Preview

Russian Law Journal

Advanced search

Nation Reification or “Nationalizing Nationalism” from the Perspective of International Law

https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2020-8-3-64-83

Full Text:

Abstract

National reification takes place when the state defines itself as a tool to protect the interests of a particular ethnic group and tries to create a homogeneous society unified on the basis of linguistic, cultural, historical, ideological and religious principles. This inevitably leads to the monopolization of politics (common good) by the majority’s culture, and at the same time, to the marginalization and exclusion of the minority’s culture and its obliteration in the future. This marginalization does not imply a discrimination because the minority is not denied civil rights, but its political activity from now on implies an engagement with the majority’s culture. This effect appears in waves. The first wave preceded World War II; the second wave started in the nineties and affected the new post-Soviet and Eastern European countries. National reification is closely related to the principle of democracy; since the minority retains this obviously ineffective right to participate, all other forms of protest become inaccessible to it. National reification is an objective and general tendency of the modern day. It fills the legitimacy deficit and not only “launches” a new state, but also generates internal threats that justify its existence. As a result, from the very first days, a new state is being created as a totalitarian and emergency one that can use extreme, but justified and legitimate measures. The principle of self-determination cannot be used against the process of national reification as it implies an obligation of conduct and has a narrow scope. Moreover, its beneficiaries, by not being states, are deprived of the procedural tools needed to protect their rights. It could be interpreted differently: we should recognize the right to secession for the nations faced with the choice of obeying or losing identity. This interpretation, however, is an unrealizable utopia. Human rights are completely helpless in the face of national reification or, rather, are indifferent to it. The reason is a fundamental denial of the collective principle. Therefore, international law does not solve the problem of national reification. On the contrary, all the structures of the modern order (statehood, legitimacy, democracy, human rights, international law, etc.) generate this problem. The solution of the problem is vitally important and, at the same time, extremely difficult. It cannot be cosmetic, but should affect the very foundations of international law.

About the Authors

Vladislav Tolstykh
Moscow State Institute of International Relations
Russian Federation

Professor, department of international Law

76 Vernadskogo Av., Moscow, 119454



Joni Aasi
An-Najah University
Palestinian Territory, Occupied

Professor of Public Law and Political science 

Omar ibn Al-khattab st., PO Box 7, Nablus, west Bank, Palestine



References

1. Agamben G. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (D. Heller-Roazen (trans.), stanford: stanford university Press, 1998). https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804764025

2. Anderson B. The Last Empires: The New World Disorder, 193 New Left review 2 (1992).

3. Arendt H. The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Meridian Books, 1958).

4. Bell A. & Kontorovich E. Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of Israel, 58(3) Arizona Law review 633 (2016).

5. Benoist A. de. Critique of Liberal Ideology, 7(4) The Occidental Quarterly 9 (2007-2008).

6. Brubaker R. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511558764

7. Cassese A. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

8. Craven M. The Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Their Implementation in United Kingdom Law 1 (R. Burchill at al. (eds.), Nottingham: University of Nottingham Human Rights Law Centre, 1999).

9. Crawford J. The Criteria for Statehood in International Law, 48(1) British Yearbook of international Law 93 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/48.1.93

10. Deutsch K.W. Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality (Cambridge, Mass.: The Technology Press of MiT, 1953).

11. Dworkin R. Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011).

12. Eco U. Ur-Fascism, 42(11) New York Review of Books 12 (1995).

13. Friedrich C.J. & Brzezinski Z.K. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York: Praeger, 1965).

14. Gellner E. Nationalism and Politics in Eastern Europe, 189 New Left Review 127 (1991).

15. Guehenno J.-M. The End of the Nation-State (V. Elliott (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995).

16. Hayek F.A. The Road to Serfdom (London: Routledge, 1944).

17. Hobbes Th. Leviathan; Or, The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil (London: Andrew Crooke, 1651).

18. Jarden E. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in International Law in Israel and a Palestinian State:Zero Sum Game? 132 (A. Stav (ed.), Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan Publishers, 2001).

19. Kant i. The Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1996).

20. klabbers J. The Right to be Taken Seriously: Self-Determination in International Law, 28(1) Human Rights Quarterly 186 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2006.0007

21. Lemkin R. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Governmen t, Proposals for Redress (washington, D.C.: Carnegie endowment for international Peace, 1944).

22. Lepage H. "Vrais"ou "faux"droits de l'Homme, 3 euro 92 Analyses 1 (1998).

23. McCorquodale R. Self-Determination: A Human Rights Approach, 43(4) international and Comparative Law Quarterly 857 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1093/idqaj743.4.857

24. Pico della Mirandola G. On the Dignity of Man (C.G. wallis et al. (trans.), indianapolis: hackett Publishing, 1998).

25. Popper K. The Open Society and its Enemies (London: routledge, 1945).

26. Sabel R. International Legal Issues of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: An Israeli Lawyer's Position, 3(2) Journal of east Asia and international Law 407 (2010). https://doi. org/10.14330/jeail.2010.3.2.08

27. Schooyans M. The Hidden Face of the United Nations (st. Louis, MO: Central Bureau, CCVA, 2001).

28. Tolstykh V. Difficult Search for Truth, 6(4) russian Law Journal 154 (2018). https:// doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-4-154-165

29. Waldron J. A Majority in the Lifeboat, 90(2) Boston university Law review 1043 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1461217

30. Yugoslavia Through Documents:From its Creation to its Dissolution (s. trifunovska (ed.), dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994).

31. Zamble B.Z.S. Hannah Arendt et les droits de l'Homme en Afrique coloniale, 8 Revue des droits de l'homme 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4000/revdh.1409


For citation:


Tolstykh V., Aasi J. Nation Reification or “Nationalizing Nationalism” from the Perspective of International Law. Russian Law Journal. 2020;8(3):64-83. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2020-8-3-64-83

Views: 182


ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)
X