Normativity, Power & Peripheral Nations

Modern state-building and (ongoing) colonial practices have given rise to peripheral nations — the most apparent of which being Indigenous nations. Peripheral nations are national communities that now find themselves unable to exercise their right to self-determination in equal measure to dominant ('majority') nations who have greater power and influence within 'shared' political institutions. In studying these relationships, my central research question has been: how can peripheral nations, exemplified most by Indigenous peoples, assert their right to self-determination in a globalized world in the face of — and in an effort to transform — less-than-ideal conditions defined by uneven power relations and the dominance of the nation-state and other Western institutions? This question raises many others like: What makes a nation peripheral? What does their collective right to national self-determination entail? How should we understand the less-than-ideal circumstances that they face? What, if anything, proves problematic about prevailing political institutions? I answer these questions, over a series of chapters originally published as articles, by exploring two different tracks respectively related to normativity and power. When it comes to the first, different historical and institutional circumstances help explain the wedges that exist between peripheral and dominant nations whose fates are now locked together. These circumstances have spawned normative arguments supporting an ensuing need for changes in order to rectify the unjust power imbalances that have developed. I call the related arguments 'peripheral normativities'. Indigenous peoples in particular raise many arguments related to the preservation and promotion of their distinct cultures; their prior occupancy of disputed lands and waters; their prior sovereignty over lands, waters, and inhabitants; the ongoing existence of nation-to-nation treaties that should be honoured; the ongoing development of new international norms; and the importance of respecting democratic principles. They expose serious cracks in the constitutional foundations of settler states like Canada and the United States; they also identify potential areas of exploration in emerging regional supra-states like the EU and even international organizations like the UN. The second track focuses on power. Majority nations, who control states and state-centric institutions, refuse to make changes in proportion to the normative arguments being advanced. When pressured, they instead propose forms of reconciliation, negotiation, and compensation that fall far short of promoting just terms of multinational cooperation that ensure all nations enjoy an equal right to self-determination. The less-than-ideal circumstances that this creates for members of peripheral nations has meant that they face stark choices going forward. In the most troublesome cases, feelings of anger, loss, resentment, and hopeless have arisen, which it appears members of majority nations have failed to see, cannot understand, or refuse to acknowledge. My conclusions suggest that members of peripheral nations and their supporters must therefore not focus solely, or even primarily, on convincing resistant majorities using normative arguments, but must focus how they can bring their views into the world through a repertoire of additional political strategies.

Jaar van publicatie:2020

Toegankelijkheid:Open