – for distinct reasons and under different modalities – to our present-day international structure comprised of almost 200 sovereign states, the primary geopolitical units of the world system. Epochal changes in the international order, such as the disintegration of European empires in the early 20th century, the decolonization process, and lastly the end of the Cold War, brought about an extraordinary proliferation of independent states: during the past twenty years, full independence was accorded – through United Nations membership – to twenty-five former sub-state entities. Although such major geopolitical reconfiguration undoubtedly followed events of an exceptional nature, these events have severely destabilized the idea (dominant in the second half of last century) that international borders should not – or could not – be modified to create new states. As is widely acknowledged, this is nowadays achieved mainly by way of secession, intended as the process by which a political community seeks to detach part of an existing state in order to establish a separate sovereign entity.

The tendency to fragmentation becomes relevant most notably: a) when effective control is established on part of a sovereign state on behalf of a secessionist community, with the aim of fostering international recognition of the new polity; and b) when separatist politics – with differing degrees of legitimacy and success – are pursued within the territory of a sovereign state in order to achieve political goals, including the chance of seceding from the state.

To the first category belong those independent territorial entities – so-called de facto states — which rely on the ‘principle of effectiveness’ to support their claim to sovereign statehood. Especially when patronized (more or less officially) by external actors – and especially by Great Powers – de facto states pose a dramatic challenge to the international system, since they operate in a grey area of international relations and international law. To the second category belong a great variety of territorially organized sub-state entities (federal/confederal entities, autonomous regions, etc.) and non-state actors (stateless nations, indigenous peoples, national and ethnic minorities) which – in different capacities and on various grounds – actively seek to increase their sovereign powers to possibly attain title over the territory they occupy, most commonly by appealing to the right of self-determination.

Separatism – and secessionist politics in particular – is one of the most serious challenges to both state institutions and the international order as a whole: in fact, secessionist projects are pursued worldwide, under both democratic and non-democratic regimes, by both violent and non-violent means. The sustained tendency toward smaller geopolitical units in our age of growing interdependence will arguably continue to be a crucial feature marking the passage from the ‘international’ order to an incipient ‘global’ order. In this sense, the threats and the opportunities of fragmentation are not to be underestimated, inasmuch as the underlying claims are not to be neglected.

As a matter of fact, in recent times the topic of secession has gained considerable attention and there have been several attempts at developing comprehensive frameworks to address it in global perspective. It goes without saying that this task is extraordinarily complex and multifaceted, yet it remains of the greatest importance. For obvious reasons, statesmen, the society of states, international legal scholarship and intergovernmental organizations have in general showed bitter hostility to separatist groups. However, the post-Cold War international environment has proved far less unified in its opposition to geopolitical fragmentation, absent the fundamental ideological constraint provided by bi-polar thinking. Whether such a constraint can be replaced by new bi-polar ideological winds – such as the war against terrorism – is at least debatable. In any case, an increasing disposition is evident to consider secession – in theory and practice – in a way which was previously unknown, providing more space for critical positions with respect to basic features of the international order such as self-determination, state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Even so, the international divide over recognition of new sovereign entities and their status in international law remains unchanged; the need for shared vision and acceptable norms governing the processes of state creation and dissolution thus deserves the greatest attention and efforts from the international community as a whole.

If it is correct to link the increasing acceptance of secession to the historical trend of state multiplication, it appears likely that in the years to come the inter-state community will eventually accept the emergence of new sovereign entities which are now part of recognized states. The issue of secession is thus seems likely to continue to play a crucial role in the international realm, with all the difficulties deriving from its complex interaction with key legal, political, ethical and identity issues. Despite commitment to the continuity of the existing geopolitical order, the reality of a dynamic system of international relations suggests that change is the rule, rather than the exception.

Drawing on these premises, if geopolitical reconfigurations can bring about more peaceful, representative and functional entities, the historical opposition to secession and border-redrawing processes may in the future be regarded as an old-fashioned perspective in international relations. The increasing acceptance of secession in normative and procedural theories of political decentralization apparently points in this direction.

The trend toward geopolitical fragmentation seems also connected to rising democratization and popular representation on the global stage. One challenge of the 21st century will be to develop a global administrative framework in which the rationale for the redrawing of borders and state creation is more clearly outlined. This will necessarily imply a redefinition of the basic features of states as primary geopolitical units. If states are to maintain as their prerogative the monopoly on the internal use of force, a strong international pledge to make them accountable for violations of basic human rights – particularly with respect to the human and environmental security of groups – is of fundamental importance. While it is clear that no theory, no matters how comprehensive, can claim absolute validity in addressing such issues, it is probably time to start to frame a systemic approach that aims at reducing both violent attempts at separatism and violent central reactions. This would seem to require in the future the creation of a new adjudicative body – and new global instruments to give it effect – as a recourse against unlawful acts by both states and mobilized groups. A guiding principle towards a procedural perspective on secession could be based on setting reciprocal patterns of checks and balances on exclusive areas of sovereignty; this would accordingly impose on states, sub-units and supranational organizations the duty and responsibility to negotiate their respective influence on each other without resorting to military coercion. In this way, distinct local communities would be allowed to freely determine their status – in accordance with the principle of self-determination – but at the same time would not be allowed to pursue their self-interest by discrediting other groups. In the still unfolding global order, the principle of interdependence will likely carry much more meaning than that of independence. Such interdependence should also lead to the progressive elimination of unjust and asymmetrical relations between and within states.

(Based on: the International Relations and Security Network

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=155328&tabid=1453404549&contextid774=155328&contextid775=155325)

LANGUAGE FOCUS