OPTIONAL READING: We always have an optional reading for our montly meetings. Note that the discussion will focus on the question, and what our answers to it mean, rather than specifically on the text of the readings. However, if you'd like to inspire and stimulate your interest or thinking on the matter, or clarify the ideas and debates involved, read or skim the following article:

1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/
This article, "Secession," from our usual source of good articles, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is right on our topic. The entire article came out to 8.5 pages on my printer. It is definitely worth reading or, at least, skimming. But, if you don't want to read all of it, read section 1.

A FEW USEFUL AND RELEVANT TERMINOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS FOR THIS ISSUE:

To get a grip on the issues, it's useful to take note of two terminological distinctions used by philosophers, political scientists, diplomats and others who ponder these issues.

The first distinction is that of the nation versus the state. No foolproof definitions of these terms exist, but these rough definitions, which I have culled from reference.com and encyclopedia.com, will do.

A nation is a "distinct people" or society, that is, a people who are believed to share a common descent, ethnic heritage, culture, history, identity, language, sense of belonging, and/or religion, and who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.

A State is the government and bureaucracy of a territory. More specifically, a "state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area." Or, in Max Weber's influential definition, the state is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."

Given the above, it is said that the nation-state is a state that is composed primarily of one, self-governing nation; the state explicitly identifies itself as the homeland of that nation. Germany might be a good example of a nation-state.

A less common term, the state-nation, refers to a multi-ethnic state that primarily defines itself politically rather than ethnically. The common identity derives from shared citizenship of a state. It implies that the state was formed first, and that the sense of national identity developed later, or in parallel. The United States and Australia are example of a state-nation.

The second useful distinction to take account of is that between the two kinds of theories about which groups have the right to have their own state (or which groups have the right to secede from the state they are ruled by). Theorists distinguish between "Remedial Right Only" theories and "Primary Right" Theories. (I have taken this distinction from one of this month's optional readings, the "Secession" article from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

A Remedial Right Only theory holds that the right to secede exists only as a result of violations of other rights. On this view, secession is justified only as a remedy of last resort for persistent and serious injustices. The right to unilateral secession thus understood is not primary, but rather derivative upon the violation of other, more basic rights; hence the label ‘remedial right only’.

By contrast, "Primary Right" theories contend that the right to secede can exist even when the group has not been subject to any injustice. Typically, it's held that certain groups, most commonly ethnic groups or nations, have an inherent right to secede. Being an ethnic nation is sufficient to having the right to have one's own state. An alternate version holds that, if a majority of people in an area wants to secede from the state, then that it sufficient for that group of people to have a right to its own state.

No. I think nation-states are a false construct. A modern European notion that hasn't been very successful in keeping peace. During feudalism we made up kingdoms and principalities and those divisions were diverse (as far as language and ethnic group). The ruler was more inclined to look at a particular region and not the people in it.

Still further, with the expansion of the EU there is a resurgence of minority ethnic languages and traditions--this is because the nation-states are no longer bothering with them and trying to make them conform to a nation-state view.