| Abstract: | Abstract. In the recent Yugoslav crisis, the decisions of the international community sparked off a sharp debate on the recognition of self‐determination claims, reminiscent of the debates in the aftermath of the First World War. This article compares and contrasts the principles and practices of the international community in these two periods. It draws a parallel between the simultaneous strengthening of self‐determination norms and minority protection norms, first at Versailles and then in the midst of the recent Balkan crisis. Though the processes showed many similarities, there was one crucial difference: by the time of the Balkan crisis, the international community had come to regard minority autonomies as the most appropriate form of protection for compact minorities in new nation‐states born of ethnic separatism. While in the Versailles system minority protection norms were meant as compensations for the denial of self‐determination, in the Balkan crisis the autonomies were regarded as the highest form of minority protection, which in turn increased the perceived risk of minority separatism in new states. It is in this context that the article presents the debate over the traditional and more recent approaches to the ‘unit question’, which has haunted scholars and policy‐makers ever since the concept of self‐determination emerged as an international norm. |
