Talk:Self-determination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

duplicate with Self determination

Contents

[edit] Resolution to Problems?

I have spent quite a bit of time on this page, adding the theoretical principle and editing some of the previous text to make it appropriate only to geographically binding political groups, avoiding some of the problems highlighted bleow re. ethinc minority groups. I am unwilling to attempt to remove or rewrite the exisitng work re. Woodrow Wilson as I think this provides an interesting aside to the argument, furthermore the articulation of the theoretical principle, apart from its more recent political usage, adds a greater degree of balance to this article. Following these changes is the neutraility of the article still disputed? If so could people please highlight which sections and or references which are disputed? Muppet317 11:59, 05/12/2005

This isn't true.....

The UN Charter has been invoked to help resolve a myriad of conflicts from Kosovo to East Timor and in cases of ethnic strife or genocide, the oppressed are usually granted a reprieve from the oppressors and the right for self-determination out weighs the right to national integrity.

No.....

Despite the intervention, Kosovo is still nominally part of Yugoslavia and this legal situation exists precisely because because self-determination does *not* overrule the right to territorial integrity. The fact that Yugoslavia *still* is considered the sovereign power over Kosovo despite having absolutely no administrative control over it illustrates how seriously people take territorial integrity.

In the case of East Timor, the UN was involved only after Indonesia consented to a plebiscite on East Timorese independence, and again it illustrates how the right to territorial integrity outweighs self-determination.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but East Timor was never part of Indonesia in the first place. It's annexation was never internationally recognized, and thus East Timor was never seen internationally as a question of territorial integrity vs. self-determination. Same as with Western Sahara. Arre 23:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


You can also list a whole bunch of other cases, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, the Kurdish areas of Iraq, North Ossetia, etc. etc. etc.


oops..my bad...but I'd say territorial integrity oughtweighs self determination when the government claiming integrity is the acting authority of the region in question.

Self-determination is an absolute and inalienable right. The principle of territorial integrity can only apply to prevent the cessation of integral parts of a state, e.g. to stop Liverpool from declaring independence from UK. It has no application in any other circumstance, but it is often used by "bully governments" to try and annex smaller neighbours.

Quebec hasn't been denied a request to have a plebiscite, there have been three referenda on some form of independence already and they've all failed. There are some interested issues regarding self-determination which the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled on.

An interesting example of an ethnic and cultural minority denied the right to self-determination is the French Canadians of Quebec. Quebec has repeatedly requested a plebiscite on independence, but has been denied. The law is in Canada's favor as Quebec currently, and has historically been subordinate to the government of Canada.
No -- Quebec has held two plebiscites on independence, and rejected the idea on both occasions. The contrary assertion is curious.

[edit] Independence?

The article currently says, "In most cases there is an ethnic or religious minority seeking independence from a majority to escape prejudice or persecution." I do not think this is accurate. Ethnic and religious minorities seek varying degrees of autonomy, and they often seek some kind of recognized status, but they do not necessarily seek independence. For example, the Roma seek (and in many cases have received) recognition in most Eastern European countries, but I am unaware of any movement to form an independent Roma state; many, perhaps most, Catalans prefer cutural autonomy within Spain to Catalan independence; Native American nations living within the U.S. are all concerned with sovereignty and recognition, but very few seek complete independence from the U.S. federal government. I'm sure I could pile on the examples, if needed, but my point is simply that self-determination is not necessarily about independence, it's about democratic choice and recognized status as a people. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, there is a very strong Catalan independence movement. I have heard of moves to start a Romany state (kind of Romany Zionism), but none of them are really notable, their S-D is of a different kind. --MacRusgail 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
As a Catalan myself I find this argument by Jmabel totally out of scope. The issue that Catalans, as a majority prefer one thing over another is precisely the issue of self-determination. What is the current political status? Illegalization of self-determination. Only the preference of cutural autonomy is legally accepted, while Catalan independence is illegall, albeit political parties whose goal is independence are legal. Enric 20 February 2006.

[edit] A bit of a hash

This article seems to me to be a bit of a hash: more like notes for an article than an actual article. I get the sense of two (or more) subtly warring points of view and not much actual research. This would be a good one for someone with serious scholarly skills and some time on their hands to revisit. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now its less of a hash, but it's still uncited, quirky, and wrong on quite a few points.
Just to point to one of the most obvious problems: "Borne in the wake of World War II…": "Borne" makes no sense here: borne by whom? Perhaps "born"? But then that is simply wrong: the concept developed gradually, and if there is any one time when it can said to have been "born" it would presumably be in the wake of WWI, not WWII, in that it was the principle invoked in splitting up the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
I really have no great desire to work on this article, but it is still very problematic. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Disputation

The passive voice of so many critical phrases is the first clue that this article has serious POV problems. Another clue is that "the principle" of self determination is distinct from the phrase "self determination" or its articulaton as such but all those are conflated. The history of the principle of self determination is objectively as old as human social organization itself. Finally, Woodrow Wilson's "southern heritage" being addressed at such length -- amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack on the concept and principle of self determination. The fact that all of these violations of clarity and accuracy point to a devaluation of self determination makes a strong case that the article needs a complete rewite. --Jim Bowery 18:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC


This is true, but, when the new page is created, or reconstructed, please make a general definition section at the very begining to build upon durring the rest of the sectons, one i have found to be relable is the one from dicitionary.com.

[edit] On applying the self-determination principle

I've changed a sentence that was very biased and biasing, for a sentence that I think is more balanced:

"Hence, self-determination has been held to be an example of an advancement of the fundamental political rights of politically bounded 'peoples' at work, but also as an example of an abstract theory that has been implemented in contexts with sometimes severe political and national conflict."

The previuos version indicated that "sometimes" applying the self-determination principle was *causing* the conflict; may be the conflict included a party claiming the right of self-determination, but clearly this is not true in *applying* it as a possible solution for the conflict. My new sentence focuses on the issue that is shared in *all* situations, namely that the application of the self-determination principle is very often in contexts where conflict *exists*. Analysing whether applying the self-determination principle solves the conflict or keeps the conflict is a matter of historical study, not of personal opinion as could be interpreted from the previous version. Enric

[edit] Fourteen Points

Why are the Fourteen Points given so much prominence in this article? Reading through the points [1] I do not see self-determination or any conteporary equivalent mentioned once. I see three instances of territorial integrity, (a conflicting aim) and a requirement for Serbia to be accorded free and secure access to the sea.

Autonomous development is mentioned twice. This is a very different concept from self-determination. Over all the declaration sounds more like something produced by the Congress of Vienna, with the Great Powers deciding the fate of small peoples. -- Petri Krohn 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THis needs disambiguation

This is not the only meaning of self-determination, there is the right of the individual to self determination or political freedom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006.

In order for more neutrality, and to make the article more complete, this article should also contain the point of view of groups or persons that believe in right-wing politics, or from persons of minority (right-wing) groups. White (European) minority groups may fall in this group. There is often severe attack on any right wing points of view from the left-wing (political opposite to right wing). There should also be notice made of Minority groups (e.g. minority white groups) that want self-determination, but whom experience genocide. Left-wing groups may call such (right-wing)groups racists, ultra right, etc. whilst in reality they practice genocide against them. The genocide can occur in a democracy where the whites is a minority, but have to little voting power (by numbers) to form an effective opposition to the ruling party. The following is therefore included: "Ultra left-wing movements or individuals may be against self-determination of certain groups in an attempt to promote genocide of a specific group, or for own political gain or power. This is especially important when right wing groups request self-determination.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackes (talk • contribs) 19 August 2006.

Before Muppet317 hijacked the article, it was a serious article about the legal and international relations term "self-determination". No one is disputing that Muppet317 can talk about a million concepts from personal-determination to self-genocide. But that does not mean that he should rewrite the Genocide or Self-determination articles to list his thoughts on alternate uses of the article's title.
I also ask that you do NOT use revert before discussing the issue, although you may be lazy and wish to implement your snap decision with the flick of a revert button. You might FIRST consider the efforts of others and that people with expert knowledge who have their spent time adding to the article had a reason for editing out disrelated subjects that should have been put in a separate article such as Self-determination philosophy. Also, if you took the time to read John Mill's "On Liberty" you will find he dose NOT use the term self-determination and that Muppet317 had taken an insulting liberty against the earlier editors of the article.211.30.222.139 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Media-Citing of this article would refer to this [Self-determination] article edited on 21/Mar/2005. The article was created in December 2001 about the vital legal principle of Self-determination and after 39 edits by a host of people was cited in the media. It is a vital part of the Decolonization process around which the UN Charter and subsequent UN resolutions are based. / After being cited in the Media as a reliable reference on this subject, on 5/April/2005 somebody began vandalising and trying to delete the article. A few months later User:Muppet317 rewrote the introduction and rest of article in a manner that confused the reader and discredited the solid legal basis of the process.

It is a sadfact that most people wish to be apathetic and a lack of previous knowledge provides an excuse to leave obscure subjects to the bigots or other problem makers of the world.211.30.222.139 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As useless as such comments as these are, it would be interesting if you 1) chose a pseudoname rather than just your IP, 2) explain in specific terms who you are calling "bigots or other problem makers of the world." We develop articles as best we can by consensus, not by reliance on previous versions, but on how to explain the concept based on the facts and on the context - in this case historical context. The only bigotry involved would be to claim that some high principle somehow implicitly favored one people over another. Because of its subjectiveness, this concept has been shown to be somewhat antiquated to a less globally integrated period. -Ste|vertigo 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentation and counterfactuality

"Despite this, there had not been any Palestinian rebellion, intifada, or jihad waged against these countries." Sure reads like soapboxing to me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undercited

There is quite a bit in this article that is weasel-worded and/or undercited. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Puerto Rican Inter-nationalist group"

With reference to the Young Lords, "Puerto Rican Inter-nationalist group" is certainly clever (as a substitution for "Puerto Rican nationalist group") and has some basis in their ideology, but it seems to me that their Puerto Rican nationalism that defined them at least as much as any commitment to international struggle. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

There is a radical SELF-DETERMINATION! Movement in Kosovo (bearing exactly than name) which fights against the UN protectors of Kosovo and the Serbians, demanding that the Self-determination of the Albanian majority in the territory be accepted (independence from Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructured article

I moved sub-sections to a more logical order, to keep the historical sections together, and place the currently active examples (US, Australia, Israel-Palestine) together. I removed the section on Wilson's southern heritage, if there is a serious source for this it can go back in the article. More work needs to be done to make the text coherent, and remove duplications. I removed this weaselish passage, until it can be clarified...

Given the rise of global transculturism and its effect on the concepts of nationality and nationhood, attempts have been made to reinterpret the "self-determination principle" in terms which do not rely on subjective or nationalistic definitions — typically reformulating the principle as an extension of Right to liberty, wherein a people ought not be subject to coercion, via the will of a non-representative form of government.

This seems to be the 'separatism invalid in liberal democracies' argument, if so, then it should say that clearly.Paul111 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-determination in Transnistria

Transnistria is a region in Moldova seeking independence, applying the principle of self-determination. This is further clarified on this page: Four Pillars of Transnistria. This should be added as soon as possible because it is a very significant example of present day self-determination. For info, see the official website of Transnistria (officially called Pridnestrovie): [[2]] Musicguy444 23:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A balanced and thorough article

This article seems to be to be a balanced discussion of the various tensions in international law and international relations. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's not required to be. I'll remove the bias tag on the main article. DSuser 12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan and Somaliland

How can this article have completely neglected both Taiwan and Somaliland? ludahai 魯大海 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the Somaliland one. Does anyone object to me adding a section about Taiwan? ludahai 魯大海 16:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and Palestine section

This section could do a better job of describing the desire by many Palestinians for a self-determination. It should describe the desire for a autonomous Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank and Gaza strip that many Palestinians endorse and what they believe that should entail (i.e. rights to airspace, water, their own military, etc.). Many pro-Palestinian groups do not believe current Israeli proposals for self-determination of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip allow for true self-determination. --Cab88 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, just include your sources. Don't forget right of return issue. Also note that this COULD be interpreted as decolonization, not only of west bank and gaza but all lands seized from 1948 on by mostly european people.
Carol Moore 04:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

This section as it currently stands gives way too much prominence to the extremist accusations of Israel as a colonial outpost. The discussion of Israeli/Jewish self-determination is bizarrely framed around criticism of the views of certain Westerners that Israel should be a sort of colonial outpost. This view of Israel by individual Brits is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. It is about self-determination, not about post-colonial British hopes about what Israel might serve for them. It wrongly casts the British Mandate as being all about this supposed conspiracy. I am removing these portions of the article. Gni 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the factually incorrect assertion that Hamas "has dropped the call for the destruction of Israel from its charter in its quest for Palestinian self-determination." In fact, their charter remains unchanged, and continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas leaders repeatedly emphasize that point. The link provided pointed to a Guardian article that did not substantiate the position -- that article only noted that the Hamas platform in the most recent elections did not specifically refer to the destruction of Israel, but rather was "ambiguous." It did not refer to the Hamas CHARTER. Gni 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but Self-determination under Intl law is supposed to apply to lands legitimately owned by individuals and groups who have been on them for years, and in recent history. It's not supposed to apply to mostly recent immigrants who use 2000 year old history, the crimes of other nations, and international financial and political manipulations to get large powers to agree to give one people a large expanse of territory as well as control over a bare minority of indigenous people who do NOT want to be under the authority of the (mostly) new comers' religious/ethnic state. This isn't extremism, just a reality which some keep trying to suppress.
There may have been a true, non-manipulated International Law case for a very small Jewish state before 1948, and even a larger one today. However, the problem remains that Zionism from its conception has intended to grab the whole territory and drive out the indigenous population. (See Pro-Ethnic Cleansing Quotes from Zionists Through History at WhatWouldGandhiDo.Net.) This is the definition of colonialism NOT self-determination.
Of course as a libertarian I don't have a problem with people immigrating, buying land or homesteading, setting up their own states and seceding. Like LaRaza wants to do in the US; and 5 -6 million US Muslims might want to do 10-20 years down the road. And a few hundred million Chinese, Latinos and Africans probably will do if the US govt. is destroyed in nuclear war. Just as long as they respect property rights and don't try to impose their will through force and fraud.
But something tells me that under international law that's NOT the definition of self determination. If it is, let me start a section in this wiki article on FUTURE SELF-DETERMINATION MOVEMENTS. (joking ;-)
Anyway, the point of this dissertation has been to encourage NEUTRAL wiki editors to read up, make the section more NPOV and ADD SOME REFERENCES besides wiki links. At some point I'll do it my self, in my planned efforts to clean up secession, separatism and like articles.
Carol Moore 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Chechnya

The section is a partisan diatribe. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be reduced to the same size as Kosovo section Serg3d2 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it!
User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section: Sri Lanka

This section needs to make mention of the role of self-determination in the conflict. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

As the last two editors to post to this page point out, there are major issues with multiple subsections of the Controversy section. There are 10 or 12 valid points to pull out, and that can probably be reliably sourced. After identifying them, it would make a lot of sense to merge those points into the article proper as examples of the main subjects. As it stands, the entire section reads like WP:SYNTHESIS, bordering on WP:OR, and its tone and topic are a fair bit off topic at times. There's still a ton of cruft that can be cut and a ton of info that can be pulled out and put to more productive use in the article-proper, and doing so would result in a far stronger article. MrZaiustalk 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Intro Needs Clarification/sounds POV

The way it is written it sounds like wiki editor is expressing anti-self-determination views and throwing in two references that seem to agree so that it sounds like the general viewpoint...at least of those vs. self-determination and secession. Specifically a fuller context of and a link to Quebec Decision and UN General Assembly statement helpful. Something tells me contrary views for balance by the hundreds of groups - and their lawyers - advocating self-determination also can be found.

While the right to self-determination is embodied in several treaties and is held to form part of customary international law[1], it is difficult to deduce practical applications of the theory not only in itself, but weighed against other principles such as the territorial integrity of sovereign states. This prevents self-determination being considered as a right to authorise or encourage "any action that 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"[2] As such, the right rarely allows for secession,[3] although is often confused as such.

Carol Moore 17:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Chechnya section - has this section been translated?

The section on Chechnya reads to me as if it has been translated, as the English is quite confusingly written. I would go ahead and just amend, but I don't want to alter the sense of what it is trying to say and it isn't always clear. Is there anyone with a bit more knowledge of this topic who could tidy it up so the meaning is clearer? Thanks. 86.155.0.169 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably better to clarify what can be understood than to let it stand as a lot of gobbledygook. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Existentialism?

The first paragraph includes the sentence "It also has influenced existentialism." This makes no sense and is probably someone's idea of humour. I've asked for a source, but it might be better to remove the whole sentence.

It could be that someone means it. If so, it should be moved down, given its own section and given some explanation.--GwydionM (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UN resolution 1723

Here is an excerpt (bolded emphasis is mine) from the UN resolution 1723:

The General Assembly ((...)) Solemnly renews its calls for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination

Isn't the Tibet case pertinent in this article? Natmaka (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's 1961, nearly half a century ago. Is there anything more recent?--GwydionM (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"Tibet: Human Rights and the Rule of Law", International Commission of Jurists (1997) Natmaka (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on Vietnam

"These nations became willing to support authoritarian governments as long as they remained anti-communist and began to suspect all self-determinations movements of being communist-inspired or controlled. Thus the United States entered into a 10 year war in Vietnam, taking over from French colonialists, and supported Portugal in its attempts to hold on to Angola. "

I checked the reference and was unable to find support for the contention that western nations "began to suspect all self-determinations movements of being communist-inspired or controlled". Nor did I see evidence that this suspicion caused U.S. entry into Vietnam because in fact the Vietcong were not pushing communist. However the reference is very long and I might have missed something. Even if the reference does say it, the reference is expressing a POV. Readin (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is a statement about the general rules of Wikipedia, not this particular source, which I haven't read: it is entirely permissible to cite a source that has a particular viewpoint. Wikipedia's NPOV policy basically means two things:
  1. Where there are differing opinions on a matter, the article should attempt to reflect the balance of critical or scholarly opinion. Fringe views should get (at most) minimal space. Where there is a diversity of mainstream views, we should try to reflect the spectrum of these views. All opinionated statements should be clearly attributed as to whose opinion is being reflected and there should be a citation to back up that claim.
  2. The article itself should be written in neutral language. For example, it should not disparage one opinion by introducing a countering view with a phrase like "but in fact" or "but true experts say", etc.
In sum: it is entirely OK to introduce well-cited and clearly attributed statements of opinion. If this falls short of that standard, it should be fixed, but your last statement "Even if the reference does say it, the reference is expressing a POV" sounds like you are missing the point. - Jmabel | Talk 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
the article should attempt to reflect the balance of critical or scholarly opinionReadin (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on UN Charter??

If you are going to put in NPOV tag you have to explain what the problem is so that it can be fixed. Otherwise it is irrelevant. I personally don't know all the different debates etc that would lead to POV claim. Please explain. Carol Moore 02:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

See "NPOV on Vietname" above. The setences I quote as having problems are in the "NPOV on UN Charter" section of the article. Readin (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, got confused on Vietnam. Give me a couple days and I'll straighten it out since I did read it a couple times in my research, but may have ended up failing to ref or writing a summary that was not accurate. A ref'd source POV not necessarily bad, if you identify the person who has the view and make it clear it is not necessarily held by everyone. Carol Moore 17:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}