What is currently happening in
South Ossetia and how the world is reacting to it show how "relative" the notion of self-determination can be. What's the difference between South Ossetia and Kosovo for example? What makes South Ossetia unworthy of self-determination while Kosovo is allowed to contemplate independance? Why is the world saying that Georgia's territorial integrity must be preserved while Serbia's territorial integrity can be cut into pieces?
There is no consistency in the way the powers that be deal with self-determination, and that ruins the credibility of that supposedly universal right.
I'm not saying South Ossetia should be allowed to self-determination though, i'm just comparing two similar situations that are treated differently.
I am absolutely not convinced that the ever going balkanization of the former Yugoslavia has been a positive process for example. Was it really worth it to disintegrate a country in aways smaller pieces (not to mention kill thousands of people) only to end up all together again in the EU 10 to 20 years later? I very much doubt it. If Yugoslavia had remained one, the whole country would have most probably joined the EU by now, and would people's lives be any worse than they are now in independant countries, most probably not, they'd most likely be better actually.