Self-Determination in Very Small Places and the Ragged Edges of Sovereignty

The idea of self-determination in the twentieth century has generated a persistent set of debates over its scope and meaning, as well as a persistent set of critiques, in particular that some places were too small, too backwards, or too primitive to merit self-determination, even if they had this right in principle. Concerns about the alleged dangers that the proliferation of small states posed for international security, and the United Nations itself, crossed all ideological and political lines. They were voiced by long independent and newly independent states, North and South, Socialist and non-Socialist, Communist and anti-Communist. They were also raised by anticolonial and transnational movements, many of which made their own self-determination claims that prompted deep concerns in Western capitals. This paper will examine places that seemed beyond self-determination’s reach: US military bases in the Pacific and other tiny territories, nationalist movements among non-state peoples such as the Kurds, and large but sparsely populated places like Spanish Sahara. These marginal places challenge the widespread assertion that the independent nation-state was everywhere the goal of the decolonization process. It was not. Collectively, these places and movements helped to inscribe the boundaries of sovereignty in the international system in ways that profoundly affected the lives of millions of people, and at a time when self-determination’s legitimacy was at its height.