About twenty years ago Ruggie argued that the modern system of states, as it has developed in the 19th and 20th century, existed on a deeper and more extended temporal plane than the world’s “time” order—a concept of ‘fluidity’ involving “attributes that structure expectations and imbue daily events with meaning for the members of any given social collectivity” put forward by journalist Theordore H. White. Thus the remaking of the modern system of states, compared to that of eras as attributes of a time, “involves a shift not in the play of power politics but of the stage on which that play is performed”. There have been many attempts to explain the phenomena of decolonization, secession, and nationalist movements, particularly in the last two decades. This endeavor to normalize secession, and subject it to the rule of law, is neither naïve nor implausible, but it is certainly very difficult for a state (and particularly for a democratic state) to operate (which includes protecting and promoting its citizens’ rights) if it is constantly threatened by the possibility of secession by minorities that view the state as “a political picnic to which the invited guest may go and carry his share of the viands or not, as he thinks fit, or the humor may move him.” This paper argues that while the principle of self-determination has irreversibly changed the landscape of international law, and provided people an opportunity to voice their rights, as well as their will to constitute their own political entity, some redefinitions in international law need to occur, in order to move towards a more predictable, and hopefully just, system.
