The right of self-determination

[Brenus]

“The only regions that come to mind are Quebec in Canada (where an independence was rejected in a referendum), parts of the southern USA with lots of latinos (of which I recall you yourself have said that most of it is blown out of proportion) and Santa Cruz in Bolivia”
Er, and Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, Hungary and Montenegro which were denied to this right by the same who gave this right to Croats, Bosnians and Kosovar. Bulgarian in Macedonia, Albanian in Greece, Dutch and French in Belgium, Catalan (Corsican voted against independence few years ago…).
Sorry I have to go to work, so I can’t enumerate the list… And that is just for Europe…
BORDERS ARE FENCES: BREAK THEM, DON’T BUILT NEW…

[Kralizec]

Ah, but none of those are in the western hemisphere

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

BORDERS ARE FENCES: BREAK THEM, DON’T BUILT NEW…

Good fences make for good neighbours...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The subjects of these documents are peoples, not individuals.

But individuals choose how to identify themselves - and "peoples" is an imprecise term.

[PowerWizard]

But individuals choose how to identify themselves - and "peoples" is an imprecise term.

That's what is in the UN Charter.

[Pannonian]

That's what is in the UN Charter.

The roots of the right to self-determination should probably be traced back to Woodrow Wilson's ideals after WW1, while the reason for their compromise should probably be traced back to Britain's and France's reading of such at Versailles, and later the Cold War. Strong powers will try to keep their territories together, unless a stronger power intervenes to break it up. Self-determination, or their support of such, would often be but a disguised way of getting these newly independent nations under their hegemony instead, as a protectorate. Britain and France were at it after WW1. The US and USSR were at it after WW2. The US, EU, Russia, and probably anyone else who can manage it are still at it now.

[Subotan]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

As a proud US nationalist, I disagree.

[Strike For The South]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

The nation has allowed for more equality and advances than any other form of human society. Not to mention it gives me something to yell at other people when I'm drunk.

"I'm sorry, I thought this was 'Merica"

[Furunculus]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

That's a very broad brush you use to paint a diverse concept:

I am proud to consider myself a Liberal Nationalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_nationalism

Precisely because i believe in demos-cratos, i.e their needs to be a "we" if their is to be consent to be "governed" by others.

[edit1]
And it must be pointed out that that "we" is often the result of classical nationalism, i.e. a sense to shared culture and values forged from a millenia of shared history, and if that seems too esoteric for you then just look at English Common Law as merely one example.

[edit2] inspired by Husars entrance:
And this is why i oppose the political integration of the UK into the EU, because I believe i am handing over the power of governance (cratos) to those with whom i share insufficient culture and values (demos). In summary; I do not trust that the decisions taken in my name will be those with which i can agree with.

[Husar]

Good fences make for good neighbours...

Then prison must be Utopia.