Bismarck once said: "I do not want any colonies at all. Their only use is to provide sinecures. That is all England at present gets out of her colonies, and Spain too. And as for us Gennans, colonies would be exactly like the silks and sables of the Polish nobleman who had no shirt to wear under them. " 1 It may be debated whether Bismarck was right or wrong, but the subsequent course of history e. g. , the Anglo French rivalry in Egypt, the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, the Spa nish-American war of 1898, the Boer war of 1899-1902, the Russo Japanese war of 1904-1905, the Morocco crisis of 1906, the Turco Italian war of 1911, showed that the colonial territories, which were often treated as pawns in the diplomatic game for power, prestige, and markets were potential causes of war. 2 The chief cause of modern wars, if Hobson's analysis is accepted, is the competitive struggle of modern nations for economic privileges of one kind or another for powerful financial and trading groups of their 3 nationals. The keen desire of the Colonial Powers to acquire new mar kets and sources of raw materials by diplomatic pressure or force have been, according to him, "the chief directing influences in foreign policy, the chief causes of competing armaments, and the pennanent under lying menaces to peace.

The emergence of new states and independence movements after the Cold War has intensified the long-standing disagreement among international lawyers over the right of self-determination, especially the right of secession. Knop shifts the discussion from the articulation of the right to its interpretation. She argues that the practice of interpretation involves and illuminates a problem of diversity raised by the exclusion of many of the groups that self-determination most affects. Distinguishing different types of exclusion and the relationships between them reveals the deep structures, biases and stakes in the decisions and scholarship on self-determination. Knop's analysis also reveals that the leading cases have grappled with these embedded inequalities. Challenges by colonies, ethnic nations, indigenous peoples, women and others to the gender and cultural biases of international law emerge as integral to the interpretation of self-determination historically, as do attempts by judges and other institutional interpreters to meet these challenges.