Mama, I'm Moving Out
Self determination, as defined by the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, is a process by which a group of people, usually possessing a degree of political consciousness, form their own state and government. The idea evolved as a byproduct of nationalism. According to the UN charter, a people has the right to form itself into a state or to otherwise determine the form of its association with another state, and every state has the right to choose its own political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Moreover, the administering authorities of dependent territories are enjoined to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government in those territories.
The right of self-determination is well embedded in the philosophy of the United Nations. Although it is not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the term self-determination was used in the UN Charter and has been defined in various declarations and covenants. The first (common) article of The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) reads: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” It is imperative to note that this is a universal right: it belongs to “all peoples”.
However, in UN thinking and in international law, the idea of self-determination is balanced by the principle of integrity of existing states. According to the Vienna Declaration, UN World Conference on Human Rights, 1993, the right of self-determination:
• “shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States
• conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; and
• thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind”.
Self-determination was one of the more controversial political doctrines at the turn of the 20th century. Its main proponent was US President Woodrow Wilson, whose idealistic views of foreign policy failed to coincide with the political climate at the time.
Although Wilson's ideas met with frosty reception, many of them later became cornerstones of liberal political thought. The League of Nations was Wilson's idea, and although it failed, its successor, the United Nations, has lasted much longer.
Likewise, the self-determination philosophy espoused by Wilson, though once rejected by the colonial powers that dominated geopolitics at the turn of the 20th century, is now apparently the dominant force in modern geopolitics. New states are being born on a rather frequent basis; Montenegro separated from Serbia not too long ago, and it seems that other states in the Balkans are on a similar path.
In the wake of the First World War, Wilson's ideas were tried in Europe. Many states with separate national identities became sovereign polities in their own right. However, several of them were swallowed up in the last throes of imperialism by Nazi Germany just before or at the beginning of World War II.
As decades passed by and as separatist minority groups throughout the world, operating outside of the decolonization paradigm, began challenging the concept of state territorial integrity, it became clear that the notion of self-determination had to be somehow confined. Thus, courts and academicians came up with two different forms of self-determination: internal versus external. The former potentially applies to all peoples, and signifies that all peoples should have a set of respected rights within their central state. Thus, minority groups should have cultural, social, political, linguistic and religious rights and those rights should be respected by the mother state. As long as those rights are respected by the mother state, the peoples are not oppressed and thus there is no immediate need to challenge the territorial integrity of its mother state. The latter applies to oppressed peoples, the ones whose basic rights are not being respected by the mother state and the ones who are often subject to heinous human rights abuses. Such oppressed peoples, in theory, have a right to external self-determination, and external self-determination signifies that such peoples have a right to remedial secession and independence.
Theoretically, the distinction between internal and external self-determination is easy to draw, and an academician or a judge should have not difficulty deciding which minority groups should accrue the more drastic right to external self-determination. After all, we could simply look to the human rights record of the mother state, and if the record showed violations, we could determine that the minority group should be allowed to separate. In reality, the distinction is very difficult to draw. Numerous minority groups around the globe have been mistreated and have asserted their rights to external self-determination, only to find themselves rebuffed by the world community. On the other hand, some minority groups have found strong support in the eyes of the external actors, and have garnered sufficient international recognition to be allowed to separate.
It seems patently obvious to us all nowadays that self-determination is a fundamentally sound idea. It conforms to our ideals of democracy and liberty. But when we come down to the actual concrete reality of things, people are frequently reluctant to let go of territories with their own separatist identity.
Take the People’s Republic of China, for example. After all these years, it refuses to let go of Taiwan and Tibet, despite the glaringly obvious fact that owning these territories would probably be a net loss. There are few resources to be gained in Tibet, and it is doubtful that much could be gained from controlling a resentful population in Taiwan.
From a rational point of view, there is not much point in holding on to a people who refuse to be joined to you. They only create problems, and the country is unable to exploit the resources of the separatist territory. Instead, it is forced to devote resources from other territories to quelling the separatists, and as a result cannot focus on development.
Yet, there remain huge psychological barriers to letting go. There are for example, some Russian academicians who still refuse to accept that self-determination is a reasonable philosophy. This is mostly due to the fact that their sense of national pride is far too strong for them to accept that Russia would be better off if it let go of Chechnya than if it wastes its time and resources attempting to subjugate it.
There does seem to be a good point in their argument, though, in that the people of all territories would be far better off if they could put aside their separatist ways and work together to reinforce each others strengths. But the question is, is it practical for this to happen?
To be simply put: it’s not. One cannot disabuse people of a separate national identity without making compromises that people are often unwilling to make. And as a result, this isn't a relevant justification for opposing self-determination, unless you believe it is practical to make a whole group of people change their minds about a fundamental part of their identity.
It can sometimes be hard to understand the motivations people have for oppressing and suppressing others. But if you place yourself in their shoes, it is often a very easy task.
The right of self-determination has also been recognized in other international and regional human rights instruments such as Part VII of the Helsinki Final Act 1975 and Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples. It has been endorsed by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right of self- determination has been elaborated upon by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as international jurists and human rights experts.
Nevertheless, self-determination is the right way to go. When you put an end to the destructive strife that cripples the economy of both territories, and bring about peaceful trade and cooperation between the two separated jurisdictions, you find that a more prosperous and just outcome is reached — albeit at the loss of some pride.
Sources:
1. Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/)
2. Australasian Legal Information Institute (http://www.austlii.edu.au)
3. Self-Determination, International Society and World Order by Martin Griffiths at the Macquarie Law Journal (Heading 1.1)
4. Self-Determination and the Right to Establish A Government by John Kilcullen (Heading 1.1)
The right of self-determination is well embedded in the philosophy of the United Nations. Although it is not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the term self-determination was used in the UN Charter and has been defined in various declarations and covenants. The first (common) article of The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) reads: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” It is imperative to note that this is a universal right: it belongs to “all peoples”.
However, in UN thinking and in international law, the idea of self-determination is balanced by the principle of integrity of existing states. According to the Vienna Declaration, UN World Conference on Human Rights, 1993, the right of self-determination:
• “shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States
• conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; and
• thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind”.
Self-determination was one of the more controversial political doctrines at the turn of the 20th century. Its main proponent was US President Woodrow Wilson, whose idealistic views of foreign policy failed to coincide with the political climate at the time.
Although Wilson's ideas met with frosty reception, many of them later became cornerstones of liberal political thought. The League of Nations was Wilson's idea, and although it failed, its successor, the United Nations, has lasted much longer.
Likewise, the self-determination philosophy espoused by Wilson, though once rejected by the colonial powers that dominated geopolitics at the turn of the 20th century, is now apparently the dominant force in modern geopolitics. New states are being born on a rather frequent basis; Montenegro separated from Serbia not too long ago, and it seems that other states in the Balkans are on a similar path.
In the wake of the First World War, Wilson's ideas were tried in Europe. Many states with separate national identities became sovereign polities in their own right. However, several of them were swallowed up in the last throes of imperialism by Nazi Germany just before or at the beginning of World War II.
As decades passed by and as separatist minority groups throughout the world, operating outside of the decolonization paradigm, began challenging the concept of state territorial integrity, it became clear that the notion of self-determination had to be somehow confined. Thus, courts and academicians came up with two different forms of self-determination: internal versus external. The former potentially applies to all peoples, and signifies that all peoples should have a set of respected rights within their central state. Thus, minority groups should have cultural, social, political, linguistic and religious rights and those rights should be respected by the mother state. As long as those rights are respected by the mother state, the peoples are not oppressed and thus there is no immediate need to challenge the territorial integrity of its mother state. The latter applies to oppressed peoples, the ones whose basic rights are not being respected by the mother state and the ones who are often subject to heinous human rights abuses. Such oppressed peoples, in theory, have a right to external self-determination, and external self-determination signifies that such peoples have a right to remedial secession and independence.
Theoretically, the distinction between internal and external self-determination is easy to draw, and an academician or a judge should have not difficulty deciding which minority groups should accrue the more drastic right to external self-determination. After all, we could simply look to the human rights record of the mother state, and if the record showed violations, we could determine that the minority group should be allowed to separate. In reality, the distinction is very difficult to draw. Numerous minority groups around the globe have been mistreated and have asserted their rights to external self-determination, only to find themselves rebuffed by the world community. On the other hand, some minority groups have found strong support in the eyes of the external actors, and have garnered sufficient international recognition to be allowed to separate.
It seems patently obvious to us all nowadays that self-determination is a fundamentally sound idea. It conforms to our ideals of democracy and liberty. But when we come down to the actual concrete reality of things, people are frequently reluctant to let go of territories with their own separatist identity.
Take the People’s Republic of China, for example. After all these years, it refuses to let go of Taiwan and Tibet, despite the glaringly obvious fact that owning these territories would probably be a net loss. There are few resources to be gained in Tibet, and it is doubtful that much could be gained from controlling a resentful population in Taiwan.
From a rational point of view, there is not much point in holding on to a people who refuse to be joined to you. They only create problems, and the country is unable to exploit the resources of the separatist territory. Instead, it is forced to devote resources from other territories to quelling the separatists, and as a result cannot focus on development.
Yet, there remain huge psychological barriers to letting go. There are for example, some Russian academicians who still refuse to accept that self-determination is a reasonable philosophy. This is mostly due to the fact that their sense of national pride is far too strong for them to accept that Russia would be better off if it let go of Chechnya than if it wastes its time and resources attempting to subjugate it.
There does seem to be a good point in their argument, though, in that the people of all territories would be far better off if they could put aside their separatist ways and work together to reinforce each others strengths. But the question is, is it practical for this to happen?
To be simply put: it’s not. One cannot disabuse people of a separate national identity without making compromises that people are often unwilling to make. And as a result, this isn't a relevant justification for opposing self-determination, unless you believe it is practical to make a whole group of people change their minds about a fundamental part of their identity.
It can sometimes be hard to understand the motivations people have for oppressing and suppressing others. But if you place yourself in their shoes, it is often a very easy task.
The right of self-determination has also been recognized in other international and regional human rights instruments such as Part VII of the Helsinki Final Act 1975 and Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples. It has been endorsed by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right of self- determination has been elaborated upon by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as international jurists and human rights experts.
Nevertheless, self-determination is the right way to go. When you put an end to the destructive strife that cripples the economy of both territories, and bring about peaceful trade and cooperation between the two separated jurisdictions, you find that a more prosperous and just outcome is reached — albeit at the loss of some pride.
Sources:
1. Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/)
2. Australasian Legal Information Institute (http://www.austlii.edu.au)
3. Self-Determination, International Society and World Order by Martin Griffiths at the Macquarie Law Journal (Heading 1.1)
4. Self-Determination and the Right to Establish A Government by John Kilcullen (Heading 1.1)
Labels: law, legal research, the UK
posted by aaronparan at 9:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home