This paper argues for a geographical analysis of self-determination by bringing literature on self-determination into dialogue with scholarship on postcolonial geographies and relational space. First, we draw from scholarship that conceptualises colonialism, including non-European colonialism, as playing out differently in different places. This shines a spotlight on a set of self-determination claims, which are resolutely anti-colonial but do not fit neatly into existing conceptions of saltwater and settler colonialism. Second, we discuss three communities who make such claims: the Nagas, the Tibetans, and the Karen. These communities have recently rearticulated the right to self-determination as a mechanism for progressing their causes amidst protracted conflicts and political stasis. In each case, we explore how self-determination is a relationally constituted claim, informed by interactions across various sites and scales. Paying attention to moments, events, and practices foregrounds the tensions that underpin how self-determination is claimed and realised, encompassing: who has the agency to speak on behalf of the ‘people’; the scale at which self-determination is articulated; and how territory is understood vis-à-vis self-determination. This demonstrates how a geographical approach can drive critical analyses of self-determination as a right that is being reworked on the ground, imbued with aspirational and regenerative politics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loong et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: