Self-determination[1] refers to apeople's right to form its own political entity, and internal self-determination is the right to representative government withfull suffrage.[2][3]
Self-determination is a cardinal principle in moderninternational law, binding, as such, on theUnited Nations as an authoritative interpretation of theCharter's norms.[4][5] The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be (whetherindependence,federation,protection, some form ofautonomy or fullassimilation),[6] and the right of self-determination does not necessarily include a right to an independent state for every ethnic group within a former colonial territory. Further, noright to secession is recognized under international law.[7][8]
The concept emerged with the rise ofnationalism in the 19th century and came into prominent use in the 1860s, spreading rapidly thereafter.[9] During and afterWorld War I, the principle was encouraged by bothSoviet PremierVladimir Lenin andUnited States PresidentWoodrow Wilson.[9] Having announced hisFourteen Points on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."[10] However, neither Wilson and Lloyd George nor Lenin and Trotsky considered the peoples of the Global South as the main target for their statements supporting self-determination. Nevertheless, their rhetoric resonated far beyond the European audiences they aimed to reach.[11] DuringWorld War II, the principle was included in theAtlantic Charter, jointly declared on 14 August 1941 byFranklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, andWinston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[12] It was recognized as an international legal right after it was explicitly listed as a right in theUN Charter.[13]
Implementing the right to self-determination can be politically difficult, in part because there are multiple interpretations of whatconstitutes a people and which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[14] As World Court judgeIvor Jennings put it: "the people cannot decide until somebody decides who are the people".[15]
The norm of self-determination can be traced to theAmerican andFrench revolutions, and the emergence ofnationalism.[16][17] The Europeanrevolutions of 1848, the post-World War Isettlement at Versailles, and the decolonization movement after World War II shaped and established the norm in international law.[18] The American example has been seen as the earliest assertion of the right of national self-determination, although this was argued primarily in terms of resistance to a despotic ruler rather than appeals to a 'natural right' of peoples to determine their political fate, the latter emerging with theindependence of Spanish colonies in Latin America.[19]
These concepts were inspired particularly by earlier ideas fromHugo Grotius andImmanuel Kant, and by the mid-nineteenth century 'self-determination' had evolved into a weapon for revolutionary nationalism.[19]Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of theUnited States Declaration of Independence, which became an inspiration for European nationalist movements during the 19th century.[14] The French Revolution legitimized the ideas of self-determination on thatOld World continent.[20][21][how?]
Karl Marx andFriedrich Engels supported some of these nationalist movements, believing nationalism might be a "prior condition" to social reform and international alliances.[22] In 1914Vladimir Lenin wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."[23]
In contrast,Rosa Luxemburg called a "right of nations to self-determination", valid for all countries and all times, "nothing more than a metaphysical cliché" that offers no "practical solution of nationality problems" and argued that the very concept of the nation as an "homogenous social and political entity" was derived frombourgeois ideology.[24][25]
Woodrow Wilson revived America's commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When theBolsheviks came to power in Russia in theOctober Revolution, they called for Russia's immediate withdrawal as a member of theAllies of World War I. Lenin had used 'national self-determination' as a weapon against theRussian Empire, and after the Revolution the party supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination.[23] The 1918Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right ofsecession for its constituent republics.[14]
In January 1918 Wilson issued hisFourteen Points of January 1918 which, among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims, insofar as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples.[14] TheTreaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 led toSoviet Russia's exit from the war and the nominal independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, though in fact those territories were under German control.[27] The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeatedAustro-Hungarian Empire andCzechoslovakia and theunion of theState of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with theKingdom of Serbia as new states out of the wreckage of theHabsburg empire. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especiallyPoles,Czechs,Serbs andRomanians) were given power over other nationalities who disliked and distrusted them was eventually used as a pretext for German aggression inWorld War II.
TheLeague of Nations was established as the symbol of the emerging postwar order. One of its earliest tasks was to legitimize the territorial boundaries of the newnation-states created in the territories of the formerOttoman Empire, Asia, and Africa. The League was not consistent in how it applied the principle in the post-war peace treaties and, in many places, had to compensate with highly complex arrangements to ensure protection of minorities.[28] Nor did the principle of self-determination extend so far as to end colonialism, under the reasoning that the local populations were not civilized enough the League of Nations was to assign each of the post-Ottoman, Asian and African states and colonies to a European power by the grant of aLeague of Nations mandate.[29]
One of the German objections to theTreaty of Versailles was a somewhat selective application of the principle of self-determination, as theRepublic of German-Austria, which included theSudetenland, was seen as representing the will to join Germany in those regions, while the majority of people inDanzig wanted to remain within theReich. However, the Allies ignored the German objections. Wilson's 14 Points had called forPolish independence to be restored and Poland to have "secure access to the sea", which would imply that the German city of Danzig (modernGdańsk,Poland) be ceded to Poland.[30] At theParis Peace Conference in 1919, the Polish delegation asked Wilson to honor point 14 of the 14 points by transferring Danzig to Poland, arguing the city was Polish until 1793, and that Poland would not be economically viable without it.[30] During theFirst Partition of Poland in 1772, the inhabitants of Danzig fought fiercely for it to remain a part of Poland,[31] but as a result of theGermanisation process in the 19th century,[32] 90% of its inhabitants wereGerman by 1919, which led to the creation of theFree City of Danzig, a city-state in which Poland had certain special rights.[33] Through the city of Danzig was 90% German and 10% Polish, the surrounding countryside around Danzig was overwhelmingly Polish, and the ethnically Polish rural areas included in the Free City of Danzig objected, arguing that they wanted to be part of Poland.[30] Neither the Poles nor the Germans were happy with this compromise and the Danzig issue became a flash-point of German-Polish tension throughout the interwar period.[34]
In Asia, Japan became a rising power and gained more respect from Western powers after its victory in theRusso-Japanese War. Japan joined the Allied Powers in World War I andattacked German colonial possessions in theFar East, adding former German possessions to its own empire. In the 1930s, Japan gained significant influence inInner Mongolia andManchuria after itinvaded Manchuria. It establishedManchukuo, apuppet state inManchuria and easternInner Mongolia. This was essentially the model Japan followed as it invaded other areas in Asia and established theGreater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan went to considerable trouble to argue that Manchukuo was justified by the principle of self-determination, claiming that people of Manchuria wanted to break away from China and asked theKwantung Army to intervene on their behalf. However, theLytton commission which had been appointed by the League of Nations to decide if Japan had committed aggression or not, stated the majority of people in Manchuria who wereHan Chinese who did not wish to leave China.[citation needed]
Many ofEast Asia's current disputes to sovereignty and self-determination stem from unresolved disputes from World War II. After its fall, theEmpire of Japan renounced control over many of its former possessions includingKorea,Sakhalin Island, andTaiwan. In none of these areas were the opinions of affected people consulted, or given significant priority. Korea was specifically granted independence but the receiver of various other areas was not stated in theTreaty of San Francisco, giving Taiwande facto independence although its political status continues to be ambiguous.[citation needed]
In 1941Allies of World War II declared theAtlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed theDeclaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of theUnited Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.
Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[36]
The United NationsUniversal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.
On 14 December 1960, theUnited Nations General Assembly adoptedUnited Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) subtitled "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", which supported the granting ofindependence tocolonial countries and people by providing an inevitable legal linkage between self-determination and its goal of decolonisation. It postulated a new international law-based right offreedom to exercise economic self-determination. Article 5 states: Immediate steps shall be taken inTrust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,[39] or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the people of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
On 15 December 1960 the United Nations General Assembly adoptedUnited Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), subtitled "Principles which should guide members in determining whether or nor an obligation exists to transmit the information called for underArticle 73e of theUnited Nations Charter in Article 3", which provided that "[t]he inadequacy of political, economic, social and educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying the right to self-determination and independence." To monitor the implementation of Resolution 1514, in 1961 the General Assembly created the Special Committee referred to popularly as theSpecial Committee on Decolonization to ensuredecolonization complete compliance with the principles of self-determination in General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV).[40][41]
However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtainingself-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine ofuti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.[42][43] Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, thirty-seven new nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East gained independence from colonial powers.[14][44][45] The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption thatterritorial integrity is as important as self-determination.[42]
Decolonization in the world was contrasted by theSoviet Union's successful post-war expansionism.Tuva and several regional states inEastern Europe, theBaltic, andCentral Asia had been fully annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II. Now, it extended its influence by establishing thesatellite states ofEastern Germany and the countries ofEastern Europe, along with support for revolutionary movements inChina andNorth Korea. Although satellite states were independent and possessed sovereignty, the Soviet Union violated principles of self-determination by suppressing theHungarian revolution of 1956 and thePrague Spring Czechoslovak reforms of 1968. Itinvaded Afghanistan to support a communist government assailed by local tribal groups.[14] However,Marxism–Leninism and its theory of imperialism were also strong influences in the national emancipation movements ofThird World nations rebelling against colonial or puppet regimes. In manyThird World countries, communism became an ideology that united groups to oppose imperialism or colonization.
Soviet actions werecontained by the United States which saw communism as a menace to its interests. Throughout the cold war, the United States created, supported, and sponsored regimes with various success that served their economic and political interests, among themanti-communist regimes such as that ofAugusto Pinochet inChile andSuharto inIndonesia. To achieve this, a variety of means was implemented, including the orchestration of coups, sponsoring of anti-communist countries and military interventions. Consequently, many self-determination movements, which spurned some type of anti-communist government, were accused of being Soviet-inspired or controlled.[14]
In 1947, India gained independence from theBritish Empire. The empire was in decline but adapted to these circumstances by creating theBritish Commonwealth—since 1949 theCommonwealth of Nations—which is a free association of equal states. As India obtained its independence, multiple ethnic conflicts emerged in relation to the formation of a statehood during thePartition of India which resulted in Islamic Pakistan and Secular India. Before theadvent of the British, no empire based in mainland India had controlled any part of what now makes up the country's Northeast, part of the reason for the ongoinginsurgency in Northeast India.[46] In 1971Bangladesh obtained independence from Pakistan.
Burma (later Myanmar) also gained independence from the British Empire, but declined membership in the Commonwealth.[47] In contrast,Ceylon (later Sri Lanka) andMalaya both joined the Commonwealth upon gaining independence from Britain, as well as the latter's successor states (Malaysia,Singapore, andBrunei).
Indonesia gained independence from theDutch Empire in 1949 after the latter failed to restore colonial control. As mentioned above, Indonesia also wanted a powerful position in the region that could be lessened by the creation of unitedMalaysia. The Netherlands retainedits New Guinea part from the previousDutch East Indies, but Indonesia threatened toinvade and annex it. A vote was supposedly taken under the UN sponsoredAct of Free Choice to allow West New Guineans to decide their fate, although many dispute its veracity. Later,Portugal relinquished control overEast Timor in the aftermath ofCarnation Revolution in 1975, at which timeIndonesia promptly invaded and annexed it. In 1999, Indonesian presidentB. J. Habibie was pressured byAustralia and theUnited Nations to give East Timor independence. The people of former Indonesian East Timor were given a choice of either greater autonomy withinIndonesia orindependence. 78.5% of East Timorese voted for independence, rejecting Indonesia's special autonomy proposal.[48]
Laos andCambodia both gained independence from theFrench Empire in 1953, althoughVietnam's case was more complex than those of the other two former colonies of French Indochina. Despite Vietnam under the communistViet Minhdeclaring independence from France in 1945, it had to fight theSouthern Resistance War and later theFirst Indochina War against not just the French but also the anti-communist Western-backedState of Vietnam after 1949, until the decisiveBattle of Dien Bien Phu guaranteed the international recognition of Vietnam in 1954 at theGeneva Conference, albeit partitioned between the South Vietnam (State of Vietnam, later the Republic of Vietnam) as well as the communist North Vietnam (Democratic Republic of Vietnam). It wouldn't be until 1975 that Vietnam would be reunified under the north's rule following theVietnam War.[49]
In therevolutions of 1989–90, the communist regimes of Soviet satellite states collapsed in rapid succession in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, and Mongolia. East and West Germany united, Czechoslovakia peacefully split intoCzech Republic andSlovakia, while in the 1990s Yugoslavia began aviolent break up into 6 states. Macedonia became an independent nation and broke off from Yugoslavia peacefully.Kosovo, which was previously an autonomous unit of Serbia declared independence in 2008, but has received less international recognition.[14]
In December 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president and theSoviet Union dissolved relatively peacefully intofifteen sovereign republics, all of which rejectedCommunism and most of which adopted democratic reforms and free-market economies. Inside those new republics,four major areas have claimed their own independence, but not received widespread international recognition.[citation needed]
After decades of civil war, Indonesia finally recognized the independence ofEast Timor in 2002.[citation needed] Likewise, decades of civil war in Sudan finally led toSouth Sudan becoming independent in 2011.
Southern Sudanese expressed joy and jubilation on their day of independence, July 9, 2011, from Sudan.
Since the early 1990s, the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, as sub-groups seek greater self-determination and full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.[50] The international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and often dictated more by politics than principle. The 2000United Nations Millennium Declaration failed to deal with these new demands, mentioning only "the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation."[43][51]
In an issue ofMacquarie University Law Journal Associate Professor Aleksandar Pavkovic and Senior Lecturer Peter Radan outlined current legal and political issues in self-determination.[52]
There is not a recognized legal definition of "peoples" in international law.[53] Indeed,Ivor Jennings called Wilson's doctrine "ridiculous" because, though on the surface it seems reasonable to "let the people decide", in practice "the people cannot decide until someone decides who are the people".[15]
Reviewing various international judgements and UN resolutions, Vita Gudeleviciute ofVytautas Magnus University Law School finds that, in cases of non-self-governing peoples (colonized and/or indigenous) and foreign military occupation, "a people" is defined as the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. Meanwhile, in cases where people lack representation by a state's government, the unrepresented become a defined as a separate people. Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples, with the notable exception of cases in which such groups are systematically disenfranchised by the government of the state they live in.[43]
Other definitions offered are "peoples" as self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.),[further explanation needed] or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment" ("loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples).[54]
Professor Uriel Abulof suggests that self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality: 1. personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics; and 2. and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self's). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.[55]
National self-determination appears to challenge the principle ofterritorial integrity (orsovereignty) of states as it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies that people should be free to choose their own state and its territorial boundaries. However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.[52] According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.[56][57][58][59]
Allen Buchanan, author of seven books on self-determination and secession, supports territorial integrity as a moral and legal aspect of constitutional democracy. However, he also advances a "Remedial Rights Only Theory" where a group has "a general right to secede if and only if it has suffered certain injustices, for which secession is the appropriate remedy of last resort." He also would recognize secession if the state grants, or the constitution includes, a right to secede.[43]
Vita Gudeleviciute holds that in cases of non-self-governing peoples and foreign military occupation the principle of self-determination trumps that of territorial integrity. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, they also may be considered a separate people, but under current law cannot claim the right to self-determination. On the other hand, she finds that secession within a single state is a domestic matter not covered by international law. Thus, there are no on what groups may constitute a seceding people.[43]
A number of states have laid claim to territories, which they allege were removed from them as a result of colonialism. This is justified by reference to Paragraph 6 of UN Resolution 1514(XV), which states that any attempt "aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter". This, it is claimed, applies to situations where the territorial integrity of a state had been disrupted by colonisation, so that the people of a territory subject to a historic territorial claim are prevented from exercising a right to self-determination. This interpretation is rejected by many states, who argue that Paragraph 2 of UN Resolution 1514(XV) states that "all peoples have the right to self-determination" and Paragraph 6 cannot be used to justify territorial claims. The original purpose of Paragraph 6 was "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions". Further, the use of the wordattempt in Paragraph 6 denotes future action and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past action.[60] An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.[61][62]
In order to accommodate demands for minority rights and avoid secession and the creation of a separate new state, many statesdecentralize ordevolve greater decision-making power to new or existing subunits orautonomous areas.
Self-determination versus majority rule/equal rights
Self-determination can be at odds with the principle ofmajority rule and equal rights, especially when there is a sizable minority group. In democratic societies, majority rule is often used to determine the outcome in electoral and voting processes. However, a major critique of majority rule is that it may result in thetyranny of the majority, especially in cases in which a simple majority is used in order to determine outcome. This flaw is particularly poignant when there is a large minority group whose interests are not being represented, and who may then seek to secede.
The right to self-determination by a minority has long been contested in democracies with majority rule. For instance, in his first inaugural speechAbraham Lincoln argued that:
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.[63]
However, liberal proponents for the right to self-determination by minority groups contradict this notion by arguing that, in cases where the minority is not able to become the majority, and that minority is territorially concentrated and does not want to be governed by the majority, it may serve the best interest of the state to allow the secession of this group.[64]
Mostsovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.[65]
In liberal constitutional democracies the principle ofmajority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United StatesAbraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible throughamending theUnited States Constitution. TheSupreme Court inTexas v. White held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[66][67] TheBritish Parliament in 1933 held thatWestern Australia only could secede from Australia upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient.[52]
TheChinese Communist Party followed the Soviet Union in including the right of secession in its 1931 constitution in order to entice ethnic nationalities and Tibet into joining. However, the Party eliminated the right to secession in later years and had anti-secession clause written into the Constitution before and after the founding the People's Republic of China. The 1947 Constitution of theUnion of Burma contained an express state right to secede from the union under a number of procedural conditions. It was eliminated in the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (officially the "Union of Myanmar"). Burma still allows "local autonomy under central leadership".[65]
The 2003 draft of theEuropean Union Constitution allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the State which wanted to leave could not be involved in the vote deciding whether or not they can leave the Union.[65] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities[68] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.
As a result of the successfulconstitutional referendum held in 2003, every municipality in thePrincipality of Liechtenstein has the right to secede from the Principality by a vote of a majority of the citizens residing in this municipality.[69]
In determining international borders between sovereign states, self-determination has yielded to a number of other principles.[70] Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloodyYugoslav Wars in the 1990s were related mostly to border issues because the international community applied a version ofuti possidetis juris in transforming the existing internal borders of the various Yugoslav republics into international borders, despite the conflicts of ethnic groups within those boundaries. In the 1990s indigenous populations of the northern two-thirds of Quebec province opposed being incorporated into a Quebec nation and stated a determination to resist it by force.[52]
The border betweenNorthern Ireland and theIrish Free State was based on the borders of existing counties and did not include all of historicUlster. ABoundary Commission was established to consider re-drawing it. Its proposals, which amounted to a small net transfer to the Free State, were leaked to the press and then not acted upon. In December 1925, the governments of the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom agreed to accept the existing border.
TheAssyrian independence movement is a political movement and nationalist desire of theAssyrian people to live in their traditional Assyrian homeland under the self-governance of an Assyrian state. The Assyrian territory is currently in parts ofSyria,Iraq,Iran, andTurkey.
Self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation toAboriginal Australians andTorres Strait Islanders. In the 1970s, Aboriginal requested the right to administer their own remote communities as part of thehomelands movement, also known as the outstation movement. These grew in number through the 1980s, but funding dried up in the 2000s.
Tuareg rebels in the short-livedproto-state of Azawad in 2012
The traditional homeland of theTuareg peoples was divided up by the modern borders ofMali,Algeria andNiger. Numerous rebellions occurred over the decades, but in 2012 the Tuaregs succeeded in occupying their land and declaring the independence ofAzawad. However, their movement was hijacked by the Islamist terrorist groupAnsar Dine.
The Basque Country (Basque:Euskal Herria,Spanish:País Vasco,French:Pays Basque) as acultural region (not to be confused with the homonymAutonomous Community of theBasque country) is a European region in the westernPyrenees that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country andNavarre in Spain and theNorthern Basque Country in France.Since the 19th century,Basque nationalism has demanded the right of some kind of self-determination.[citation needed] This desire for independence is particularly stressed amongleftist Basque nationalists. The right of self-determination was asserted by theBasque Parliament in 1990, 2002 and 2006.[71]Since[citation needed] self-determination is not recognized in theSpanish Constitution of 1978, some Basques abstained and some voted against it in the referendum of December 6 of that year. It was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74.6% of the votes in the Basque Country.[72] However, the overall turnout in the Basque Country was 45% when the Spanish overall turnover was 67.9%. The derived autonomous regime for the BAC was approved by Spanish Parliament and also by the Basque citizens in referendum. The autonomous statute of Navarre (Amejoramiento del Fuero: "improvement of the charter") was approved by the Spanish Parliament and, like the statutes of 13 out of 17 Spanish autonomous communities, it did not need a referendum to enter into force.
A girl during theNigerian Civil War of the late 1960s. Pictures of the famine caused by Nigerian blockade garnered sympathy for the Biafrans worldwide.
TheNigerian Civil War was fought between Biafran secessionists of theRepublic of Biafra and theNigerian central government. From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law.[75]
After the2012 Catalan march for independence, in which between 600,000 and 1.5 million citizens marched,[76] thePresident of Catalonia,Artur Mas, called for newparliamentary elections on 25 November 2012 to elect a newparliament that would exercise the right of self-determination for Catalonia, a right not recognised under theSpanish Cortes Generales. TheParliament of Catalonia voted to hold a vote in the next four-year legislature on the question of self-determination. The parliamentary decision was approved by a large majority of MPs: 84 voted for, 21 voted against, and 25 abstained.[77] The Catalan Parliament applied to the Spanish Parliament for the power to call a referendum to be devolved, but this was turned down. In December 2013 the President of the Generalitat Artur Mas and the governing coalition agreed to set the referendum for self-determination on 9 November 2014, and legislation specifically saying that the consultation would not be a "referendum" was enacted, only to be blocked by theSpanish Constitutional Court, at the request of the Spanish government. Given the block, the Government turned it into a simple "consultation to the people" instead.
The question in the consultation was "Do you want Catalonia to be a State?" and, if the answer to this question was yes, "Do you want this State to be an independent State?". However, as the consultation was not a formal referendum, these (printed) answers were just suggestions and other answers were also accepted and catalogued as "other answers" instead as null votes. The turnout in this consultation was about 2·3m people out of 6·2m people that were called to vote (this figure does not coincide with the census figure of 5·3m for two main reasons: first, because organisers had no access to an official census due to the non-binding character of the consultation, and second, because the legal voting age was set to 16 rather than 18). Due to the lack of an official census, potential voters were assigned to electoral tables according to home address and first family name. Participants had to sign up first with their full name and national ID in a voter registry before casting their ballot, which prevented participants from potentially casting multiple ballots. The overall result was 80·76% in favor of both questions, 11% in favor of the first question but not of the second questions, 4·54% against both; the rest were classified as "other answers". The voter turnout was around 37% (most people against the consultation did not go to vote). Four top members of Catalonia's political leadership were barred from public office for having defied the Constitutional court's last-minute ban.
Almost three years later (1 October 2017), the Catalan government called areferendum for independence under legislation adopted in September 2017, despite this legislation had been suspended by the Constitutional Court for "violating fundamental rights of citizens",[78] with the question "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a Republic?". On polling day, the Catalan regional police, which had been accused in the past ofpolice brutality and impunity during the 15-M protests,[79][80] prevented voting in over 500 polling stations without incidents. In some voting stations, the Catalan regional police did not intervene,[81] while in other stations they directly confronted the Spanish CNP (National Police Corps) to allow voters to participate.[82] The CNP confiscated ballot boxes and closed down 92,[83] voting centres with violent truncheon charges. The opposition parties had called for non-participation. The turnout (according to the votes that were counted) was 2.3m out of 5.3m (43.03% of the census), and 90.18% of the ballots were in favour of independence.[84] The turnout, ballot count and results were similar to those of the 2014 "consultation".
UnderDzhokhar Dudayev,Chechnya declared independence as theChechen Republic of Ichkeria, using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment ofChechens, and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: theAkhmed Zakayev-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States), and the IslamicCaucasus Emirate.
On November 12, 1933, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Uzbeks declared independence, establishing theFirst East Turkestan Republic, and again on November 12, 1944, forming theSecond East Turkestan Republic. Their primary motivations included self-determination, a history of Chinese colonization and oppression in East Turkistan, and a legacy of independence prior to the invasion by China (the ManchuQing Dynasty). ThePeople's Republic of China assumed control over East Turkistan in late 1949. However, the Turkic peoples of East Turkistan, predominantlyUyghurs and Kazakhs, have persistently fought for their independence. There is a robust movement advocating East Turkistani sovereignty, challenging the Chinese occupation since 1949. TheEast Turkistan Government in Exile is at the forefront of theEast Turkistan Independence Movement.
There is an active secessionist movement based on the self-determination of the residents of the eastern part ofDonetsk and the south-eastern part of theLuhansk regions of easternUkraine. However, many in the international community assert thatreferendums held there in 2014 regarding independence from Ukraine were illegitimate and undemocratic.[85][86] Similarly, there are reports thatpresidential elections in May 2014 were prevented from taking place in the two regions after armed gunmen took control of polling stations, kidnapped election officials, and stole lists of electors, thus denying the population the chance to express their will in a free, fair, and internationally recognised election.[87] There are also arguments that the de facto separation ofEastern Ukraine from the rest of the country is not an expression of self-determination, but rather, motivated by revival ofpro-Soviet sentiment and an invasion by neighbouringRussia, with Ukrainian PresidentPetro Poroshenko claiming in 2015 that up to 9,000Russian soldiers were deployed in Ukraine.[88] Similarly, Russian PresidentVladimir Putin defendedthe annexation of Crimea by claiming it to be an act of self-determination of the Crimean people.
Malvinas and South Atlantic Islands Museum in Buenos Aires, 2015
Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable to the islands since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', compelling the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the islands.[93] This refers to there-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[94] during which Argentina claims the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrityshould have precedence over self-determination.[95] Historical records dispute Argentina's claims and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained atPort Louis.[96][97][98][99] and there was no attempt to settle the islands until 1841.[100]
The right to self-determination is referred to in the pre-amble of Chapter 1 of theGibraltar constitution,[101] and, since the United Kingdom also gave assurances that the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians would be respected in any transfer of sovereignty over the territory, is a factor in the dispute with Spain over the territory.[102] The impact of the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians was seen in the2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, where Gibraltarian voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to share sovereignty over Gibraltar between the UK and Spain. However, the UK government differs with the Gibraltarian government in that it considers Gibraltarian self-determination to be limited by theTreaty of Utrecht, which prevents Gibraltar achieving independence without the agreement of Spain, a position that the Gibraltarian government does not accept.[103][104]
The Spanish government denies that Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination, considering them to be "an artificial population without any genuine autonomy" and not "indigenous".[105] However, thePartido Andalucista has agreed to recognise the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians.[106]
Before the United Nations's adoption of resolution 2908 (XXVII) on 2 November 1972, The People's Republic of China vetoed the former British colony of Hong Kong's right to self-determination on 8 March 1972. This sparked several nations' protest along with Great Britain's declaration on 14 December that the decision is invalid. Decades later,[when?] an independence movement, dubbed as the Hong Kong independence movement emerged in the now Communist Chinese controlled territory. It advocates the autonomous region to become a fully independent sovereign state.
The city is considered aspecial administrative region (SAR) which, according to the PRC, enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the People's Republic of China (PRC), guaranteed under Article 2 ofHong Kong Basic Law[1] (which is ratified under theSino-British Joint Declaration), since thehandover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the PRC in 1997. Since the handover, many Hongkongers are increasingly concerned about Beijing's growing encroachment on the territory's freedoms and the failure of the Hong Kong government to deliver 'true' democracy.[2]
The2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform package deeply divided the city, as it allowed Hongkongers to have universal suffrage, but Beijing would have authority to screen the candidates to restrict the electoral method for theChief Executive of Hong Kong (CE), the highest-ranking official of the territory. This sparked the 79-day massive peaceful protests which was dubbed as the "Umbrella Revolution" and the pro-independence movement emerged on the Hong Kong political scene.[2]
Theinsurgency in Kashmir against Indian rule has existed in various forms. A widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir against India rule in 1989 after allegations of rigging by the Indian government in the1987 Jammu and Kashmir state election. This led to some parties in the state assembly forming militant wings, which acted as a catalyst for the emergence of armed insurgency in the region. The conflict over Kashmir has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
Indian soldiers on the streets of Kashmir during the2016 unrests
TheInter-Services Intelligence ofPakistan has been accused by India of supporting and training both pro-Pakistan and pro-independence militants to fight Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, a charge that Pakistan denies. According to official figures released in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly, there were 3,400 disappearance cases and the conflict has left more than 47,000 to 100,000 people dead as of July 2009. However, violence in the state had fallen sharply after the start of a slow-moving peace process between India and Pakistan. After the peace process failed in 2008, mass demonstrations against Indian rule, and low-scale militancy emerged again.
However, despite boycott calls by separatist leaders in 2014, theJammu and Kashmir Assembly elections saw highest voters turnout in last 25 years since insurgency erupted. As per the Indian government, it recorded more than 65% of voters turnout which was more than usual voters turnout in other state assembly elections of India. It considered as increase in faith of Kashmiri people in democratic process of India. However, activists say that the voter turnout is highly exaggerated and that elections are held under duress. Votes are cast because the people want stable governance of the state and this cannot be mistaken as an endorsement of Indian rule.[110][111]
Kurdistan is a historical region primarily inhabited by theKurdish people of the Middle East. The territory is currently part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. There are Kurdish self-determination movements in each of the four states.Iraqi Kurdistan has to date achieved the largest degree of self-determination through the formation of theKurdistan Regional Government, an entity recognised by theIraqi Federal Constitution.
Efforts towards Kurdish self-determination are considered illegal separatism by the governments of Turkey and Iran, and the movement is politically repressed in both states. This is intertwined with Kurdish nationalist insurgenciesin Iran andin Turkey, which in turn justify and are justified by the repression of peaceful advocacy. In Syria, a self-governinglocal Kurdish-dominated polity was established in 2012, amongst the upheaval of theSyrian Civil War, but has not been recognized by any foreign state.
Naga refers to a vaguely defined conglomeration of distinct tribes living on the border of India and Burma. Each of these tribes lived in a sovereign village before the arrival of theBritish but developed a common identity as the area was Christianized. After the British left India, a section of Nagas under the leadership ofAngami Zapu Phizo sought to establish a separate country for the Nagas. Phizo's group, theNaga National Council (NNC), claimed that 99. 9% of the Nagas wanted an independent Naga country according to a referendum conducted by it. It waged a secessionist insurgency against the Government of India. The NNC collapsed after Phizo got his dissenters killed or forced them to seek refuge with the Government.[112][113] Phizo escaped to London, while NNC's successor secessionist groups continued to stage violent attacks against the Indian Government. The Naga People's Convention (NPC), another major Naga organization, was opposed to the secessionists. Its efforts led to the creation of a separate Nagaland state within India in 1963.[114] The secessionist violence declined considerably after theShillong Accord of 1975. However, three factions of theNational Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) continue to seek an independent country which would include parts of India and Burma. They envisage a sovereign, predominantly Christian nation called "Nagalim".[115]
Another controversial episode with perhaps more relevance was the British beginning their exit fromBritish Malaya. An experience concerned the findings of aUnited Nations Assessment Team that led the British territories ofNorth Borneo andSarawak in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the newMalaysia Federation.[116] The United Nation Team's mission followed on from an earlier assessment by the British-appointedCobbold Commission which had arrived in the territories in 1962 and held hearings to determine public opinion. It also sifted through 1600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations and political parties. Cobbold concluded that around two thirds of the population favoured to the formation of Malaysia while the remaining third wanted either independence or continuing control by the United Kingdom. The United Nations team largely confirmed these findings, which were later accepted by the General Assembly, and both territories subsequently wish to form the new Federation ofMalaysia. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without anyreferendums self-determination being held.[40][117][118]Unlike in Singapore, however, no referendum was ever conducted inSarawak andNorth Borneo.[119] they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there wasManila Accord, an agreement between the Philippines,Federation of Malaya and Indonesia on 31 July 1963[120][121] to abide by the wishes of the people ofNorth Borneo andSarawak within the context ofUnited Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), Principle 9 of the Annex[122][123] taking into accountreferendums in North Borneo and Sarawak that would be free and without coercion.[120] This also triggered theIndonesian confrontation because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.[39][124]
Although the Lusignan French aristocracy remained the dominant social class in Cyprus throughout the medieval period, the former assumption that Greeks were treated only asserfs on the island is no longer considered by academics to be accurate. It is now accepted that the medieval period saw increasing numbers ofGreek Cypriots elevated to the upper classes, a growing Greek middle ranks, and the Lusignan royal household even marrying Greeks. This included KingJohn II of Cyprus who marriedHelena Palaiologina.
Throughout Venetian rule, theOttoman Empire frequently raided Cyprus. In 1539 the Ottomans destroyedLimassol and so fearing the worst, the Venetians also fortifiedFamagusta andKyrenia.
Having invaded in 1570,Turks controlled and solely governed all of the Cyprus island from 1571 until its leasing to theBritish Empire in 1878. Cyprus was placed underBritish administration based onCyprus Convention in 1878 and formally annexed by Britain at the beginning ofWorld War I in 1914. While Turkish Cypriots made up 18% of the population, the partition of Cyprus and creation of a Turkish state in the north became a policy of Turkish Cypriot leaders and theRepublic of Turkey in the 1950s. Politically, there was no majority/minority relation betweenGreek Cypriots andTurkish Cypriots;[125][126] and hence, in 1960,Republic of Cyprus was founded by the constituent communities in Cyprus (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots)[127] as a non-unitary state; the 1960 Constitution set bothTurkish andGreek as the official languages.[128][129] During 1963–74, the island experienced ethnic clashes and turmoil, following theGreek nationalists' coup to unify the island to Greece, which led to the eventualTurkish invasion in 1974.[130]Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was declared in 1983 and recognized only by Turkey.[131] Monroe Leigh, 1990, The Legal Status in International Law of the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot Communities in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot regimes participating in these negotiations, and the respective communities which they represent, are presently entitled to exercise equal rights under international law, including rights of self-determination.[132] Before theTurkey's invasion in 1974, Turkish Cypriots were concentrated inTurkish Cypriot enclaves in the island.
Northern Cyprus fulfills all the classical criteria of statehood.[133] United Nations Peace Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) operates based on the laws of Northern Cyprus in north of Cyprus island.[134] According toEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the laws of Northern Cyprus is valid in the north of Cyprus.[135] ECtHR didnot accept the claim that the Courts of Northern Cyprus lacked "independence and/or impartiality".[136] ECtHR directed all Cypriots to exhaust "domestic remedies" applied by Northern Cyprus before taking their cases to ECtHR.[137] In 2014,United States' Federal Court qualifiedTurkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a "democratic country".[138][139][140] In 2017, United Kingdom's High Court decided that "There was no duty in UK law upon the UK's Government to refrain from recognising Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates cooperation between the two parts of the island."[141] UK'sHigh Court also dismissed the claim that "cooperation between UK police and law agencies in northern Cyprus was illegal".[142]
Even though the island has been characterized by periodical waves of ethnonationalist protests againstRome,[148] the Sardinian movement has its origins on theleft of the political spectrum;[149][150]regionalism and attempts for Sardinian self-determination historically countered in fact the Rome-centricItalian nationalism andfascism (which eventually managed to contain the autonomist and separatist tendencies[151]).
Scotland ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707, as didEngland, when theActs of Union (1707) created the unifiedKingdom of Great Britain, but has a long-standingScottish independence movement,[152] with polls suggesting in January 2020 that 52% of eligible voters would vote for an independent Scotland.[153] The country's largest political party, theScottish National Party,[154] campaigns for Scottish independence. Areferendum on independence was held in 2014, where it was rejected by 55% of voters.[155] The Independence debate continued throughout theUK referendum on EU membership where the electorate in Scotland voted by 62% to remain a member of the EU, as did Northern Ireland.[156] Results in England and Wales, however, led to the whole of the United Kingdom leaving the EU.[157] In late 2019 theScottish Government announced plans to demand a second referendum on Scottish Independence. This was given assent by theScottish Parliament but, as of July 2022, British Prime MinisterBoris Johnson has refused to grant the Section 30 powers required to hold another referendum on the argument that both sides accepted beforehand that the 2014 vote would settle the matter for a generation.[158]
Section 235 of theSouth African Constitution allows for the right to self-determination of a community, within the framework of "the right of theSouth African people as a whole to self-determination", and pursuant to national legislation.[159] This section of the constitution was one of the negotiated settlements during the handing over of political power in 1994. Supporters of an independentAfrikaner homeland have argued that their goals are reasonable under this new legislation.[159]
InItaly,South Tyrol/Alto Adige wasannexed after theFirst World War. The German-speaking inhabitants of South Tyrol are protected by theGruber-De Gasperi Agreement, but there are still supporters of the self determination of South Tyrol, e.g. the partyDie Freiheitlichen and theSouth Tyrolean independence movement. At the end of WWII, Italian resistance troops entered South Tyrol and took over the administration against the wishes of the South Tyrolean resistance movement.[160] The Allies subsequently granted South Tyrol to Italy, with the British foreign minister remarking that "in theory the Austrians have the better argument, however handing over the power stations of South Tyrol to them could openly give the Russians a helping hand with which they could pressurise Italy".[160] The Allies pushed Italy to grant the region a high degree of autonomy, culminating in theGruber–De Gasperi Agreement of 1946.
Following theFirst World War, large areas of theKingdom of Hungary wereannexed by Romania. Some of these areas were inhabited by an ethnicHungarian population calledSzékelys. Ever since their homes were integrated into Romania, these people were trying to achieve some form of autonomy or self-governance.
The colonization of theNorth American continent and itsNative American population has been the source of legal battles since the early 19th century. Many Native American tribes were resettled onto separate tracts of land (reservations), which have retained a certain degree ofautonomy within theUnited States. Thefederal government recognizesTribal Sovereignty and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship among the federal,state, and tribal governments. TheConstitution and later federal laws recognize the local sovereignty of tribal nations, but do not recognize full sovereignty equivalent to that of foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations" to qualify the federally recognized tribes.
CertainChicano nationalist groups seek to "recreate" an ethnic-based state to be calledAztlán, after the legendary homeland of theAztecs. It would comprise theSouthwestern United States, historic territory ofindigenous peoples and their descendants, as well as colonists and later settlers under theSpanish colonial andMexican governments.[161] Supporters of the proposed state ofNew Afrika argue that the history of African-Americans living in and making productive of several U.S. states in theBlack Belt entitles them to establish an African-American republic in the area, alongside $400 billion as reparations for slavery.[162]
There are several activeHawaiian autonomy or independence movements, each with the goal of realizing some level of political control over single or several islands. The groups range from those seeking territorial units similar toIndian reservations under the United States, with the least amount of independent control, to theHawaiian sovereignty movement, which is projected to have the most independence. The Hawaiian Sovereignty movement seeks to revive the Hawaiian nation under theHawaiian constitution.
Since 1972, theU.N. Decolonization Committee has called forPuerto Rico's "decolonization" and for the US to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. In 2007 the Decolonization Subcommittee called for the United Nations General Assembly to review thepolitical status of Puerto Rico, a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution.[163] This followed the 1967 passage of aplebiscite act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continuedcommonwealth,statehood, andindependence. In the first plebiscite, the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes, but US congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998, the status quo was favored.[164]
In areferendum that took place in November 2012, a majority of Puerto Rican residents voted to change the territory's relationship with the United States, with the statehood option being the preferred option. But a large number of ballots—one-third of all votes cast—were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. Supporters of the commonwealth status had urged voters to blank their ballots. When the blank votes are counted as anti-statehood votes, the statehood option would have received less than 50% of all ballots received.[165] As of January 2014, Washington has not taken action to address the results of this plebiscite.
On December 15, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the Puerto Rico Status Act. The act sought to resolve Puerto Rico's status and its relationship to the United States through a binding plebiscite.[168]
A demonstration inMadrid for the independence of Western Sahara, 2007
There is an active movement based on the self-determination of theSahrawi people in theWestern Saharan region.Morocco also claims the entire territory, and maintains control of about two-thirds of the region.
Since the late 2000s there has been growing calls for the people of theWestern Cape province ofSouth Africa to become an independent state. South Africa in its current form was created in 1910 after theSouth Africa Act 1909 was passed in the British parliament. The Cape Colony ceased to exist, however many of its unique political and cultural quirks such as theCape Liberal Tradition nevertheless continued to exist. Recent polling has shown that over 46% of Western Cape voters back independence outright.
^Forsyth, Tim (2018).Encyclopedia of International Development. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis."External" self-determination refers to a people's right to form its own political entity, and "internal" self-determination refers to the right to have a representative government with effective participation in the political process...The right to self-determination was at first limited to colonial territories' right to external self-determination. The right was made secondary to territorial integrity and national unity, effective "locking" colonial boundaries. In 1970, the right to self-determination was expanded to apply beyond colonial situations. This declaration linked self-determination's internal and external aspects by suggesting that a racial or religious group denied equal participation in the political process would be entitled to external self-determination, voiding the principle that territorial integrity or national unity should not be threatened in extreme cases. The Vienna Declaration (1993) broaded this argument to include ethnic groups denied effective political participation. While representation and effective participation is usually enough to satisfy a people's right to self-determination, a people may have the right to external self-determination when those conditions are not met.
^Alexander, Yonah, and Friedlander, Robert A. Self-determination: National, Regional, And Global Dimensions. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2019.
^McWhinney, Edward (2007).Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-Building and the Alternative, Federal Option. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 8.ISBN978-9004158351.
^Griffiths, Martin, ed. (2013).Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.Since the end of decolonization, it has become clear that the diplomatic compromises that facilitated the transfer of political authority during that era are now obsolete. Today, the principle of self-determination lacks both definition and applicability. Saving it from a complete descent into incoherence will require a renewal of the links between autonomy, democracy, human rights and the right to self-determination. Central to cultivating this renewal should be the adoption of a more liberal and expansive interpretation of the meaning of self-determination. Self-determination does not have to mean irredentism, secession and the violent renegotiation of territorial frontiers. The promotion of minority rights, devolution, federalism and greater acknowledgement of the legitimacy of cultural self-expression are all expressions of self-determination.
^Spencer, Metta (2005)."Separatism". In Clarke, Paul Barry; Foweraker, Joe (eds.).Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought (Master e-book ed.). London and New York:Routledge, imprint ofTaylor & Francis. p. 807.ISBN0-203-42210-4 – viaInternet Archive.At present, international law is ambiguous regarding the right to secede. Some documents assert that self-determination is a fundamental right, but in practice the United Nations and other international organisations have very rarely recognized breakaway states, and the trend at the turn of the millennium seems to be toward increasing the opposition to separatism, largely as a result of the grave effects observable in most cases where it has been attempted. One ICJ judge, Rosalyn Higgins, has written that there is no legal right of secession where there is representative government. However, some other experts disagree, adding that self-determination is justifiable where there is representative government but the minority nevertheless faces severe human rights violations.
^See: Clause 3 of theAtlantic Charter reads: "Third, they respect the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them" then became one of the eight cardinal principal points of the Charter all people had a right to self-determination.
^abMayall, James (2013). "International Society, State Sovereignty, and National Self-Determination". In Breuilly, John (ed.).The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 542.ISBN978-0-19-876820-3.
^Mayall, James (2013). "International Society, State Sovereignty, and National Self-Determination". In Breuilly, John (ed.).The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 539–540.ISBN978-0-19-876820-3.
^abOeter, Stefan (2024). "Self Determination". In Simma; et al. (eds.).The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 457–484.ISBN9780192864536.
^Cite error: The named referenceOeter was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).
^Sarah D. Shields.Fezzes in the River. Oxford University Press.
^abcMacmillan, MargaretParis 1919, New York: Random House page 211.
^Gdańsk i Ziemia Gdańska Franciszek Mamuszka Wiedza Powszechna, 1966 page 83
^Książka polska w Gdańsku w okresie zaboru pruskiego 1793-1919, page 61 Maria Babnis, Ossolineum 1989
^Macmillan, MargaretParis 1919, New York: Random House page 218.
^Macmillan, MargaretParis 1919, New York: Random House page 219.
^"Statute of Westminster 1931"(PDF).legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives (UK). 2017.Archived(PDF) from the original on 22 December 2018. Retrieved29 November 2024.All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0
^The Pentagon Papers Gravel Edition Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954–1960" (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)Archived 23 June 2017 at theWayback Machine Trích: "France, as the third party in Vietnam, then became pivotal to any political settlement, its executor for the West.But France had agreed to full independence for the GVN on ngày 4 tháng 6 năm 1954, nearly six weeks before the end of the Geneva Conference. By the terms of that June agreement, the GVN assumed responsibility for international contracts previously made on its behalf by France; but, there having been no reference to subsequent contracts, it was technically free of the Geneva Agreements. It has been argued to the contrary that the GVN was bound by Geneva because it possessed at the time few of the attributes of full sovereignty, and especially because it was dependent on France for defense. But such debates turn on tenuous points of international law regarding the prerogatives of newly independent or partitioned states. France speedily divested itself of responsibilities for "civil administration" in South Vietnam"
^[2] Duncan French, 2013, Statehood and Self-Determination Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law, p.97
^Pictet, Jean; et al. (1987).Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 52–53.
^"The Challenge of Sovereignty in small states"(PDF). Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 2012-04-30. Retrieved2012-03-07. Falkland Islands Government, Dick Sawle MLA, The Challenge of Sovereignty in small statesAs I mentioned previously, the UN itself, in 2008, rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming self-determination to be "a basic human right."
^"DIMAS". Archived fromthe original on 2011-05-31. Retrieved2008-10-07. Argentina's Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
^Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988).The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26.ISBN978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved18 September 2012.Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis....Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina.
^Mary Cawkell (1983).The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30.ISBN978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved18 September 2012.Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.
^J. Metford; Falklands or Malvinas? The background to the dispute. International Affairs, Vol 44 (1968), pp. 463–481. "Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed an interim commandant to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, the Government's reserve on East Falkland. The British representative immediately lodged a protest..."
Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003).International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 178.Article 1 of theMontevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'
Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995).Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law International. p. 20.So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.
^Chaube, Shibani Kinkar (1999) [1973].Hill politics in Northeast India. Orient Longman. pp. 153–161.ISBN81-250-1695-3.OCLC42913576.
^Samaddar, Ranabir (2004).The Politics of Dialogue: Living Under the Geopolitical Histories of War and Peace. Ashgate. pp. 171–173.ISBN978-0-7546-3607-6.OCLC56466278.
^Nathalie Tocci; Tamara Kovziridze."Cyprus"(PDF). Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 2011-03-02. Retrieved2017-03-05. p.14: In July 1989, UN SG Perez de Cuellar stated "Cyprus is a common home for the Greek and Turkish communities, whose relationship would be not of majority and minority but rather of political equality"
^Michael Stephen, 1997, The Cyprus Question. The case of Cyprus is sui generis, for there is no other State in the world which came into being as a result of two politically equal peoples coming together by the exercise by each of its sovereign right of self-determination, to create a unique legal relationship, which was in turn guaranteed by international treaty, to which each of them consented. From its very inception the Republic of Cyprus was never a unitary state in which there is only one electorate with a majority and minority. The two communities were political equals and each existed as a political entity.
^Saltzman and Evinch and Perles Law Firm The Republic of Cyprus was founded in 1960 as a bicommunal state in which the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities had the status of co-founders and equal partners.
^Prof. Elihu Lauterracht, B.E., Q.C.,1990, The Right of Self-Determination of the Turkish Cypriots. There appears to be nothing on the face of that language taken by itself, to suggest that there is any inequality of status between the parties or that either of them is doing anything other than further exercising its right of self-determination by participating in the settlement negotiations.
^Impediments to Peacekeeping: The Case of CyprusArchived 2017-02-22 at theWayback Machine Stefan Talmon, p.58-59., in "International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations", Vol.8, 2002. Without a status-of-forces agreement (or similar arrangements) between the United Nations and the Government of the TRNC, UNFICYP operates solely within the framework of the laws, rules and regulations of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which may be altered by the TRNC authorities unilaterally and without prior notice.
^European Court of Human Rights 02.07.2013 Decision A de facto recognition of the acts of the regime in the northern area may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus,the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded ashaving a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention
^ECtHR's 02.09.2015 Decision"..thecourt system in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" courts were thus to be considered as"established by law" with reference to the"constitutional and legal basis" on which they operated...the Court has already found that thecourt system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been"established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it hasnot accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a wholelacked independence and/or impartiality...when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.."
Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., ed.The Self-Determination of Peoples: Community, Nation, and State in an Interdependent World, Boulder:Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., and Arthur Watts, eds.Self-Determination and Self-Administration: A Sourcebook, Boulder:Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997.
Allen Buchanan,Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford Political Theory),Oxford University Press, US, 2007.
Annalisa Zinn,Globalization and Self-Determination (Kindle Edition),Taylor & Francis, 2007.
Marc Weller,Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution (Kindle Edition),Taylor & Francis, 2007.
Joanne Barker (Editor),Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination,University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
David Raic,Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (Developments in International Law, V. 43) (Developments in International Law, V. 43),Springer, 2002.
Y.N. Kly and D. Kly,In pursuit of The Right to Self-determination, Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination & the United Nations, Geneva 2000, Clarity Press, 2001.
Antonio Cassese,Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures),Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Percy Lehning,Theories of Secession, Routledge, 1998.
Hurst Hannum,Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.
Temesgen Muleta-Erena,The political and Cultural Locations of National Self-determination: The Oromia Case, Oromia Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 2, 1999.ISSN1460-1346.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(2).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
