This article introduces the special issue marking the centenary of de jure recognition extended to the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian governments by the United States in July 1922. The concept of self-determination – which opened up further roads for Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians in pursuit of independence after the First World War – became closely associated with President Woodrow Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points speech of 1918. However, it was not predetermined that the Baltic nations would receive recognition, or that they would seek sovereign statehood. For a time, the notion of autonomy within a larger federation of states, more closely resembling the imperial structure that had dominated the European political landscape for centuries, was not merely a competing idea, but for some a preference. As notions of self-determination developed into the pursuit of diplomatic recognition, the February Revolution of 1917 and the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 became markers for a transition from federative ideas to national independence.
1. P. Hilpold. Self-Determination and Autonomy: Between Secession and Internal Self-Determination. – International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 2017, 24, 302–335.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02403002
2. For a comprehensive study of the history of the concept of recognition in Europe, see: A. Honneth. Recognition: A Chapter in the History of European Ideas. Trans. J. P. Ganahl. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021.
3. There is some evidence that Wilson was influenced by Mazzini (a proponent of cosmopolitan patriotism), turning liberal internationalism into a doctrine of foreign policy. As stated explicitly in his essays, such as, “The European Question” (1847) and “Principles of International Politics” (1871), Mazzini saw the link between democracy and national self-determination as the recipe for the peaceful international order for Europe’s future.However, for Mazzini, nation was a non-essentialist and socially constructed phenomenon that presents a certain democracy-achieving function in a given historical situation, but it would not be the ultimate endpoint of overall progress. See: S. Recchia, N. Urbinati. Introduction: Giuseppe Mazzini’s International Political Thought. – A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini’s Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations. Ed. by S. Recchia, N. Urbinati. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2009, 3. The best evidence of influence is perhaps Wilson’s own remarks at the monument of Mazzini in Genoa, Italy, 1919. See: W. Wilson. Remarks at the Monument of Mazzini in Genoa, Italy. – The American Presidency Project.
<https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-monument-mazzini-genoa-italy>,
accessed 23rd August 2022. G. Mazzini. The European Question: Foreign Intervention and National Self-Determination. – A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini’s Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations. Ed. by S. Recchia, N. Urbinati. Trans. S. Recchia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2009, 193–198; G. Mazzini. Principles of International Politics. – Ibid., 224–240; S. Recchia. The Origins of Liberal Wilsonianism: Giuseppe Mazzini on Regime Change and Humanitarian Intervention. – Just and Unjust Military Intervention. Ed. by S. Recchia, J. M. Welsh. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, 238, 241–242.
4. W. Wilson. Address of the President of the United States Delivered at a Joint Session of the Two Houses of Congress, 11th February 1918.
<https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp01v01/d59>, accessed 10th July 2022.
5. T. Balkelis. War, Revolution, and Nation-Making in Lithuania, 1914–1923. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018, 1–2, 163.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199668021.001.0001
6. Ē. Jēkabsons. Latvijas un Amerikas Savienoto Valstu attiecības 1918.–1922. gadā. Latvijas vēstures institūta apgāds, Rīga, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.22364/lviz.108.08
7. The Centenary of Latvia’s Foreign Affairs: Global Thought and Latvia. Ed. by A. Sprūds, V. Ščerbinskis, K. Bukovskis. Latvian Institute of international affairs, Riga, 2020. On national self-determination and alternatives to statehood in Latvia, see: G. Apals. Self-determination and Latvia. – Ibid., 9–33.
8. Ameerika sajand: USA ja Eesti suhete sada aastat. Toim. K. Piirimäe, M. Kuldkepp. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu, 2022; K. Piirimäe. Sissejuhatus. – Ibid., 10.
9. K. Piirimäe. Ameerika sajand ja Eesti. – Ibid., 304
10. A. E. Senn. The Formation of the Lithuanian Foreign Office, 1918–1921. – Slavic Review, 1962, 21, 501–504.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3000451
11. A. Gerutis. Independent Lithuania. – Lithuania 700 Years. Ed. by A. Gerutis. Manyland Books, New York, 1969, 145–162; Ē. Jēkabsons. The Genesis of Latvian Statehood in 1918–1919 and the Main Issues of Latvian-Lithuanian Relations in the Early Stage of Independence. – Lithuanian Historical Studies, 1999, 4, 143–146
https://doi.org/10.30965/25386565-00401010;
Z. Kiaupa. The History of Lithuania. Baltos lankos, Vilnius, 2002, 302–315.
12. A. E. Senn. The Formation of the Lithuanian Foreign Office, 503–505.
13. Ibid., 503.
14. For an account of how Lithuanian-Americans became a significant voting demographic in the US, and the obstacles they faced, see: G. Hartman. Building the Ideal Immigrant: Reconciling Lithuanianism and 100 Percent Americanism to Create a Respectable National Movement, 1870–1922. – Journal of American Ethnic History, 1998, 18, 36–76.
15. G. Hartman. Dollars, Diplomacy, and Dignity: United States Economic Involvement in Lithuania, 1914–1940. – Journal of Baltic Studies, 1997, 28, 154–156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01629779700000021
16. C. R. Jurgėla. Lithuania and the United States: The Establishment of State Relations. Lithuanian Historical Society, Chicago, 1985, 47–54. For an overview of political factionalism within the Lithuanian-American community, see: A. Kučas. Lithuanians in America, 89–139.
17. C. R. Jurgėla. Lithuania and the United States, 80-81; R. Misiūnas. Didi maža tauta: Lietuvos įvaizdžio kampanija JAV 1919 metais. Bonus animus, Vilnius, 2008, 12–13.
18. T. Norus, J. Zilius. Lithuania’s Case for Independence. B. F. Johnson, Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC, 1918, 93.
19. First quotation from Ibid., 45; second quotation from J. J. Bielskis. Lithuania: Facts Supporting Her Claim for Reestablishment as an Independent Nation. The Lithuanian National Council, Washington, DC, 1918, 6.
20. Quotations from A. Jusaitis. The History of the Lithuanian Nation and their Present National Aspirations. The Lithuanian Catholic Truth Society, Philadelphia, 1918, 89; R. Misiūnas. Didi maža tauta, 15.
21. First quotation, J. Szlupas. Lithuania in Retrospect and Prospect. The Lithuanian Press Association of America, New York, 1915. Publisher’s Note: Ibid., 4; second quotation: Ibid., 96.
22. J. Gabrys-Paršaitis. Tautos sargyboj. Versus aureus, Vilnius, 2007, 9; Z. Kiaupa. The History of Lithuania, 308; R. Misiūnas. Didi maža tauta, 12–13; A. E. Senn. The Activities of Juozas Gabrys for Lithuania’s Independence, 1914–1920. – Lituanus, 1977, 23, 16.
23. J. Gabrys. A Memorandum upon the Lithuanian Nation. Imprimerie de la Cour d’Appel, Paris, 1911, 5. The text in question was intended to be presented at the First Universal Races Congress on 26th–29th July 1911 in London. Although the text was distributed in English, French, and German, whether or not this presentation ever took place, either officially or unofficially, is unknown. See: E. Demm. The Propaganda of Juozas Gabrys for Lithuania before 1914. – Journal of Baltic Studies, 1990, 21, 121–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01629779000000031
24. S. M. Cutlip. Lithuania’s First Independence Battle: A PR Footnote. – Public Relations Review, 1990, 16, 14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(05)80047-5
25. E. L. Bernays. Biography of an Idea: Memoirs of a Public Relations Counsel. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1965, 450; R. Misiūnas. Didi maža tauta, 22–23, 34–37.
26. E. L. Bernays. Crystallizing Public Opinion. Boni & Liveright, New York, 1934, 24–25.
27. Ibid., 25–26; C. R. Jurgėla. Lithuania and the United States, 184–188; A. Kučas. Lithuanians in America, 173–174.
28. For a detailed overview of the course of the campaign, see: R. Misiūnas. Didi maža tauta, 34–45.
29. E. L. Bernays. Crystallizing Public Opinion, 27.
30. Ibid.; C. R. Jurgėla. Lithuania and the United States, 197.
31. S. M. Cutlip. Lithuania’s First Independence Battle, 15; E. L. Bernays. Crystallizing Public Opinion, 24.
32. R. Misiūnas. Didi maža tauta, 24–25.
33. The American Press on Lithuania’s Freedom. Comp. by P. Molis. Tautos Fondas, Brooklyn, 1920, 15.
34. First quotation: Ibid., 101, reproduced from Albany Argus (25th May 1919); second quotation: Ibid., 17, reproduced from The Columbiad (1919).
35. A. Jusaitis. The History of the Lithuanian Nation, 107.
36. Quotation from “Memorandum on the Baltic Provinces”, 17th May 1918, from Sterling Library, Yale University, Edward M. House Papers, Box No. 151, Folder No. 7029, copy located at Aušrininko dr. Jono Šliūpo archyvas Vilniaus universitetas Šiaulių akademijos Informacijos centras, F1-74, 138–145; John Szlupas, M. D., “Independence of Lithuania and Lettonia” – Congressional Record – Senate. 29th August 1918, 9, 623–9,624, copy located at Aušrininko dr. Jono Šliūpo archyvas Vilniaus universitetas Šiaulių akademijos Informacijos centras, F1-123, 2–3.
37. A. Wivel. Small States in Europe. – Handbook on the Politics of Small States. Ed. by G. Baldacchino, A. Wivel. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenam, 2020, 101.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112932.00014
38. S. M. Cutlip. Lithuania’s First Independence Battle, 13.
39. E. L. Bernays. Biography of an Idea, 155.
40. S. M. Cutlip. Lithuania’s First Independence Battle, 13; C. R. Jurgėla. Lithuania and the United States, 56.
41. During the French Revolution, the first President of the US, George Washington (1732–1799), asserted that involvement in foreign affairs and joining sides with either France or Britain could potentially harm the US and place them under the influences of Europe. See: F. M. Ryan. Abandoning American Neutrality: Woodrow Wilson and the Beginning of the Great War, August 1914–December 1915. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2013, 11.
42. W. Wilson. Address to League to Enforce Peace at Washington. – Selected Addresses and Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Ed. by A. B. Hart. University Press of the Pacific, Honolulu, 2002, 122.
43. S. M. Cutlip. Lithuania’s First Independence Battle, 13.
44. R. D. Griffiths. Dynamics of Secession and State Birth. – Routledge Handbook of State Recognition. Ed. by G. Visoka, J. Doyle, and E. Newman. Routledge, London, 2020, 138–147.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351131759-11
45. T. Throntveit. Power without Victory: Woodrow Wilson and the American Internationalist Experiment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2017, 250
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226460079.001.0001;
A. Lynch. Woodrow Wilson and the Principle of ‘National Self-Determination’: A Reconsideration. – Review of International Studies, 2002, 28, 424.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210502004199
46. L. Mälksoo. The Soviet Approach to the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination: Russia’s Farewell to Jus Publicum Europaeum. – Journal of the History of International Law, 2017, 19, 200–218.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718050-19231035
47. B. Olschowsky. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Woodrow Wilson on the Self-Determination of Nations. – Central and Eastern Europe after the First World War. Ed. by B. Olschowsky, P. Juszkiewicz, J. Rydel. De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin, 2021, 163.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110757163
48. For an analysis as well as a comparison of Lenin and Wilson’s idea of self-determination, see: R. A. Knudsen. The Fight Over Freedom in 20th- and 21st-Century International Discourse: Moments of ‘Self-Determination’. Springer, Cham, 2020. Also, see: B. Olschowsky. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Woodrow Wilson on the Self-Determination of Nations. – Central and Eastern Europe after the First World War, 149–170.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110757163-009
49. Ibid.; R. A. Mark. National Self-Determination, as Understood by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. – Lithuanian Historical Studies, 2008, 13, 21–39.
https://doi.org/10.30965/25386565-01301004
50. V. I. Lenin. The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.
<https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/16.htm>,
accessed 15th September 2022. Lenin writes here: “We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of secession for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, only on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without the freedom to secede.”
51. O. Arens. Wilson, Lansing ja Hoover: Ameerika välispoliitika ja Eesti riigi tekkimine. – Acta Historica Tallinnensia, 2006, 10, 61
https://doi.org/10.3176/hist.2006.1.04;
T. Throntveit. The Fable of the Fourteen Points: Woodrow Wilson and National Self-Determination. – Diplomatic History, 2011, 35, 446.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2011.00959.x
52. A. Kučas. Lithuanians in America. Encyclopedia Lithuanica, Boston, 1975, 179.
53. G. Visoka, J. Doyle, E. Newman. Introduction: Statehood and Recognition in World Politics. – Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, 3.
54. See, for example, J. A. Trapans. The West and the Recognition of the Baltic States: 1919 and 1991. A Study of the Politics of the Major Powers. – Journal of Baltic Studies, 1994, 25, 153–173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01629779400000071
55. While Allied governments had differing views, this notion of a duty of care is demonstrated even in respect of the matter of the economic viability of Germany. For detailed accounts of the challenges and considerations that faced Allied peacemakers, see: M. MacMillan. Peacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War. J. Murray, London, 2001; M. MacMillan. Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. Random House, New York, 2002.
56. See: M. Lehti. Sovereignty Redefined: Baltic Cooperation and the Limits of National Self-determination. – Cooperation and Conflict, 1999, 34, 413–443.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108369921961951
57. E. Medijainen. Self-Determination, Wilson and Estonia. – Diplomaatia, 2018, 173/174
58. G. Visoka, J. Doyle, E. Newman. Introduction: Statehood and Recognition in World Politics, 3.
59. A. N. Tarulis. American-Baltic Relations 1918–1922: The Struggle Over Recognition. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC, 1965.
60. G. Mazzini. Toward a Holy Alliance of the Peoples. – A Cosmopolitanism of Nations, 126.
61. See: M. Lehti. A Baltic League as a Construct of the New Europe: Envisioning a Baltic Region and Small State Sovereignty in the Aftermath of the First World War. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 1999; T. Lundén. The Dream of a Balto-Scandian Federation. – Baltic Worlds, 2019, 12, 21–28; E. Medijainen. The Baltic Question in the Twentieth Century: Historiographic Aspects. – Public Power in Europe: Studies in Historical Transformations. Ed. by J. S. Amelang, S. Beer. PLUS-Pisa University Press, Pisa, 2006, 113–114; J. Šliūpas. Lietuvių-latvių respublika ir Šiaurės tautų sąjunga. Svenska Andelsförlaget, Stockholm, 1918. Such federative ideas lingered on into the subsequent decade, for example, in the idea of establishing a Balto-Scandinavian Federation, which Edgar Anderson described as an echo of Šliūpas’ notion of a Union of Northern Nations, see: E. Anderson. Toward the Baltic Union, 1920–27. – Lituanus, 1966, 12, 2, 30–56
<http://www.lituanus.org/1966/66_2_03Anderson.htm>, accessed 2nd September 2022.
62. D. Mack Smith. Mazzini. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1996, 221.
63. G. Visoka, J. Doyle, E. Newman. Introduction: Statehood and Recognition in World Politics, 3.
64. T. Jaber. A Case for Kosovo? Self-Determination and Secession in the 21st Century. – The International Journal of Human Rights, 2011, 15, 926–947.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642981003666268
65. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), “Document (with annexes) from the Russian Federation setting out its position regarding the alleged ‘lack of jurisdiction’ of the Court in the case”. See paragraph 17 in International Court of Justice, March 7, 2022.
<https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220307-OTH-01-00-EN.pdf>,
accessed 21st September 2022; and, see: Address by the President of the Russian Federation, 24th February 2022.
<http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843>, accessed 21st September 2022.
66. There are, in general, two schools of thought on recognition in international law scholarship, codified across different documents in the past. They aim to explain how the act of recognition relates to the creation of states. Constitutive thought claims that a state comes into existence through the act of recognition, i.e. recognition is what constitutes an entity being a state. Declaratory thought, on the other hand, refers less to the act of recognition and focuses on the criteria for considering an entity as a state, i.e. entities with certain qualities exist as states, whether recognised or not. The latter is known for being the foundation for “The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States” of 1933. For more about the criticism of both theories, see, for example: J. Crawford. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
67. T. Skouteris. The Turn to History in International Law.
68. G. Visoka. Statehood and Recognition in World Politics: Towards a Critical Research Agenda. – Cooperation and Conflict, 2022, 57, 133–151; Routledge Handbook of State Recognition.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367211007876
69. M. Fabry. The Evolution of State Recognition. – Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, 59–70.
