Sıradaki Kim? Postkolonyal Afrika’da Ayrılma Hareketlerini Yeniden Düşünmek

Öz

Ayrılma hareketleri Afrika’da güncelliğini koruyan bir olgu olmakla birlikte yalnızca iki hareketin uluslararası olarak tanınan devlet statüsü kazanması literatürde nedenleri yeteri kadar incelenmemiş bir konudur. Bu nedenle çalışma, ayrılıkçı mobilizasyonu ortaya çıkaran koşullar ile hareketlerin bağımsızlığa ilerlemesini mümkün kılan koşullar arasında fark olduğunu kabul etmektedir. Çalışma, aktör düzeyi ve sistem düzeyi kategorilerinde altı faktörü değerlendiren ikili bir analitik çerçeve geliştirmektedir. Çalışmada aktör düzeyinde güçlendirici faktörler, iyileştirici haklar kategorisi ve ayrılıkçı bölgenin coğrafi özellikleri ele alınırken; sistem düzeyinde çatışmanın varlığı ve yoğunluğu, ayrılma hareketinin fonksiyonelliği, ayrılma hareketinin üçüncü taraf desteği alması incelenmektedir. Afrika’daki on çağdaş ayrılıkçı hareketin karşılaştırmalı analizine dayanan çalışma, uluslararası olarak tanınan bağımsızlığa doğru ilerlemenin tek bir faktöre değil, aktör düzeyindeki temeller ile sistem düzeyindeki fırsatlar arasındaki etkileşime bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Bulgular, özellikle uluslararası meşruiyet ve yeterli aktör düzeyi “temel”lerin kesiştiği durumlarda Batı Sahra, Kabinda ve Biafra’nın ayrılıkçı ilerleme açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak daha elverişli konfigürasyonlar sergilediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ayrılma
• Ayrılma Hareketleri
• Dış Destek
• Egemenlik Rejimi
• Afrika

Destekleyen Kurum

YÖK

Who Is Next? Explaining Secessionist Prospects in Postcolonial Africa

Öz

Secessionist movements remain a persistent topic in African politics, yet it remains valid to ask why only two have progressed toward internationally recognized statehood. This study examines distinction between the conditions that generate secessionist mobilization and those that enable movements to move toward independence. It develops a dual level analytical framework that evaluates six factors across actor-level and system-level categories. At the actor level, the framework considers restorative claims, remedial rights, and geographical characteristics; at the system level, it examines conflict dynamics, functional capacity, and external support. Drawing on a comparative analysis of ten contemporary African secessionist movements, the study shows that progress toward internationally recognized independence depends not on any single factor, but on configuration between actor-level foundations and system-level opportunities. The findings suggest that Western Sahara, Cabinda, and Biafra display comparatively favourable configurations for potential secessionist advancement, particularly where external alignment, international permissibility, and sufficient actor-level foundations converge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Secession
• Secessionist Movements
• External Support
• Sovereignty Regime
• Africa

Destekleyen Kurum

CoHE

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, G. (2013). Secession in international law and relations: What are we talking about? Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 35, 343–388.
2. Arrighi, G., Hopkins, T. K., & Wallerstein, I. (2012). Anti-systemic movements. Verso.
3. Bahcheli, T., Bartmann, B., & Srebrnik, H. (Eds.). (2004). De facto states: The quest for sovereignty. Routledge.
4. Bartkus, V. O. (2004). The dynamic of secession. Cambridge University Press.
5. Buchanan, A. (2003). The making and unmaking of boundaries: What liberalism has to say. In A. Buchanan & M. Moore (Eds.), States, nations, and borders: The ethics of making boundaries (pp. 231–261). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613937.012
6. Buchanan, A. (2007). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: Moral foundations for international law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198295359.001.0001
7. Buhaug, H., & Rød, J. K. (2006). Local determinants of African civil wars, 1970–2001. Political Geography, 25(3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.005
8. Byrne, H., & Englebert, P. (2019). Shifting grounds for African secessionism. In L. de Vries, P. Englebert, & M. Schomerus (Eds.), Secessionism in African politics (pp. 455–488). Palgrave Macmillan.

9. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpf064
10. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2006). The political economy of secession. In H. Hannum & E. F. Babbitt (Eds.), Negotiating self-determination (pp. 37–59). Lexington Books.
11. Crawford, J. (2007). The creation of states in international law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228423.001.0001
12. de Vries, L., Englebert, P., & Schomerus, M. (Eds.). (2019). Secessionism in African politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Englebert, P., & Hummel, R. (2005). Let’s stick together: Understanding Africa’s secessionist deficit. African Affairs, 104(416), 399–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adi008
14. Florea, A. (2014). De facto states in international politics (1945–2011): A new data set. International Interactions, 40(5), 788–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2014.915543
15. Goemans, H. E., & Schultz, K. A. (2017). The politics of territorial claims: A geospatial approach applied to Africa. International Organization, 71(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000254
16. Griffiths, R. D. (2016). Age of secession: The international and domestic determinants of state birth. Cambridge University Press.
17. Griffiths, R. D., & Butcher, C. R. (2013). Introducing the international system(s) dataset (ISD), 1816–2011. International Interactions, 39(5), 748–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2013.834259
18. Griffiths, R. D., & Martínez, A. (2021). Local conditions and the demand for independence: A dataset of secessionist grievances. Nations and Nationalism, 27(2), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12667
19. Hechter, M. (1992). The dynamics of secession. Acta Sociologica, 35(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939203500401
20. Heraclides, A. (1990). Secessionist minorities and external involvement. International Organization, 44, 341–378. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300035323
21. Hoehne, M. V. (2009). Mimesis and mimicry in dynamics of state and identity formation in northern Somalia. Africa, 79(2), 252–281. https://doi.org/10.3366/E0001972009000710
22. Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. University of California Press.
23. Horowitz, D. L. (1992). Irredentas and secessions: Adjacent phenomena, neglected connections. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 33(1–2), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1163/002071592X00086
24. International Conflict Research. (2018). Ethnic Power Relations (EPR) Core Dataset 2018 [Data set]. ETH Zürich. https://icr.ethz.ch/data/epr/
25. Jackson, R. H., & Rosberg, C. G. (1982). Why Africa’s weak states persist: The empirical and the juridical in statehood. World Politics, 35(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010277
26. Jenne, E. K., Saideman, S. M., & Lowe, W. (2007). Separatism as a bargaining posture: The role of leverage in minority radicalization. Journal of Peace Research, 44(5), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307080853
27. Keller, E. J. (2007). Secessionism in Africa. Journal of African Policy Studies, 13, 1–26.
28. Ker-Lindsay, J. (2012). The foreign policy of counter secession: Preventing the recognition of contested states. Oxford University Press.
29. Le Billon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: Natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography, 20(5), 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4
30. Magu, S. M. (2021). Politics of geography, statehood, residual colonization, and territorial integrity. In Explaining foreign policy in post-colonial Africa (pp. 61–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62930-4_3
31. Mahmood, O. S. (2019). Overlapping claims by Somaliland and Puntland: The case of Sool and Sanaag. ISS East Africa Report, 2019(27), 1–32. https://issafrica.org/research/east-africa-report/overlapping-claims-by-somaliland-and-puntland-the-case-of-sool-and-sanaag
32. Minorities at Risk Project. (2009). Minorities at risk dataset. Center for International Development and Conflict Management.
33. Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States. (1933). League of Nations Treaty Series, 165, 19. https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup15/Montevideo%20Convention.pdf
34. Nelson, E. (2023). A successful secession: What does it take to secede? Territory, Politics, Governance, 11, 1247–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1899974
35. Norman, W. (2003). The ethics of secession as the regulation of secessionist politics. In M. Moore (Ed.), National self-determination and secession (pp. 34–61). Oxford University Press.
36. Organization of African Unity. (1964). Resolution on Border Disputes among African States (AHG/Res. 16(I)).
37. Ratner, S. R. (1996). Drawing a better line: Uti possidetis and the borders of new states. American Journal of International Law, 90, 590–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203988
38. Ross, M. (2003). Natural resources and civil war: An overview. World Bank Research Observer, 18, 1–37.
39. Sapmaz, H. (2023). Secessionist movements in postcolonial Africa: Identifying the movement closest to independence [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University]. YÖK National Thesis Center.
40. Sorens, J. (2012). Secessionism: Identity, interest, and strategy. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
41. Sterio, M. (2012). The right to self-determination under international law: “Selfistans,” secession, and the rule of the great powers. Routledge.
42. Thomas, C. G., & Falola, T. (2020). Secession and separatist conflicts in postcolonial Africa. University of Calgary Press.
43. Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990–1990. Blackwell.
44. Trzciński, K. (2004). The significance of geographic location for the success of territorial secession: African example. Miscellanea Geographica, 11(1), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2004-0024
45. United Nations. (2020). Non-self-governing territories. https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt
46. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Random House.
47. Wood, J. R. (1981). Secession: A comparative analytical framework. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 14(1), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842390003537X
48. Young, R. (1994). How do peaceful secessions happen? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 27, 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900022022
49. Zacher, M. W. (2001). The territorial integrity norm: International boundaries and the use of force. International Organization, 55, 215–250. https://doi.org/10.1162/00208180151140568