| This dissertation examines the international response to self-determination claims and the limits of sovereignty in the international system, in particular how norms of legitimate governance affect the extent of international interference in ostensibly domestic issues. I posit that the international community---acting through intergovernmental organizations to respond to these claims---assesses two governance relationships according to emerging standards of legitimacy: the human rights record of the central government and the claimant group's capacity for democracy. The most invasive form of international interference occurs when the existing governance structure is oppressive and, therefore, perceived as illegitimate while the self-determination claimant group embodies democratic standards absent in the central government. In such cases of contested legitimacy, the international community pressures the central government to reform while encouraging empowerment of the claimant group.; This project combines quantitative analysis, detailed qualitative comparisons, and case studies to test the posited model. A broad statistical analysis tests for patterns in the international response to minority claims in general as well as to self-determination claims specifically. A qualitative comparison on a subset of claims highlights trends in the international response at a more detailed level of analysis. Finally, a series of case studies---culminating in chapters on the Western Sahara, Kosovo, and Nagorno-Karabakh---demonstrate the interplay of domestic and international norms as well as how these factors are used to interpret and constrain geopolitical interests. My approach thus utilizes the explanatory leverage of combining power and ideas into a more comprehensive explanation of international outcomes. |
