The Rise of Secessionist Movements and Ethnic Conflicts

When the Cold War ended in 1991, many expected a new age of global peace. Instead, the world saw a wave of new conflicts. Old empires and multi-ethnic states fractured along ethnic and regional lines, and groups that had long lived under larger states began demanding the right to govern themselves. Some of these movements were peaceful and democratic. Others descended into horrifying violence. This post examines why secessionist movements and ethnic conflicts surged after 1991, the doctrine of self-determination that fuels them, and the economic and emotional forces that keep them alive.

Why secessionist movements surged after the Cold War 🔗

A secessionist movement is an organized effort by a group within a state to break away and form its own independent country, or to merge with another state. The end of the Cold War created ideal conditions for such movements to multiply.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the loosening of Cold War alliances removed the rigid structures that had held many multi-ethnic states together. With the old superpower rivalry gone, ethnic and regional groups saw an opening to assert their autonomy and, in some cases, demand full independence. The first rush of post-Cold War secessions produced new states and new conflicts as the breakup of multinational federations like Czechoslovakia, the USSR, and Yugoslavia redrew the map of Europe and Central Asia.

It is worth noting a debate among scholars here. Some argue that ethnic conflict did not actually become more common after 1991. Instead, they suggest that many proxy wars fought during the Cold War were in fact ethnic conflicts disguised as battlegrounds in the larger superpower struggle. Once the Cold War lens was removed, the underlying ethnic character of these disputes simply became visible. Either way, the post-Cold War period clearly saw ethnically driven secessionist demands move to the center of world politics.

The doctrine of self-determination 🔗

At the heart of almost every secessionist demand lies one powerful idea: the right of peoples to self-determination. This is the principle that a group of people sharing a common identity has the right to freely decide its own political status and form of government.

The principle has deep roots in the twentieth century. It gained prominence after the First World War through US President Woodrow Wilson, and was later formally recognised in the 1945 UN Charter, which was expressly based on respect for the self-determination of “peoples.” The principle has since been invoked in further UN instruments and in the judgments of the International Court of Justice.

Internal versus external self-determination 🔗

Self-determination does not always mean full independence. Scholars usually distinguish between two forms. External self-determination means breaking away to form a new sovereign state. Internal self-determination means securing greater autonomy, language rights, or self-governance within an existing state. Many movements that begin by invoking self-determination ultimately pursue autonomy rather than separation. Historical nationalist movements in Catalonia and elsewhere often mobilized self-determination to gain regional autonomy rather than complete independence, making them more open to compromise.

The tension with sovereignty 🔗

This is where the trouble begins. Self-determination collides directly with another core principle of international law: the territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing states. Ethnic wars of secession highlight the inherent tension between self-determination and sovereignty. No government wants to set a precedent that lets any region with a distinct identity simply walk away. The vagueness of these terms, and the lack of clear rules about who qualifies as a “people” entitled to secede, has contributed to much of the separatist violence of the post-Cold War years.

When ethnic conflict turns deadly: the Rwandan genocide 🔗

Not all secessionist and ethnic conflicts unfold through peaceful referendums. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 stands as the most catastrophic example of ethnic violence in the post-Cold War era, and it shows how quickly identity-based hatred can spiral into mass murder.

Rwanda’s two main groups, the Hutu and the Tutsi, share the same language, religion, and many cultural traditions. The sharp division between them was deepened during the colonial period. Belgian authorities used pseudo-scientific methods to divide the population into a hierarchy based on physical differences, even issuing identity cards that fixed each person as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa. What had once been a somewhat fluid social distinction was hardened into a rigid ethnic boundary.

After independence in 1962, cycles of violence and revenge followed, sending hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries. The crisis came to a head on 6 April 1994, when a plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi was shot down. Within hours, extremist Hutu forces launched a coordinated campaign of slaughter. According to the United Nations outreach programme, more than one million people are estimated to have perished in the weeks that followed.

The killings were driven by deliberate propaganda. Radio broadcasts incited ordinary citizens to attack their Tutsi neighbours, and militias used the colonial-era identity cards to single out victims at roadblocks. The genocide was not a sudden explosion of ancient hatred. It was the culmination of decades of division and incitement by extremists who had carefully positioned the Tutsi minority as a dangerous and inferior group. Rwanda is a grim reminder that ethnic nationalism, when manipulated by political leaders, can produce some of the worst atrocities imaginable.

The drivers behind secessionist movements 🔗

What pushes a region toward demanding independence? Three forces appear again and again: economic disparity, regionalism, and the emotional pull of ethnic nationalism.

Economic disparity 🔗

Money is often at the core of secessionist sentiment. Regions that see themselves as economically disadvantaged, or that feel they contribute more to the national economy than they receive back, may seek independence to control their own financial future. The logic cuts both ways. Poorer regions may resent being neglected, while wealthier regions may resent subsidising the rest of the country. This sense of economic unfairness gives separatist leaders a concrete grievance to rally support around.

Regionalism and identity 🔗

Beyond economics, a strong sense of regional identity can fuel the desire for self-rule. Regions with distinct languages, cultures, or histories may feel marginalised by a distant central government. When people feel their identity is not respected within the larger state, the idea of governing themselves becomes attractive. This is regionalism: loyalty to one’s own region growing strong enough to challenge loyalty to the nation as a whole.

The emotional appeal of ethnic nationalism 🔗

Perhaps the most powerful driver is the emotional force of ethnic nationalism. The belief that “we are a distinct people with our own destiny” speaks to feelings of pride, belonging, and historical injustice. Political scientists debate where ethnic identity comes from, generally falling into three schools of thought: primordialist, instrumentalist, and constructivist. Primordialists see ethnic identity as ancient and deeply rooted. Instrumentalists argue that leaders deliberately stoke ethnic feeling to gain power. Constructivists hold that ethnic identities are built and reshaped over time. Rwanda shows how dangerous the instrumentalist version can be, while the European cases below show how the same emotional appeal can express itself through ballots rather than bullets.

Secession through the ballot box: European examples 🔗

The democracies of Western Europe offer the clearest examples of secessionist movements that pursue their goals through peaceful, constitutional means.

Scotland 🔗

Scotland has maintained a distinct cultural and legal identity throughout its centuries within the United Kingdom. In 2014, after an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments, Scotland held a referendum on independence. The result was decisive but close: the “No” side won with 55.3% against independence and 44.7% in favour, on a remarkable turnout of 84.6%. The Scottish case is notable because the UK, which recognises Scotland as a constituent nation, agreed to a legal referendum rather than resisting the demand by force. Senior British politicians have long acknowledged Scotland’s right to national self-determination, with both Margaret Thatcher and John Major affirming the principle in their own words.

Wales 🔗

Wales, like Scotland, has preserved a distinct cultural and linguistic identity within the UK, with the Welsh language a powerful symbol of nationhood. Welsh nationalism has historically focused more on cultural preservation and devolved self-government than on full independence, though support for independence has grown in recent years. Wales illustrates how a strong regional identity does not automatically translate into a demand for separation.

The Basque Country 🔗

The Basque Country, straddling northern Spain and southern France, has one of Europe’s oldest and most distinct identities, with a language unrelated to any other in Europe. Basque nationalism intensified under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, who brutally repressed regional identities. The movement later included the violent separatist group ETA. In recent years, however, Basque nationalists have shifted toward gradual, peaceful change, seeking co-sovereignty and a new relationship with Madrid through incremental steps rather than outright independence.

Catalonia 🔗

Catalonia, a wealthy and industrialised region of northeastern Spain, has perhaps the most active secessionist movement in Western Europe today. Catalan grievances mix economics with identity: many believe the region contributes more to Spain than it gets back, and Franco’s suppression of the Catalan language and symbols left lasting resentment. The Catalan “process” from 2012 onward centred on what supporters called the “right to decide”, framed as the right to freely determine the region’s political status. Unlike Scotland, the Spanish constitution recognises only one nation, Spain itself, so Madrid declared the 2017 independence referendum illegal. The Catalan case shows how the clash between self-determination and a state’s insistence on territorial integrity can produce a deep constitutional crisis even within a democracy.

Self-determination and sovereignty in a changing world 🔗

The European examples reveal something important. Since the end of the Cold War, the balance between sovereignty norms and liberal democratic norms has been shifting. In general, liberal norms have risen and the traditional taboo on secession has eroded, opening space for concepts like remedial secession, where a group may claim independence after serious oppression.

The contrast in how states respond is striking. A home state that values human rights and democracy may, like Britain with Scotland, opt for a referendum. A state that does not may resort to force, as Russia did in Chechnya. The way a government answers a secessionist demand often reveals as much about that government as it does about the movement itself.

For students of comparative politics, these cases together capture the full spectrum of how identity-based demands play out. At one extreme lies the Rwandan genocide, where ethnic nationalism was weaponised into mass killing. At the other lies the Scottish referendum, where the same underlying force of national identity was channelled into a peaceful democratic vote. The difference between these outcomes lies not in the strength of the identity, but in the institutions, leaders, and choices that shape how that identity is expressed.

What do you think? Do you believe the principle of self-determination should always take precedence over the sovereignty of existing states, or are there limits to when a group should be allowed to break away? And why do you think some ethnic and regional demands are settled peacefully through the ballot box while others collapse into violence?

References

1. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1998-03-01/specter-secession-responding-claims-ethnic-self-determination
2. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Ethnic_conflict
3. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/second-independence-referendum-scotland.pdf
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10558288/
5. https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/the-genocide-against-the-tutsi-in-rwanda/
6. https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/historical-background.shtml
7. https://humanrights.ca/story/what-led-genocide-against-tutsi-rwanda
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum
9. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-02-01/debates/C774409A-FD45-4157-86B9-CCA1069A41DC/Scotland(Self-Determination)
10. https://leftfootforward.org/2017/11/why-has-an-independence-movement-flourished-in-catalonia-but-declined-in-the-basque/
11. https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/eureka/the-quest-for-independence-in-catalonia-between-the-rule-of-law-and-the-principle
12. https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/journal/secessionist-conflict-a-happy-marriage-between-norms-and-interests