  Earlier, we observed that critics of the ascriptivist version of primary right theories tend to focus on the potential costs in terms of exacerbated ethno-national conflict of incorporating the view into international law. However, it is not enough to note the potential costs of acceptance of the ascriptivist theory and its incorporation into international law. It is also necessary to understand the putative benefits of having a system in which the rights of nations to their own states are acknowledged. Accordingly, David Miller has usefully distinguished two ways in which ascriptivist theories can be supported: by arguments to show that nations need states or by arguments to show that states need to be mono-national (Miller 1995).