Sovereignty, self-determination and the contending logics of territorial distribution.

This article examines the complex and often contradictory relationship between territorial sovereignty and national self-determination in international politics. It argues that sovereignty is an instrumental norm aimed at preserving the territorial status quo, while national self-determination is a justice-based norm advocating territorial distribution according to legitimate national affiliations, creating inherent tensions between them. The article traces the historical evolution of sovereignty as a tool for rulers to consolidate control, which later sought moral legitimacy through dynastic rights and ultimately national self-determination. It highlights how this normative contradiction explains the varied international responses to territorial conflicts, such as Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 versus its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, where claims framed under self-determination often elicit softer reactions. The interplay between these norms results in a form of "organized hypocrisy," where states rhetorically uphold both principles but prioritize sovereignty to maintain order, while self-determination can be invoked to justify territorial changes, sometimes leading to international passivity in the face of aggression.