The Kurds are the largest ethnic group to lack their own nation-state. Many scholars and diplomats make the moral or historical cases for Kurdish independence. None, however, has taken as deep a dive into what evolving international law with regard to self-determination might mean for Kurds as Loqman Radpey, who recently completed his Ph.D. in international law on the subject at the University of Edinburgh.
Towards an Independent Kurdistan is timely. Whatever the considerations that keep states from embracing the Kurdish nationalist cause, the reality on the ground sets precedents and forces reconsideration. Not only have Iraqi Kurds enjoyed de facto autonomy for more than 30 years, but Syrian Kurds have also run their own de facto statelet for a decade.
Radpey may be sympathetic to Kurdish aspirations, but he does not cheerlead to elide difficult questions. Issues of self-determination are not cut-and-dry. There are precedents set by the dissolution of empires, decolonization, and fracturing of states. Non-state actors often form their own theories of self-determination. Kurds are a particularly complex case due to their division across four states. As Radpey notes, Human Rights Covenants limit themselves to self-determination within a single state, not carving out multiple regions across borders. His treatment of secession, covering legal scholarship, international law, and thresholds that merit secession. He addresses both successful cases (Eritrea, Bangladesh, and Kosovo) and the many failed movements ranging from Biafra to the Basques.
Successive chapters detail different theories of self-determination, from Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin to President Woodrow Wilson, and from the League of Nations to the United Nations. He details more recent conceptions and categorizations that form a useful primer beyond the Kurdish case. As he richly footnotes resolutions, laws, and articles, his discussion of self-determination could as easily create a framework for discussion of Somaliland, Artsakh, or East Turkestan. His discussion about what categorizes a people is especially illuminating.
Radpey also relates a clear and rich legal history of the Kurds across the past century, surveying maps and relating key treaties, especially in the post-World War I-era. While six decades ago, the late Ambassador Bill Eagleton penned a short book detailing the short-lived Mahabad Republic for a Western audience, Radpey elucidates other unsuccessful efforts for Kurdish self-determination, both under the Iraqi Baath Party and against the backdrop of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.
With regard to the present, he details the case from region to region, from Iraqi Kurdistan and discussions of Article 140 of the post-2003 Iraqi Constitution to the issue of remedial separation in Turkey. His discussion of the issue in Iran is likely prescient as Kurdish discord will boil to the surface as succession to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei looms. His discussion of what Kurdish statehood would mean is sound from a legal standpoint but overlooks many practicalities such as dual citizenship and renegotiation of regional treaties to incorporate an independent Kurdish state.
While Routledge unfortunately priced the book for university libraries rather than the general practitioner, Towards an Independent Kurdistan would be a valuable addition to the personal collection of diplomats or journalists working on Kurdish issues. This is due to not only rich and nuanced content, but also an ability to write in plain if not somewhat dry English; unlike many academics, Radpey does not bow before the alter of academe to prioritize theory over reality or to obfuscate rather than elucidate knowledge.
