James Ker-Lindsay’s YouTube Channel
By James Ker-Lindsay
YouTube, since 2019
The COVID-19 pandemic has obtained many people making an attempt our hand at on-line educating and studying. However some lecturers had been forward of the pack in foreseeing the probabilities of unrestricted information dissemination by in style video-sharing platforms equivalent to YouTube. That’s the case for Professor James Ker-Lindsay, whose channel has lately celebrated its first anniversary. Over the previous 12 months, this channel dedicated to “worldwide relations, independence, statehood and the origins of nations” has gathered some 60 movies and over 6,000 subscribers. In about 10 to fifteen minutes, the movies accessibly look at key ideas equivalent to the state, state recognition, self-determination, remedial secession, UN membership and de facto states, in addition to a variety of circumstances of secessionism, contested states and statehood conflicts from (Southeast) Europe, the post-Soviet space, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania. Completely happy endings following notably intricate paths to independence – from Belgium to Eritrea to Bangladesh – are additionally mentioned in a separate part.
Clearly scripted, concise and completed off with a useful wrap-up, the movies largely depend on Ker-Lindsay’s on-camera talking. Because of this, whereas they incorporate helpful graphic help (e.g. maps, flags, footage of political figures, screenshots of newspaper headlines, web sites, major paperwork and tutorial articles), they’ll additionally simply be listened to as podcasts – as I did myself with a number of of them. In both format, James Ker-Lindsay’s channel seems to be an extremely helpful pedagogical and dissemination useful resource. The dialogue of all points and circumstances advantages from an authoritative voice, accuracy and effectiveness. A wealth of factual data is offered combining insights from historical past, legislation and politics, usually in a welcome effort to make clear misunderstandings. This leaves the spectator/listener with a way of satisfaction and a stable fundamental understanding. On this regard, the goals and elegance of the channel largely coincide with the thrust of Ker-Lindsay’s latest co-authored e book Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Mikulas Fabry). Higher analytical depth and extra distinctively authentic arguments will be discovered within the movies that construct on earlier ones on the identical matter, particularly when coping with present affairs. Among the analyses of topical issues sound like media commentary at its finest.
Certainly, moreover being a type of introductory audio-visual textbook on statehood and secession, the channel works as a helpful companion to assist one make sense of a shocking quantity of the worldwide information. As an illustration, simply occasions from September-October 2020, a video within the channel talks by the historic background, within the context of decolonisation, of the ‘sad union’ on the origin of the secessionist rebellion that’s now reportedly within the making in Western Togoland – the place the 1956 standing plebiscite that resulted in integration within the quickly unbiased Ghana didn’t settle all grievances. One other video addresses the talk as as to whether a secessionist dispute involving a de facto state could also be legally resolved by army means – by an assault from the father or mother state to retake and forcibly reintegrate the break-away territory – as apparently sought by the latest Azerbaijani offensive over Nagorno-Karabakh. In response to Ker-Lindsay, the reply is blended by way of worldwide legislation, given the stress between the established proper of states to territorial integrity generally and the UN Safety Council resolutions calling for a peaceable settlement of this battle particularly. And the small print is much more related within the sphere of legitimacy, the place the worldwide neighborhood’s double requirements concerning using pressure coexist with a rising scrutiny of battle crimes and grave human rights violations.
Lastly, a 3rd video sheds mild on the latest US-sponsored Kosovo-Serbia agreement, together with the unusual triangle created by the incorporation of Israel as an surprising visitor within the “ultimate bullet level.” Ker-Lindsay contends that the strictly bilateral deal just isn’t the “main breakthrough” introduced and provides little worth to the EU-led financial normalisation course of already beneath means. Its solely novelty lies in Serbia and Kosovo’s dedication to pause their worldwide recognition/derecognition battle for one 12 months. But, the Trump administration’s actual intention would have been to foster Israeli pursuits by securing mutual recognition between Israel and Kosovo in addition to the (re)location of each the Kosovan and the Serbian embassies in Israel to town of Jerusalem.
As these examples present, Ker-Lindsay’s provides many instructive solutions. If there’s any draw back to this, it’s that some excellent query marks appear to be pushed to the background. That is, unsurprisingly, consistent with the positivist approach that dominates the statehood and state recognition literature in IR. Whereas by its very nature this subject can’t be however state-centric – and for Ker-Lindsay, states certainly stay the “fundamental building block of the international system” – vital IR scholarship and statehood are nonetheless unusual bedfellows. Within the case of this channel, with out altering the writer’s personal epistemological place, some core notions might be additional problematised, if solely to replicate the truth that the extreme politics surrounding them just isn’t a mere matter of conceptual or factual misunderstandings. A working example is “the meaning of self-determination,” which is known as if this was a settled difficulty, as if the restrictive authorized interpretation of such proper (vs. the precept of state territorial integrity) and the prioritisation of so-called inner self-determination “inside established states” which have prevailed following decolonisation, had been now not contentious and open to debate.
Actually, acknowledging the muddle will be the most correct method. That is clear from the dialogue of the liminal political creatures current in a “strange limbo” which might be de facto states. In response to Ker-Lindsay, the time period de facto states is “extremely subjective” and the topic is “marred in confusion and disagreement.” “Simply as there are deep divisions over terminology,” he explains, “there are additionally basic variations over which territories must be understood as de facto states and which shouldn’t.” Equally, whereas the purpose of departure within the video on state recognition is akin to the conventional, dualistic legal view of this concept, the following examination of its follow results in highlighting the “shocking variety of methods” wherein such recognition will be signalled bilaterally and multilaterally, together with important gray areas and “room for confusion.”
In different phrases, in the case of the worldwide politics of statehood and state recognition, one doesn’t must go full-on post-positivist to confess that a few of our basic parameters have at all times been considerably shaky. On the similar time, the trouble to unsettle assumptions and contemplate problems with positionality doesn’t exempt us from getting the information proper, striving for accuracy and readability, as Ker-Lindsay does so masterfully.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations