A Conceptual Introduction (part 1)
Decolonial theory begins with the recognition that the formal end of colonial states did not signify the end of “coloniality.” Mexican sociologist Pablo González-Casanova argues that internal colonialism arises when the direct domination of foreigners over indigenous populations ceases, only to be replaced by the domination and exploitation of indigenous peoples by members of the dominated nation-state. Scholars have applied the concept of internal colonialism to explain unequal political relationships and the domestic exploitation of resources and identities, particularly in relation to ethnic minorities.
However, this theory has not been extensively explored in analyses of the Iranian legal framework, particularly regarding the interplay between legal knowledge and the Kurdish question. This op-ed represents a conceptual beginning aimed at critically analyzing the “colonial Iranian legal language,” specifically in the context of terminology. It examines the preference for terms like “Kurdish settlements(شهرهای کردنشین)” over “Kurdistan” or “the Kurdish cities of Kurdistan,” shedding light on the implications of such linguistic choices for the broader discourse on decolonization and Kurdish self-determination.
Kurdistan is a historical territory intrinsically connected to its predominantly Kurdish population. Despite this historical fact, Iran’s law on administrative divisions(قانون تقسیمات کشوری) disregards Kurdistan’s territorial unity, fragmenting it into separate provinces with different names. This division reflects a deliberate strategy aimed at suppressing Kurdish demands for self-determination. The law in question, particularly Article 10, establishes legal criteria for defining geopolitical units, ignoring the ethno-historical unity of Kurdistan.
In effect, the modern Iranian nation-state has sought to sever the historical link between the concepts of “people” and “territory,” which are foundational elements of statehood under international law, alongside the existence of a government. Furthermore, in Persian legal terminology and official texts, the term “Kurdish settlements” is often used in place of “Kurdistan,” which is the authentic historical name encompassing all four divided provinces. This linguistic shift is not merely symbolic but represents a calculated effort to undermine the internal dimension of Kurdish self-determination and erase the historical connection between Kurdish people and their territory.
Unfortunately, some Kurdish politicians, parties, and organizations have uncritically adopted this colonial legal language, inadvertently reinforcing the narrative imposed by the Iranian state. The next section of this op-ed will delve into the legal and historical dimensions of territory and people under international law, exploring their relevance to the question of Kurdistan and Iran’s colonial legal doctrine.
