ABSTRACT
Formal statehood has been treated as the object of a claim to national self-determination, and its achievement the measure of success. However, if self-determination is limited to the successfully dominant, it is unsatisfactory for subordinate nations. Self-determination became compensation for colonization. Self-determination in postcolonial states is for the protection of their rulers. Nations have neither, although it is likely that nations aspiring to self-determination will be judged in part by how close their actions conform to the norms of international society. Majority rule is a problem for any version of national self-determination, those who claim it for themselves generally deny it to others. The nation's claim will be evaluated, in part, on how far the realization of self-determination would advance justice. Self-determination is justified in order to enhance the security and autonomy of the nation. Attachment to place is a visceral element of nationalist claims to self-determination, whereas the liberals focus on property rights.
