Self-determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[2] Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.[3]
By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.[4][5]
Just as colonisation and colonialism have been practiced throughout recorded history, political self-determination, on an individual level, has been documented similarly and cherished highly by collective peoples despite them; ancient Mesopotamia and the later Greek city-states are early examples of its practice.[2] The employment of imperialism, through the expansion of empires, and the concept of political sovereignty, as developed after the Treaty of Westphalia, also explain the emergence of self determination during the modern era. During, and after, the Industrial Revolution many groups of people recognized their shared history, geography, language, and customs. Nationalism emerged as a uniting ideology not only between competing powers, but also for groups that felt subordinated or disenfranchised inside larger states, in this situation self determination can be seen as a reaction to imperialism. Such groups often pursued independence and sovereignty over territory, but sometimes a different sense of autonomy has been pursued or achieved.
The world possessed several traditional, continental empires such as the Ottoman, Russian, Austrian/Habsburg, and the Qing Empire. Political scientists often define competition in Europe during the Modern Era as a balance of power struggle, which also induced various European states to pursue colonial empires, beginning with the Spanish and Portuguese, and later including the British, French, Dutch, and German. During the early 19th century, competition in Europe produced multiple wars, most notably the Napoleonic Wars. After this conflict, the British Empire became dominant and entered its "imperial century", while nationalism became a powerful political ideology in Europe.
Later, after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, "New Imperialism" was unleashed with France and later Germany establishing colonies in Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. Japan also emerged as a new power. Multiple theaters of competition developed across the world:
The Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Qing Empire and the new Empire of Japan maintained themselves, often expanding or contracting at the expense of another empire. All ignored notions of self-determination for those governed.[6]
The revolt of New World British colonists in North America, during the mid-1770s, has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination, because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, as well as the consent of, and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke's enlightened writings of the previous century. Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the United States Declaration of Independence which inspired Europeans throughout the 19th century.[2] The French Revolution was motivated similarly and legitimatized the ideas of self-determination on that Old World continent.[7][8]
Within the New World during the early 19th century, most of the nations of Spanish America achieved independence from Spain. The United States supported that status, as policy in the hemisphere relative to European colonialism, with the Monroe Doctrine. The American public, organized associated groups, and even Congressional resolutions, often supported such movements, particularly the Greek War of Independence (1821–29) and the demands of Hungarian revolutionaries in 1848. Such support, however, never became official government policy, due to balancing of other national interests. After the American Civil War and with increasing capability, the United States government did not accept self-determination as a basis during its Purchase of Alaska and attempted purchase of the West Indian islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John in 1860s, or its growing influence in the Hawaiian Islands, that led to annexation in 1898. With its victory in the Spanish-American War in 1899 and its growing stature in the world, the United States supported annexation of the former Spanish colonies of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, without the consent of their peoples, and it retained "quasi-suzerainty" over Cuba, as well.[2]
Nationalist sentiments emerged inside the traditional empires including: Pan-Slavism in Russia; Ottomanism, Kemalist Ideology and Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire; State Shintoism and Japanese identity in Japan; and Han identity in juxtaposition to the Manchurian ruling class in China. Meanwhile in Europe itself there was a rise of nationalism, with nations such as Greece, Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria seeking or winning their independence.
Karl Marx supported such nationalism, believing it might be a "prior condition" to social reform and international alliances.[9] In 1914 Vladmir 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."[10]
Woodrow Wilson revived the American commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in November 1917, they called for Russia's immediate withdrawal as a member of the Allies of World War I. They also supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination."[10] The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.[2]
This presented a challenge to Wilson's more limited demands. In January 1918 Wilson issued his Fourteen Points of January 1918 which, among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims, as long as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples.[2] The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 led to Russia's exit from the war and the independence of Armenia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Poland. The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation by the Allies of Czechoslovakia and the union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia as new states. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especially Poles, Czechs, and Serbs and Romanians) were given power over nationalities who disliked and distrusted them eventually helped lead to World War II. The defeated Ottoman empire was dissolved into the Republic of Turkey and several smaller nations, including Yemen, plus the new Middle east Allied "mandates" of Syria and Lebanon (future Syria, Lebanon and Hatay State), Palestine (future Transjordan and Israel), Mesopotamia (future Iraq). The League of Nations was proposed as much as a means of consolidating these new states, as a path to peace.[12]
During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of decolonization. In the Statute of Westminster the United Kingdom granted independence to Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa after the British parliament declared itself as incapable of passing laws over them without their consent. Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq also achieved independence from Britain and Lebanon from France. Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the Indian independence movement. And Italy, Japan and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring certain territories under their control, leading to World War II.
In Asia, Japan became a rising power and gained more respect from Western powers after its victory in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan joined the Allied Powers in World War I and attacked German colonial possessions in the Far East, adding former German possessions to its own empire. In the 1930s, Japan gained significant influence in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria after it invaded Manchuria. It established Manchukuo, a puppet state in Manchuria and eastern Inner Mongolia. This was essentially the model Japan followed as it invaded other areas in Asia and established the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
In 1912, the Republic of China officially succeeded the Qing Dynasty, while Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Tuva proclaimed their independence. Independence was not accepted by the government of China. In 1915 treaty of Kyakhta Outer Mongolia recognized China's sovereignty. However, the Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia's independence, provided that a referendum was held. The referendum took place on October 20, 1945, with (according to official numbers) 100% of the electorate voting for independence.
Many of Eastern Asia's current disputes to sovereignty and self-determination stem from unresolved disputes from World War II. After its fall, the Empire of Japan it renounced control over many of its former possessions including Korea, Sakhalin Island, and Taiwan. 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 the Treaty of San Francisco, giving Taiwan de facto independence although its political status continues to be ambiguous.
In 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United 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.
However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine of uti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.[16][17] Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, the peoples of thirty-seven new nations freed themselves from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.[2][18][19] The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption that territorial integrity is as important as self-determination.[16]
Decolonization in the world was contrasted by the Soviet Union's successful post-war expansionism. Tuva and several regional states in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, and Central Asia had been fully annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II. Now, it extended its influence by establishing satellite states in Eastern Germany and the countries of Eastern Europe, along with support for revolutionary movements in China and North Korea. Although satellite states were independent and possessed sovereignty, the Soviet Union often violated principles of self-determination by suppressing the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and the Prague Spring Czechoslovak reforms of 1968. It invaded Afghanistan to support an increasingly unpopular communist government assailed by local tribal groups.[2] However, Marxism-Leninism and its theory of imperialism were also strongs influences in the national emancipation movements of third world nations rebelling against colonial or puppet regimes. In many Third World countries, communism became an ideology that united groups to oppose imperialism or colonization.
Soviet actions were countered 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 them anti-communism. To achieve this, a variety of means was implemented, including the orchestration of coups, sponsoring of dictatorships and military invasions.
Consequently, many self-determination movements, which spurned some type of anti-communist government, were accused of being Soviet-inspired or controlled.[2] Thus, the United States entered into a ten-year war in Vietnam, taking over from French colonialists,[20] and supported Portugal in its attempts to hold on to Angola. The Rhodesian Bush War of the 1960s and 1970s pitted the unrecognized, ardently anti-communist Rhodesian government, comprised largely of the country's minority whites, against rival groups of black guerrillas, aligned respectively with Moscow and Beijing.[21] The Chinese-backed Zimbabwe African National Union eventually took power in 1980, when the internationally-recognised Republic of Zimbabwe was formed.[22]
In Asia, the Soviet Union had already converted Mongolia into a satellite state but abandoned propping up the Second East Turkestan Republic and gave up its Manchurian claims to China. The new People's Republic of China had gained control of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War. The Korean War shifted the focus of the Cold War from Europe to Asia, where competing superpowers took advantage of decolonization to spread their influence.
In 1947, India gained independence from The British Empire. The empire was in decline but adapted to these circumstanced by creating the British Commonwealth-—since 1949 the Commonwealth 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 the Partition of India which resulted in Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Before the advent 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 ongoing insurgency in Northeast India.[23] In 1971 Bangladesh obtained independence from the eastern half of Pakistan.
Burma also gained independence from the British Empire, but declined membership in the Commonwealth. Internal conflict in Burma that challenge the ruling government persist.
Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands 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 united Malaysia. The Netherlands retained Dutch New Guinea, but Indonesia threatened to invade and annex it. A vote was supposedly taken under the UN sponsored Act of Free Choice to allow West New Guineans to decide their fate, although many dispute its veracity. Later, Portugal relinquished control over East Timor in 1975, at which time Indonesia promptly invaded and annexed it.
Another controversial episode with perhaps more relevance was the British beginning their exit from British Malaya. An experience concerned the findings of a United Nations Assessment Team that led the British territories of Sarawak and Sabah in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the new Malaya Federation.[24] The United Nation Team's mission followed on from an earlier assessment by the British-appointed Cobbold 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 joining 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 joined with the new Federation of Malaysia. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without any referendums self-determination being held.[25][26][27] they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there was an agreement between the Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 July 1963)[28][29] This also triggered the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.[30][31]
The Cold War began to wind down after Mikhail Gorbachev assumed power in March 1985. With the cooperation of the American president Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev wound down the size of the Soviet Armed Forces and reduced nuclear arms in Europe, while liberalizing the economy.
In 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 into Czech Republic and Slovakia, while in 1990 Yugoslavia began a violent break up into its former 6 sub-unit republics. Kosovo, which was previously an autonomous unit of Serbia declared independence in 2008, but has received less international recognition.[2]
In December 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president and the Soviet Union dissolved relatively peacefully into fifteen sovereign republics, all of which rejected communism 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.
After decades of civil war, Indonesia finally recognized the independence of East Timor in 2002.
In 1949, the Communists won the civil war and established the People's Republic of China in Mainland China. The Kuomintang-led Republic of China government retreated to Taipei, its jurisdiction now limited to Taiwan and several outlying islands. Since then, the People's Republic of China has been involved in disputes with the ROC over issues of sovereignty and the political status of Taiwan.
As noted, self-determination movements remain strong in some areas of the world. Some areas possess de facto independence, such as Taiwan, North Cyprus, Kosovo, and South Ossetia, but their independence is disputed one or more major states. Significant movements for self-determination also persist for locations that lack de facto independence, such as Kurdistan, Chechnya, and the State of Palestine.
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 even full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.[32] The international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and often dictated more by politics than principle. The year 2000 United 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."[17][33]
In an issue of Macquarie University Law Journal Associate professor Aleksandar Pavkovic and Senior Lecturer Peter Radan outlined current legal and political issues in self-determination.[34] These include:
There is not yet a recognized legal definition of "peoples" in international law. Vita Gudeleviciute of Vytautas Magnus University Law School, reviewing international law and UN resolutions, finds in cases of non-self-governing peoples (colonized and/or indigenous) and foreign military occupation "a people" is the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, the unrepresented become a separate people. Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples.[17] Other definitions offered are "peoples" being self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.), or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment", i.e. "loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples. Or the definition may be simply that a people is a group of individuals who unanimously choose a separate state. If the "people" are unanimous in their desire for self-determination, it strengthens their claim. For example, the populations of federal units of the Yugoslav federation were considered a people in the breakup of Yugoslavia, even though some of those units had very diverse populations.[34] Libertarians who argue for self-determination distinguish between the voluntary nation (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and the state, the coercive apparatus, which they have a right to choose or self-determine.[12]
National self-determination appears to challenge the principle of territorial integrity (or sovereignty) of states as it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies a 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.[34] 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. [35][36][37][38]
Pavkovic and Radan describe three theories of international relations relevant to self-determination.
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.[17]
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.[17]
In order to accommodate demands for minority rights and avoid secession and the creation of a separate new state, many states decentralize or devolve greater decision-making power to new or existing subunits or even autonomous areas. More limited measures might include restricting demands to the maintenance of national cultures or granting non-territorial autonomy in the form of national associations which would assume control over cultural matters. This would be available only to groups that abandoned secessionist demands and the territorial state would retain political and judicial control, but only if would remain with the territorially organized state.[34]
Pavković explores how national self-determination, in the form of creation of a new state through secession, could override the principles of majority rule and of equal rights, which are primary liberal principles. This includes the question of how an unwanted state can be imposed upon a minority. He explores five contemporary theories of secession. In "anarcho-capitalist" theory only landowners have the right to secede. In communitarian theory, only those groups that desire direct or greater political participation have the right, including groups deprived of rights, per Allen Buchanan. In two nationalist theories, only national cultural groups have a right to secede. Australian professor Harry Beran's democratic theory endorses the equality of the right of secession to all types of groups. Unilateral secession against majority rule is justified if the group allows secession of any other group within its territory.[39][40]
Most sovereign 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.[41]
In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of majority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible through amending the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court in Texas v White, held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[42][43] The British Parliament in 1933 held that Western 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.[34]
The Chinese 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 the Union 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."[41]
As of 1996 the constitutions of Austria, Ethiopia, France, Singapore, Saint Kitts and Nevis Republics have express or implied rights to secession. Switzerland allows for the secession from current and the creation of new cantons. In the case of proposed Quebec separation from Canada the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 ruled that only both a clear majority of the province and a constitutional amendment confirmed by all participants in the Canadian federation could allow secession.[41]
The 2003 draft of the European Union Constitution allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the State wanted to leave could not be involved in the vote deciding whether or not they can leave the Union.[41] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities[44] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.
Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloody Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were related mostly to borders issues because the international community applied a version of uti possidetis juris in transforming 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 state opposition to being incorporated into a Quebec nation and even stated a determination to resist it by force.[34]
The border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State was based on the borders of existing counties and did not include all of historic Ulster. A Boundary Commission was established to consider re-drawing it. Its proposals, which amounted to a small net transfer to Northern Ireland, 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. Most Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans claim all of Northern Ireland and are not particularly interested in new borders.
For past movements see list of historical autonomist and secessionist movements and lists of decolonized nations. Also see list of autonomous areas by country and list of territorial autonomies and list of active autonomist and secessionist movements.
Recently (2003 onwards), self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aborigines (indigenous Australians). In the 1970s, the Aboriginal community approached the Federal Government and requested the right to administer their own communities. This encompassed basic local government functions, ranging from land dealings and management of community centres to road maintenance and garbage collection, as well as setting education programmes and standards in their local schools.
Since 1948, Baloch nationalists in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have been seeking to separate Baloch majority regions of the three countries to form a new state with the help of elements outside the aforementioned countries. The movement has culminated in several armed uprisings in both Pakistan and Iran, that have been crushed, especially during the 1970s inspired by Bengali nationalists. The movement is strongest in Pakistan, where it is led by the Balochistan National Party Balochistan Liberation Army and the Baloch Students Organization. This is supported by arch-rival countries such as the Republic of India and Bangladesh.
The Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria, Spanish: País Vasco, French: Pays Basque) as a cultural region (not to be confused with the homonym Autonomous Community of the Basque country) is a European region in the western Pyrenees that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and Navarre in Spain and the Northern Basque Country in France. Since the 19th century, Basque nationalism has demanded the right of some kind of self-determination. This desire for independence is particularly stressed among leftist Basque nationalists. The right of self-determination was asserted by the Basque Parliament in 1990, 2002 and 2006.[45] Since self-determination is not recognized in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, some Basques abstained and some even voted against it in the referendum of December 6 of that year. However, it was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74,6% of the votes in the Basque Country.[46] The derived autonomous regimes for the BAC was approved in later referendum but the autonomy of Navarre (amejoramiento del fuero: "improvement of the charter") was never subject to referendum but just approved by the Navarrese Cortes (parliament). There are not many sources on the issue for the French Basque country.
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (English: Basque Homeland and Freedom; pronounced [ˈeta]), is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization. Founded in 1959, it evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to a paramilitary group with the goal of Basque independence. Its ideology is Marxist-Leninist.[47][48]
Biafra Republic was first declared in 1967 by Lt. Col Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu but the State could only survive for about three years (1967–1970) during which period the Nigerian Government, supported and aided by the Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others, fought the break-away Republic and forced it back into Nigeria. Over 3 million Ibos lost their lives in the civil war which has been described as a genocide and crime against humanity as Nigerian Government used starvation as the only instrument of war that could defeat Biafra.
In 1999, a new group of activists formed an organization known as the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). Various other pro-Biafra groups have been formed with similar agenda. In 2010, the Biafra Liberation In Europe (BILIE) was formed and registered as an Indigenous Peoples Organization with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs as a National Liberation Movement to fight for the independence of Biafra by legal methods. The Organization was later renamed Biafra Liberation In Exile (BILIE) in order to embrace all Biafrans in the whole world instead of confining it to Europe. However, it is the requirement of the United Nations that BILIE should make positive impacts in the Biafra homeland in pursuit of its registered goals and objectives and in line with its Mission Statement before it will qualify to apply for a higher status in the UN ECOSOC. Consequently, in 2011, the members of BILIE applied to the Nigerian Government and became registered in Nigeria as BILIE Human Rights Initiative with the mandate to protect, defend and advocate for the rights of the indigenous people of Biafra under the United Nations Charter and under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. BILIE Human Rights Initiative is a Human Rights Organization established by the indigenous people of Biafra to pursue their rights of self-determination and independence by legal means. Their method is to use the rule of law beginning from Nigerian Courts to the World Court to redress all injustices done to the Igbo Nation and to actualize the Biafra Republic under the United Nations Charter. They strongly believe that the Biafran Sun will rise again. Thus, the quest to revive Biafra is gathering more forces both at national and international levels.
In Canada, many in the province of Quebec have wanted the province to separate from Confederation. The Parti Quebecois has asserted Quebec's "right to self-determination." There is debate on under which conditions would this right be realized.[49]
Països Catalans (in Catalan, often literally translated into English as Catalan Countries) refers to the territories where Catalan language is historically spoken.[50] These correspond with some parts of the medieval Crown of Aragon [51][52] (concretely Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencia and La Franja in Spain, Northern Catalonia in France, the city of Alghero in Italy, and Andorra).[53]
Today there are movements supporting the independence of the Catalan Countries in both Spain and France, but they only have significant support in Catalonia. Some of political parties from Catalonia, the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands that follow this idea are the Republican Left of Catalonia, Catalan Solidarity for Independence (SI), Rally for Independence and Republican Left of the Valencian Country, Estat Català, Partit Republicà Català, Popular Unity Candidates, Valencian Nationalist Bloc, Bloc per Mallorca, etc. Furthermore, there are other Catalan groups and movements that seek the independence of the Catalan Countries as a whole, such as: Sobirania i Progrés,[54] Deu Mil per l'autodeterminació,[55] Catalunya Estat Lliure,[56] Sobirania Valenciana,[57] etc. All these political parties and movements believe in non-violence and express their ideas in a non-violent manner.
Recently, there have been a series of non-binding, unofficial referenda or "popular votes" (consultes populars, in Catalan, a binding referendum for independence is illegal in Spain) held in municipalities around Catalonia, in which voters indicated whether they support Catalan independence from Spain.[58][59] They began on 13 September 2009 in the town of Arenys de Munt in a self-organised local movement and was then followed by a slew of Catalan municipalities. As an example of the positive results obtained everywhere, 90% of ballots cast in Barcelona on 11 April 2011 voted yes to independence. The number of voters was 230,590, representing 21.37% of the voting population.[60][61] These referenda are still ongoing, as there is slated to be a second round in 2011–2012.
Under Dzhokkar Dudayev, Chechnya declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of Chechens, 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: the Achmed Zakayev-run pro-Western Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the UK and the USA), and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate.
The British government have stated that the majority of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wish to remain British and therefore the transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determine.[62] This position is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[63] and is a powerful factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.
Under conditions of peace and in democratic state the focus of German public addresses weaker topics, as especially the Rights of informational self determination. This is a new topic in the context of surveillance of public areas and surveillance at work.[64][65]
The right to self-determination as outlined in public international law is often referenced by both sides in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, called for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an alliance of 26 organizations in Kashmir seeks self-determination according to the UN resolution. Some groups have suggested that a third option of Independence be added to the resolutions two options of union with India or union with Pakistan.[66][67]
Kosovo is a largely ethnic-Albanian nation (Albanians 88%, Serbs 6%, Bosniaks 3%, Roma 2%, Turks 1%),[68] which seeks independence on territories long held by ethnic Serbs, including as part of Yugoslavia. Conflict between the two culminated in the 1996-1999 Kosovo War between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia led by Slobodan Milošević. This culminated in the 1999 United States/NATO attacks on Serbia, withdrawal of Serbian troops and entry of the NATO Kosovo Force. International negotiations to determine the final status of Kosovo were unsuccessful. On 17 February 2008, 109 members (10 members including all Kosovo Serbs were absent) of the Kosovo Assembly voted unanimously for a unilateral declaration of independence. Serbia rejected the decision. Kosovo independence is disputed and supervised by the international community following the conclusion of the political process to determine Kosovo's final status envisaged in UN Security Council Resolution 1244.[68] See the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. In February 2008 Europe's major powers and the United States recognised independence of Kosovo.[69] The independence of Kosovo has been recognized by 86 countries as of 30 December 2011.[70][71] The territory of Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the Government of Kosovo. On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice gave the following advisory opinion: "The declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law." [72]
Kurdistan is a historical region primarily inhabited by the Kurdish people of the middle east. The territory is currently part of 4 states Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. There are Kurdish self determination movements in each of the 4 states. Iraqi Kurdistan has to date achieved the largest degree of self-determination through the formation of the Kurdistan Regional Government, an entity recognised by the Iraqi Federal Constitution.
Although the right of the creation of a Kurdish state was recognized following World War I in the Treaty of Sèvres, the treaty was then annulled by the Treaty of Lausanne. To date two separate Kurdish republics and one Kurdish Kingdom have declared sovereignty. The Republic of Ararat (Northern Kurdistan/Eastern Turkey), the Republic of Mehabad (Eastern Kurdistan/Iranian Kurdistan) and the Kingdom of Kurdistan (Southern Kurdistan/Northern Iraq), each of these fledgling states was crushed by military intervention. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan which currently holds the Iraqi presidency and the Kurdistan Democratic Party which governs the Kurdistan Regional Government both explicitly commit themselves to the development of Kurdish self-determination, but opinions vary as to the question of self-determination sought within the current borders and countries.
The Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan is part of the geographical area called Garabagh (Qarabağ). The name of this part of the country consists of two Azerbaijani words: “qara” (black) and “bağ” (garden). However, the majority Armenian population of the region refers to it by its previous Armenian name, Artsakh. As far as the right of peoples to self-determination is concerned, it is well known that, in reality, the practical realization of this right, as stipulated in the relevant international documents, does not involve unilateral secession, but represents a legitimate process carried out in accordance with international and domestic law within precisely identified limits.
There are two critical factors to be addressed in the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. Firstly, it is the extent of self-determination a people are given to protect themselves and determine how they wish to be ruled and what role is played by human rights violations, cultural eradication and pogroms by the Azerbaijani majority against the Armenian communities of Azerbaijan in a decision. Secondly, one must regard the question of legality of unconstitutional acts, such as violating the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Other considerations of the rules of international law, particularly those prohibiting the use of force and the acquisition of territory, are also relevant in that the Soviet authorities and, subsequently, the Azerbaijani government applied use of military and paramilitary force in ethnic cleansing initiatives like Operation Ring, while the Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh established militia forces to resist further pogroms and defend the civilian population by repelling Azeri forces.
Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was among the first people to make this call,[73] which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington that year.
The South Island Party with a pro-South agenda, fielded candidates in the 1999 General Election.
Moves towards Scottish Independence from the United Kingdom are being led by the majority Scottish National Party government in the Scottish Parliament, with a plebiscite scheduled for the later half of the current parliamentary term which ends in 2016.
Southern Cameroons today makes up the two English-speaking regions of the Republic of Cameroun, the North West and South West regions. The people of Southern Cameroons' claim to self-determination arises out of their allegations that the Republic of Cameroun forcefully annexed their territory by the 1961 take over of the territory and the 1972 dissolution of the federation in favor of a Unitary Republic of Cameroon. Southern Cameroons scored a victory in a legal battle against the Republic of Cameroon when the African Commission for Human and Peoples' Rights found that there were unresolved issues with the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cameroon vis-a-vis Southern Cameroons. More importantly, the African Commission found that contrary to the claims of the Republic of Cameroon, the people of Southern Cameroons are indeed a "people" under the African Charter and broad international law with the inalienable right to determine their destiny.[74]
Southern Sudan reached a peace agreement with Sudan in 2005. It contained a referendum for self-determination in January 2011, during which an overwhelming majority voting for secession from northern Sudan.[75]
The Sri Lankan Tamils people seek self determination due to ethnic pogroms and discrimination by the majority Sinhala government's discrimination in language, education, jobs, and civil liberties.[76] The early non violent protests developed into a violent confrontation with the state and eventual civil war. Tamil independence advocates argue that former sovereignty of Tamils in their north eastern homeland that was lost during colonialism should be re-instated to meet Tamil aspirations.
Taiwan is the focus of a self-determination dispute in the East Asia region. The government of the People's Republic of China claims the entirety of Taiwan as its territory. However, Taiwanese independence advocates argue that there is no legal claim to Taiwan, as no legally binding treaty ever transferred sovereignty to China following World War II, an assertion with which not only the People's Republic of China but the Republic of China currently governing Taiwan disagree. This de facto government of Taiwan also has not formally withdrawn its claims to China and several other areas. The People's Republic of China proposes that the island become its own special administrative region of China.
Since Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus in 1974, following ethnic clashes and turmoil on the island, an administration recognized by Turkey only was declared in 1983 – the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.[77] Turkish Cypriots and their former leader, Fazıl Küçük said that Turkish Cypriots had the right of self-determination, as well as Greek Cypriots.[78]
The colonization of the North American continent and its Native American population has been the source of legal battles since the early 19th century. Surviving Native Americans have been resettled onto separate tracts of land (reservations), which have been given a certain degree of autonomy within the United States federal government.
Some Chicano nationalist groups seek to "recreate" Aztlán, the legendary homeland of the Aztecs comprising the Southwestern United States which is home to the majority of Mexican Americans.[79]
There is an active Hawaiian sovereignty movement which aims at recreating an independent Hawaiian nation or territorial units similar to Indian reservations. Some wish to reinstate the Hawaiian monarchy, which lost its soverignty largely because of the United States.
Since 1972, the U.N. Decolonization Committee has called for Puerto Rico's decolonization and for the U.S. 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 the political status of Puerto Rico, a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution.[80] This follows the 1967 passage of a plebiscite act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continued commonwealth, statehood, and independence. In the first plebscite the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes but U.S. congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998, the status quo was upheld.[81]
Many current U.S. state, regional and city secession groups use the language of self-determination. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[82][83]
So-called "Confederate Southern Americans", defined as white Christian descendents of those resident in the Confederate States of America at the onset of the Civil War (preferably having Scots or Scots-Irish descent), are seeking a "natural right to self-determination" by claiming "oppressed minority" status through Neo-Confederate groups such as the League of the South.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
