Description
Many rebels fighting for secession demand a referendum on independence. Even though the international community is usually unwilling to support self-determination in peace processes, there are rare cases where mediators and other international actors supported self-determination to resolve civil wars. How can we explain this variation?
As a contribution to the literature on the resolution of self-determination conflicts and the burgeoning literature on state recognition, this article aims at understanding why Western states, the most powerful group in the international community, support self-determination in peace processes in rare cases. This article argues that their support for self-determination has been seen when three conditions were met: (1) the resolution of the conflict is essential for Western states, (2) self-determination is the only feasible option to resolve the conflict, and (3) Western states hoped that the peace agreement containing the clause on self-determination does not necessarily lead to secession.
Utilizing extensive original interviews with Western policy makers involved in mediation processes, the author’s argument is discussed through four deviant cases where Western states supported self-determination in peace processes: Bougainville, Eritrea, Kosovo, and Southern Sudan.
