In a face-saving, yet silly move, the Serbs have declared independence. It seems those naughty Montenegrins will oppress them no longer.
Serbia Declares IndependenceJune 5, 2006 – Serbia’s parliament abandoned the country’s 88-year-old federation with Montenegro today, two days after Montenegro declared independence.The lawmakers proclaimed Serbia’s own independence, and transferred solely onto Belgrade the international status of the federation of Serbia and Montenegro, including its seat in bodies such as the United Nations.
The state flag has already disappeared from the Serbian parliament building, and the Serbian flag is to be raised in its place later in the day. Starting today, Serbian soldiers will be withdrawn from Montenegro, and Montenegrins serving in Serbia can return to their native republic to become part of its nascent force. The move also brings to an end the 15-year-long dissolution of Yugoslavia, after Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia split in the early 1990s.
Dan Nexon of The Duck has emailed us an interesting link on the coming wave of micro states.
As Montenegro officially declared independence this weekend, accepting the world’s welcome into the community of nations, a handful of obscure “statelets” are demanding the same opportunity to choose their own destinies. In the latest example, Transdniestria, a Russian-speaking enclave that won de facto independence in the early 1990s, declared last week that it will hold a Montenegro-style referendum in September as part of its campaign for statehood.Experts fear that many “frozen conflicts” around the world – in which a territory has gained de facto independence through war but failed to win international recognition – could reignite as ethnic minorities demand the same right to self-determination that many former Yugoslav territories have been offered by the international community.
Will Montenegro’s independence perhaps hinder Kosovo’s? May Kosovo be the spark that reignites conflicts in the former USSR? Similar to the first two Balkan Wars preceeding WWI, this will indeed be interesting. All of the Caucasus could flare up again not to mention Moldova and others. How small is too small for a state? Is it time to finally look past our outdated notions of states and find a new one? Will the post-Soviet world order look like the post WWI order with League of Nation Mandates exchanged for International Protectorates like Kosovo is now? Readers?

Comments to this entry
marquer
June 6, 2006
5:06 am
How small is too small for a state?
Singapore has done pleasantly well in relation to its stature.
I suspect that their success will be not easily replicated. Most of the fragmentary statelets, particularly in eastern Europe and the xUSSR, will probably end up as satrapies of organized crime.
Curzon
June 6, 2006
5:37 am
Most of the new microstates (and microstate candidates) are declaring independence as the only way to assert their national identiy, but there's little evidence they will be able to thrive on their own once they get there. Slovenia is the only microstate that is functioning, and it is saved by being a solid part of the EU. As long as the EU acts as a loose federation, these microstates can survive. But if (and when) it ever collapses, Europe will be a complete mess, of which the unmanagable borders are just the start.
Dan tdaxp
June 6, 2006
6:39 am
IJ
June 6, 2006
8:25 am
Dan tdaxp
June 7, 2006
2:07 am
This is strange, as the amount of state-on-state war has declined dramatically, and the WTO has more power in international trade than any earlier such body. In what way are global rule sets disappearing?
IJ
June 7, 2006
8:20 am
Whether the IMF will try to reintroduce monetary control, such as fiscal discipline and fixed exchange rates - practised in the EU and in some Asian economies - is an interesting question. Asia's greater involvement should certainly resuscitate the WTO's Doha negotiations and open up the problem of trading imbalances around the world.
Elizabeth
June 7, 2006
10:42 am
I wouldn't have been surprised to hear some idiots on the evening news saying this, but the fact that the whole parliament actually voted on it is pitiful.
By the way- I think one thing you need for a state is a population big enough to justify a national university, or rich enough. You can't be a group of 100,000 poor people trying to set up a country in the traditional sense, because, for example, how will you find enough experts to manage the energy system? You will end up seriously dependent on neighbouring states. I wouldn't want to be responsible for a country of anything less than 500,000 people.
phil jones
June 7, 2006
12:02 pm
A land-locked micro-state is a different kettle of fish. There are precedents ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra ) but I suspect you need to two large, relatively benign neighbours who you can play off against each other. And maybe it helps if you didn't used to have much in the way of useful natural resources.
Dan Nexon
June 7, 2006
8:23 pm
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Coming Micro-States
June 7, 2006
9:06 pm
sun bin
June 7, 2006
10:57 pm
this is a typo, you mean micro-state (not state)?
---
re:"population":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
vatican has
sun bin
June 7, 2006
11:00 pm
about 10 UN members has less than 100k pop
Bill Wood
June 7, 2006
11:49 pm
Article: "Does Size Matter?"
sun bin
June 8, 2006
6:46 am