This panel offers two very different papers which engage the two most common ways of exploring autonomy: Hurst Hannum engages that branch of research that explores how autonomy demands arise and what they purport to solve; while Markku Suksi engages a dominant literature that considers how different autonomy arrangements are structured and actually work. In combination they offer a rich assessment of the benefits and limitations of autonomy.
In looking at the use of autonomy in conflict situations Hurst Hannum offers a dynamic but cautious assessment. His work has long appreciated autonomy as an alternative to independence and separation while sounding a note of caution as to its limitations. This paper very much tracks that body of work. I will argue here that giving enduring international law teeth to autonomy arrangements may offer an alternative to the frequent march toward independence and the violence it entails. I will quibble with some of the points Hannum makes in his assessment of autonomy in conflict situations but this questioning is I hope very much in the tradition of his writings on the international recognition of autonomy.
KeywordsConflict Situation Chinese Leader International Recognition Minority Identity Ethnic Minority Community
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ruggie JG (1993) Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations. International Relations 47 (Winter):139Google Scholar
- Reisman MW (1974) Puerto Rico and the international process: new roles in association. American Society of International Law, West Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar