The Kurds from the Imperial Division of Zuhab to the Institutional Paradox of the United Nations

A Critical Analysis of Kurdistan's Sovereignty and the Representation Gap in the International Community

Abstract

This study provides an intensive and multidimensional examination of the Kurdish cause as the largest "stateless nation" in the contemporary international system. Through the lenses of diplomatic history, international law, and nation-building theory, the research attempts to analyze the "Representation Gap" that has derailed the Kurdish right to self-determination. The fundamental hypothesis of this paper posits that the marginalization of the Kurds is not a political coincidence, but an entrenched logic tracing its roots back to the Treaty of Zuhab (1639); the historical juncture that first sacrificed the territory of Kurdistan for the balance of power between classical empires and laid the foundation for the region's political division.

The research meticulously tracks the transformations of the twentieth century, from the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) as the pinnacle of diplomatic betrayal, to the failure of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), and the consolidation of the state-centric logic in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), wherein Kurdish national identity was erased for the sake of the territorial integrity of new states. In another section, the study presents a critical analysis of the "institutional paradox" of the United Nations; illustrating the tension created between the Charter's traditional language advocating for the "rights of peoples" (Article 1) and the condition of membership restricted solely to "states" (Article 4), which has left the Kurds—a demographic actor of 70 million—absent from global decision-making tables.

A distinct significance of this research lies in its proposition of the "Remedial Secession" doctrine, arguing that due to the failure of regional states to protect the national and cultural rights of the Kurds, coupled with the persistent threat of Kurdish genocide, independence is not merely a right but a legal necessity to safeguard global peace. The study concludes by formulating a strategic roadmap for the Kurds within the current context of the Middle East. This roadmap emphasizes three main pillars: first, forming a team of international legal experts; second, investing in cultural and public diplomacy; and ultimately third, adopting the "Civil Self-Administration" model as an alternative to the oppressive, dominant nation-state. The ultimate objective of this study is to transform the Kurdish cause from a "humanitarian" issue into a decisive "legal and political" dossier, wherein the decision of self-determination is imposed upon the international system as a national will.

Keywords: Kurdish Sovereignty, Representation Gap, International Treaties, Stateless Nation, United Nations, Remedial Secession, Legal Diplomacy, Cultural Diplomacy, Right to Self-Determination.

1. Introduction: The Concept of Sovereignty and the Paradox of the Stateless Nation

In political philosophy and the history of international relations, the concept of "Sovereignty" is viewed as the cornerstone of the contemporary global system, rooted in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. This system, built on the premise of territorial integrity and the absolute sovereignty of states, inherently carries an exclusionary and unjust logic. Westphalia only recognizes nations that possess a formal political entity as "legitimate actors," turning the Kurdish nation—one of the oldest and largest national units in the world—into the primary victim of this political logic for over four centuries. The national absence of the Kurds in formal decision-making centers is not a consequence of any deficiency in Kurdish identity or culture, but rather the product of an "artificial construct" of the global system that has made sovereignty the primary prerequisite for "legal existence."

This absence in the international arena has created an "ontological" crisis for the Kurds; the Kurds exist as a "people" in dictionaries, but are non-existent as "sovereigns" on political maps. This paradox persists even though, according to all modern legal and political standards, the Kurds not only possess a natural right to independence but also possess full "competence and merit" to determine their own fate. This merit has been clearly demonstrated by the Kurdish capability for peaceful governance, the protection of religious and ethnic pluralism, and the building of civil institutions in the heart of a highly volatile region. Here it becomes evident that sovereignty for the Kurds is not merely an "emotional" demand, but a "legal" necessity to regulate the life of a nation that can no longer survive under the umbrella of oppressive states.

As the renowned historian David McDowall (2021) points out in his analyses, the history of the Kurdish nation is a unique example of "identity defense." This defense is not confined solely to armed conflict; it has been a systematic resistance against attempts at "identity erasure" practiced by classical empires and later by the nation-states of the region. McDowall emphasizes that the survival of the Kurds as a unified nation, despite all attempts at assimilation, is the greatest proof that the Kurds are a "complete nation" that only requires an international legal framework within which to exercise its sovereignty.

This historical depiction leads us to understand how the "Representation Gap" has resulted in the Kurds being used in diplomatic equations merely as a "pressure card" or "auxiliary factor," rather than as a "rights-holding partner." The global system has continuously portrayed regional stability as contingent upon the "territorial integrity" of the states among which the Kurds are divided, whereas historical reality has proven the opposite; the perpetual instability of the Middle East is a direct consequence of the denial of the Kurdish nation's sovereignty. Therefore, shifting the Kurdish status from a "stateless nation" to a "sovereign nation" is not merely a legal right, but the primary key to changing the paradigm from war to lasting peace in the region. This transformation requires transcending the outdated Westphalian logic that sacrifices human beings and nations for the sanctity of artificial borders.

2. The Treaty of Zuhab (1639) and the Consolidation of the Logic of Division

To understand the legal and international absence mentioned in the previous section, it is essential to investigate the historical roots of the geographical division of Kurdistan. Most researchers and political observers trace the history of Kurdistan's division back to 1916 and the Sykes-Picot Agreement. However, from the analytical perspective of diplomatic history, the Treaty of Zuhab, signed on May 17, 1639, between the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV and the Safavid Shah Safi, is considered the first and truest formal milestone in the division of the Kurdish nation and the land of Kurdistan. This treaty did not merely draw a physical boundary; it consolidated a political logic wherein Kurdistan was viewed as a perpetual sacrifice for the "peace of empires."

2.1. Strategic Consequences of Zuhab and the "Buffer Logic"

The Treaty of Zuhab ended a bloody 15-year war that had devastated the region, but this peace came at the expense of the body of a nation that shared one language, one culture, and one social structure. According to the research of Mehrdad Izady (1992), this treaty, for the first time in diplomatic history, formally divided Kurdistan between two opposing poles:

• The Ottoman Sector: Encompassing most areas of present-day Northern, Southern, and Western Kurdistan (Turkey, Iraq, and Syria).

• The Safavid Sector: Encompassing the regions of Eastern Kurdistan (present-day Iran).

The significance of this division lies in the fact that, for the first time, an artificial political border was drawn between two major empires across the geography of a nation that had previously lived as a unified cultural unit. Zuhab created a dangerous logic known in international relations as the "Buffer Logic." Within this, the Kurds were used as a "human shield" and Kurdistan as a "buffer zone" between two opposing sects (Sunni Ottomans and Shia Safavids) and two rival political powers. This caused the Kurds to be viewed as "border guards" rather than as a rights-holding nation deserving of development toward a unified political entity.

2.2. The Psychological Rift and the Disruption of National Growth

This division was not confined to drawing a line on a map; it created a "deep psychological and political rift" whose effects on the fragmentation of Kurdish political discourse are still evident today. Under the Treaty of Zuhab, connections between the parts of Kurdistan were severed, and each part fell under the cultural, political, and administrative influence of a different center. This led to the uneven and disconnected emergence of "Kurdish nationalism" in subsequent centuries.

It must be noted here that the empires intentionally kept the Kurds within the framework of a limited "tribal autonomy." This prevented the Kurds from transitioning from the phase of "tribes and emirates" toward the phase of a "modern nation-state." As David McDowall indicates, the logic of Zuhab reduced the Kurds to a "balance of power factor"; whenever one empire wanted to pressure the other, it used the Kurdish issue as a political card. This bitter legacy took on an international dimension in the twentieth century under the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Westphalian system, reducing the Kurds from a nation divided between two empires to a marginalized nation torn among four new nation-states, which we will analyze thoroughly in the upcoming sections.

3. Sykes-Picot and Secret Diplomacy: Transforming "Geography" into "Colonialism"

With the outbreak of the First World War and the beginning of the collapse and fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish issue once again fell into diplomatic equations as a primary factor, yet as a silent victim. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, a secret pact between Mark Sykes (Britain) and François Georges-Picot (France), is viewed by the Kurds as one of the greatest diplomatic betrayals in contemporary history. This agreement not only redrew the borders of the Middle East but also morphed the "buffer" logic of the Treaty of Zuhab into a "colonial" logic in which the Kurds, as a nation with rights, were entirely erased.

As David Fromkin (1989) explains in his renowned study A Peace to End All Peace, this agreement drew the region's map based solely on imperial interests, the division of zones of influence, and the acquisition of energy resources (specifically the oil of Kirkuk and Mosul). Here, the international community once again completely turned its back on the sociological and national reality of the region. Sykes-Picot transformed the "bipolar" division of the Zuhab era into four modern political entities (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria), built upon the territorial integrity of these respective states.

This turning point led to the consolidation of what is known in international relations as "Territorial Logic," wherein the sanctity of artificial borders supersedes "national rights." In this equation, the Kurds were not only fragmented but turned into a "forced minority" within four distinct political entities, each possessing its own nationalist project aimed at erasing Kurdish identity. The repercussions of this logic remain a deep wound on the body of the Kurdish nation today, serving as the basis of the "Representation Gap" that deprives the Kurds, as a major nation, of their place in international institutions.

4. From the Promises of "Sèvres" to the Denial of "Lausanne": The Political Genocide of a Nation

The conclusion of World War I and the convening of the Paris Peace Conference brought about a brief but critical milestone for Kurdish diplomacy. The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) is recognized as the first legal and international document in history to formally acknowledge the right of the Kurdish nation to establish an independent entity. Articles 62 to 64 of this treaty not only referenced "autonomy" but paved the way for the Kurds to demand full independence within a year. Here, Sharif Pasha, acting as the first Kurdish diplomatic representative on the international stage, succeeded in presenting the Kurdish cause as a legal issue based on "sovereignty," leaning on Wilson's principles of the self-determination of peoples.

However, this "diplomatic spring" was short-lived, as the logic of "Realpolitik" once again overpowered moral and legal values. The victory of the Kemalist movement in Turkey and the shift in British interests toward consolidating the Iraqi state and securing oil routes led to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). Lausanne was not just a peace agreement to end a war; it was recorded in history as the "political gallows of Kurdistan." In this treaty, not only were the promises of Sèvres annulled, but the name Kurdistan was entirely wiped off the global political map.

As Radpey (2021) points out in his analyses, Lausanne granted legal legitimacy to the division of Kurdistan and demoted the Kurds from a rights-holding nation to a marginalized "ethnic minority" within the states of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. At Lausanne, Kurds were defined as "Mountain Turks" or a "nameless minority," marking the beginning of a century of physical and cultural genocide. Lausanne turned Kurdistan and the Kurds into the "largest stateless nation in the world," cementing the "Representation Gap" that continues to prevent the Kurds from being treated as a sovereign nation in the international community. This milestone demonstrated how international law could become a tool to legitimize oppression for the sake of superpower interests.

5. The United Nations and the Paradox of the "Nameless Name"

The establishment of the United Nations (UN) in 1945, as a response to the devastation of World War II and the failure of the "League of Nations," created a fundamental shift in global political and legal culture. The UN Charter, viewed as a global constitution, clearly emphasizes in Articles 1 and 2 the development of friendly relations among nations based on the "right to self-determination of peoples." However, it was here that the Kurdish nation—as an entity whose political body had been dismembered at Lausanne—faced a profound institutional dilemma that we term the "Representation Gap." This gap is not merely a technical issue; it is a philosophical and legal barrier preventing Kurdish national identity from transitioning from "theory" to "political practice."

5.1. The Naming Paradox: United Nations or United States?

One of the greatest paradoxes of the global system hides in the very name of this institution. The fundamental question here is: If the goal of this organization is to "unite nations" and protect the "rights of peoples," why are membership and decision-making rights monopolized exclusively by "states"? While the organization's name is the "United Nations," it effectively operates as the "United States." Article 4 of the UN Charter clearly restricts membership to "sovereign states" only.

This institutional logic has meant that the Kurdish nation, the largest stateless nation in the world numbering over 70 million people, holds no official seat or legal voice in this organization. This is not just political injustice; it is a symptom of the failure of the moral logic upon which the organization was built. How can an organization claim to "represent the world" while leaving the largest stateless nation outside closed doors, trapped in the sharp claws of regional states? This is where the representation gap becomes a "concrete wall" obstructing the will of a nation that has been a victim of artificial borders for four centuries.

5.2. The Bureaucracy of Legitimacy and Circular Logic

According to the theories of Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore (1999), international organizations are not merely neutral tables for discussion; they are actors in the "bureaucracy of legitimacy." They determine the criteria of "who is constitutional and who is unconstitutional." For the Kurds, this UN bureaucracy has become a legal trap or a "Circular Logic." To be recognized by the United Nations, the Kurds must become a "state," but to become a state, the Kurds need United Nations recognition. This closed loop means that the Kurds "exist" legally and sociologically (as a living nation) but are "absent or missing" politically and diplomatically in decision-making centers.

The United Nations, through its state-centric approach, lends legal legitimacy to the division wrought by Lausanne, which we discussed in previous sections. Here, the international institution, instead of being the "savior of peoples," becomes the "protector of the sovereignty of the states" among which the Kurds have been divided. This formal absence ensures that Kurdish national disasters (such as the Anfal campaign, chemical bombardments, and mass migrations of millions) are perpetually treated as "temporary humanitarian issues" or "internal state problems," rather than as a legitimate national right to sovereignty and independence. This is the historical fissure that the United Nations must address if it truly intends to represent "nations."

6. The Right to Self-Determination: From Legal "Right" to National "Will"

As explained in the preceding sections, the representation gap in the international system has kept the Kurds as an absent nation in formal equations. Hence, the concept of the right to self-determination must be redefined from a new perspective. In modern international law, this right is not merely a "diplomatic gift" or "political charity" bestowed by superpowers upon stateless nations; it is a natural, absolute, and fundamental right designated as Jus Cogens. According to UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), known as the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples," all peoples have an unalienable right to determine their political, economic, and cultural destiny. For the Kurds, this resolution is not just a historical text; it is legal evidence proving that "subjugation to alien domination" constitutes an immediate violation of universal human rights.

6.1. Kurdish Competence for Statehood: From "Theory" to "Reality"

Opponents of Kurdistan's independence often cite the "incompetence" of the Kurds, but according to all scientific and legal criteria, the Kurds not only meet the conditions for statehood but are, in many respects, more competent and qualified than many current UN member states. This competence is evident in three main dimensions:

1. Distinct National Identity: The Kurds possess all the sociological and anthropological elements of a nation (language, history, culture, and folklore). This identity is not only distinct from surrounding peoples but has survived as a living, cohesive identity despite a century of "cultural genocide" and campaigns of Arabization, Turkification, and Persianization. This indicates that the Kurds are a "Sociological Nation" that only lacks a legal framework to become a "Juridical Nation."

2. Historical Geography and Territorial Integrity: Kurdistan has a recognized geography with roots stretching back thousands of years. This land has natural and historical borders far deeper than the "artificial borders" drawn at Sykes-Picot and Lausanne. The Kurds live on the land of their ancestors, which, under international law, grants the nation legitimacy of "territorial ownership."

3. Governance Capacity and "De Facto" Statehood: The experience of the Kurdistan Region after 1991 and Rojava (Western Kurdistan) after 2012 served as the greatest laboratory to prove Kurdish competence. Despite embargoes, the war on terror (ISIS), and political blockades by neighboring countries, the Kurds managed to establish administrative, military, educational, and financial institutions. Although these entities face numerous legal hurdles, they have successfully maintained internal security and religious coexistence in a manner where central states like Iraq and Syria have failed. The Kurds, without being a formal "state," have operated as a "State-like actor," providing the greatest proof of legal competence.

6.2. Sovereignty as Will: The Perspective of James Crawford

To overcome the "Representation Gap" created by the United Nations, the Kurds require a deeper interpretation of the concept of state creation. As James Crawford (2006) points out in his classic book The Creation of States in International Law, sovereignty and statehood are not merely "legal phenomena" that fall from the sky; they are the result of an "effective national will" and the imposition of effective authority on the ground.

Crawford emphasizes that while "international recognition" is important, it is not the primary condition for creating a state. A state is formed when a people proves its will to govern itself and builds institutions capable of regulating its international relations. Hence, the Kurds must liberate themselves from the classical mindset of waiting for the approval of "Tehran, Ankara, Damascus, and Baghdad." The right to self-determination is an "internal and sovereign" decision before it is an international procedure. When a nation decides it is no longer part of the political entity that oppresses it and possesses the capacity to defend this decision, a state is born in terms of "legal philosophy," and international recognition becomes merely a matter of time and interest. Therefore, the key lies in the hands of the Kurds themselves; independence is a decision that must be "made" and "defended" by unified national institutions, rather than "received" as charity from other countries.

7. A New Paradigm: Strategy for Achieving the Right to Self-Determination

In light of the rapid transformations occurring in the foundations of the global system and the geopolitics of the Middle East, the Kurdish nation can no longer approach the issue of sovereignty with classical twentieth-century tools. The "Representation Gap" solidified under the Treaty of Lausanne and the UN Charter necessitates a political paradigm shift. To transition the Kurds from a "stateless nation" to a "sovereign actor," the following strategic measures are proposed as necessities of statecraft:

7.1. Unifying National Discourse and Strategic Consensus

The greatest obstacle to Kurdish diplomacy from the Treaty of Zuhab (1639) to the present day has been internal fragmentation and the absence of a unified decision-making center. For the international community to recognize the legitimacy of a nation, that nation must deliver its messages with "one voice." Here, the Kurds need a "National Confederal" model in which all parts, despite their political differences, agree to protect supreme national interests. This consensus will serve as the foundation for the Kurds to appear in international forums as a cohesive unit, rather than as a fragmented group that superpowers can manipulate.

7.2. Investing in "Soft Power" and Nation Branding

In the 21st century, the power equation has shifted from the "barrel of a gun" to the "sphere of public and digital diplomacy." Soft Power can open doors that war cannot. The Kurds must turn their "national identity" into a global brand that resonates with human values. Utilizing the universal slogan "Jin, Jiyan, Azadî" (Women, Life, Freedom) as a Kurdish intellectual and cultural export carries the impact of an army. This nation branding creates pressure on global public opinion and Western governments so that they can no longer turn a blind eye to Kurdish human rights violations for the sake of economic interests.

7.3. The "Civil Self-Administration" Model and the Revival of the City-State

Given that Kurdistan is located in the heart of Mesopotamia, which has an ancient history of cultural and social innovation, the Kurds must leverage "cultural diplomacy and people's diplomacy." Here, models of self-administration, rooted in the ancient Greek concept of the City-State (Polis), become the key to success for the fragmented Kurdish nation in the region. Developing a "system of civil councils," as seen in Rojava, shifts the Kurdish stereotype from a "militant fighter" to an "advanced governance model." This is termed the "Third Way," where state-building begins from the "bottom-up." This model generates domestic and international legitimacy, proving that the Kurds are capable of self-governance without posing a threat to regional peace.

7.4. Legal Diplomacy and the Doctrine of "Remedial Secession"

In today's world, "military force" alone is insufficient to consolidate sovereignty; Legal Diplomacy, as a universal language, is the key to unlocking closed doors. For the Kurds, transforming the "cry of the oppressed" into a "solid legal dossier" will be a strategic breakthrough. This requires establishing a "Supreme International Legal Team" to work on the following points at UN centers:

• The Concept of Remedial Secession: The mission of this team is to consolidate the legal reality that the Kurds, due to systematic oppression and ongoing genocide within current dominant states, have acquired an absolute right to unilateral secession. As seen in the cases of Kosovo and South Sudan, independence is the only option to prevent the physical and cultural annihilation of a nation.

• Proving the Failure of Coexistence: We must prove through evidence and law that the Kurds have tested all models of autonomy and federalism for a century, yet central states have responded with war and cultural erasure. When a dominant state, under the pretext of protecting its "territorial integrity," becomes a source of threat to its citizens of other nations, the legitimacy of its claims of coexistence vanishes, remaining merely propaganda to prolong its dominance.

• Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Kurdish legal diplomacy must be built on the principle of the "Responsibility to Protect." Independence is not merely a political desire, but a proactive measure to prevent the recurrence of another genocide akin to the massacres of the Anfal campaign and the chemical bombardment of Halabja.

• Implementation Mechanisms at the UN and the ICJ: The Kurds, through friendly nations—particularly within the European Union—must request an "Advisory Opinion" from the International Court of Justice regarding the legitimization of Kurdistan's quest for independence. Simultaneously, they must lobby the Human Rights Council to shift the Kurdish issue from an "internal state problem" to an "international security interest."

In short, the legal and cultural trenches at the United Nations are no less important for the Kurds than the defensive trenches in the mountains. This new diplomacy will ensure that the world no longer views the Kurds as a "minority and subordinate," but treats them as a rights-holding nation deserving of full sovereignty. This is the only way to overcome the historical impasse created for the Kurds in 1639 and 1923.

8. Conclusion: The Kurdish Nation as the Awakened Conscience of the Global System

Broadly speaking, the conclusions of this study clarify that the "Kurdish issue" is not merely a geographical problem or a territorial dispute; it is the greatest moral and legal test for the international system in the twenty-first century. From the treaties of Zuhab and Sykes-Picot to the consolidation of the Lausanne logic and the establishment of the United Nations, the international community has consistently attempted to rewrite the history of the Middle East with the "absence of the Kurds." However, the political de facto has proven that all attempts to erase or ignore this nation of seventy million have failed; because the Kurds inevitably rise from the ashes of war time and time again as an inseparable factor of stability and resistance.

The strategic conclusions of this research converge on the following main points:

1. The Legacy of Division and the Continuity of Identity: The Treaty of Zuhab (1639) laid the foundation for the physical division of Kurdistan, but despite the passage of four centuries, it failed to destroy the "national spirit" and cultural integrity of the Kurds. This history must serve as a strategic lesson for the Kurds today; wherein "unity of discourse" is the only answer to the historical division imposed upon their region by major powers.

2. The Failure of the Nation-State Paradigm: The "oppressive nation-state" model in the Middle East, built on the premise of "one language, one nation, one flag," has reached a dead end and failed. In contrast, the Kurds, as a nation possessing a rich background of coexistence, present a "multicultural and democratic" model. This competence in managing coexistence among different nations and religions grants the Kurds immense political and moral legitimacy to achieve independence, because an independent and sovereign Kurdistan would become an exemplar of democratic modernity and peaceful coexistence in the region.

3. The Right to Self-Determination as an Imposed Will: The Kurds must no longer wait as "powerless petitioners" for the United Nations or occupying states to grant them the right to independence. According to all criteria of international law and the UN Charter, the Kurds are 100% deserving of sovereignty. This right must be imposed on the ground through "People's Diplomacy," "Legal Diplomacy," and the "building of unified national institutions." For the Kurds, sovereignty must shift from a "theoretical entitlement" to a "practical will and intent."

4. Kurdistan as a Center of Global Stability: The final message of this research to the international community is clear: without fundamentally resolving the Kurdish issue, the Middle East will never see peace and stability. This is not because the Kurds are an aggressive or warmongering nation, but because the Kurds are a nation that does not bow or surrender and continues to defend its existence. An independent Kurdistan will not destabilize the region; rather, it will become a "fortress of peace and democracy" and a natural barrier against extremism and terrorism.

In conclusion, now more than ever, the time has come for the Kurdish nation to be present at international negotiation tables not as a "guest," but as a "primary actor." The "Representation Gap" created by the Westphalian system and the logic of Lausanne must be bridged by the will of 70 million people. The Kurds are not a "stateless nation," but a de facto state awaiting only an international signature; that signature will not be attained through emotion and prayers, but must be carved onto the global political map through "astute diplomacy," "innovative culture," and "relentless resistance."

This research does not end here; rather, it serves as the genesis for a new diplomatic discourse; a discourse in which the Kurds no longer allow others to rewrite their history, but must become the authors of a sovereign future in the heart of Mesopotamia and the Middle East.

ORCID ID: 0009-0004-1271-0445

List of Documents and References:

First: Academic Sources:

• Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732. (For analyzing the bureaucracy of legitimacy in international organizations).

• Crawford, J. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (For consolidating the legal foundations of state creation and national will).

• Fromkin, D. (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt and Co. (For analyzing the consequences of Sykes-Picot and the shaping of the Middle East).

• Gui Bernau, M. (2013). Nations without States: Political Communities in a Global Age. Polity. (For the concept of stateless nations and national identity).

• Izady, M. R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Taylor & Francis. (For historical and geographical details of the Treaty of Zuhab and the division of Kurdistan).

• Keating, M. (2001). Nations against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland. Palgrave Macmillan. (For comparing stateless nations and the concept of sovereignty).

• McDowall, D. (2021). A Modern History of the Kurds (4th ed.). I.B. Tauris. (For the modern history of the Kurds and the defense of national identity).

• Radpey, L. (2021). Kurdistan on the Sèvres centenary: How a distinct people became the world’s largest stateless nation. Nationalities Papers, 49(6), 1115–1131. (For the legal analysis of the Treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne and the representation gap).

Second: International Documents & Constitutions:

• Iraq (2005). Constitution of the Republic of Iraq. (For referencing the legal identity of the Kurdistan Region as a federal entity).

• United Nations (1945). Charter of the United Nations. (For Articles 1, 2, and 4 regarding the rights of peoples and membership conditions).

• United Nations General Assembly (1960). Resolution 1514 (XV): Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. (For establishing the right to self-determination as a principle of international law).

• United Nations (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (To support the cultural and political rights of stateless nations).

Third: Historical Treaties:

• Treaty of Sèvres (1920). Articles 62-64. (For analyzing the diplomatic promises for Kurdistan's independence).

• Treaty of Lausanne (1923). (For analyzing the erasure of the name Kurdistan and the consolidation of artificial borders).

• Treaty of Zuhab / Qasr-e Shirin (1639). (As the first milestone in the geographical division of Kurdistan between the Ottomans and Safavids).