Introduction

Debates about the relationship of the state to the nation go back to the last century. The contemporary revival of nationalism and the emergence of new states, together with continental integration, have kindled new interest in the question. There is general agreement that there are more potential nations than possible states, yet the search for general principles which could define nationality and the conditions under which nationalities could qualify for self-government has proved inconclusive. Instead it is a matter of reconciling competing claims for nationality and the rights that go with it. Approaches to the normative questions of how to reconcile state and nation and the right of self-determination take two forms. Political theorists start from general principles and, using the language of rights, seek to determine which groups can have what rights to self-government under what conditions. The problem here is that the cases are too varied to fit into procrustean categories; that the language of rights lends itself poorly to compromise and bargaining, the essence of politics; and that very often the question of power is ignored. Specifically, once we take the issue out of the framework of the state (or existing legally entrenched supranational institutions) there is no regulator to legitimate or enforce rights. The second approach is that of conflict studies, which starts with the problem of competing claims and seeks to convert them into bargainable stakes.