ABSTRACT
The political and rhetorical currency of one of the most contentious international prin-
ciples of the twentieth century, the right to national self-determination, shows no signs
of depreciating. The conflicting demands for the right to self-determination in Crimea
by Ukrainian and Russian populations in 2014 are but one example of the principle’s con-
tinued potency. The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion in 2010 on
Kosovo’s independence did not consider the unilateral declaration of independence a
breach of international law. This decision, coupled with the fact that 110 UN member
states recognised Kosovo’s independence, implies a reduced importance of obstacles to
realising self-determination demands of separatist groups (Wolff & Rodt, 2013). The criti-
cisms levelled by early critics of the principle are no less pertinent today; issues to do with
its content, its bearers and implementation continue to define the debates (Margalit & Raz,
1990). At the same time, the profound tension between the promise of political autonomy
to oppressed communities held by the right to national self-determination and the contin-
ued primacy of state sovereignty enabling rejection of such claims by states remain.
