Self-determination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to (for instance by plebiscite). It is commonly used to justify the aspirations of an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation toward forming an independent sovereign state.
Although there is a consensus that international law recognizes the principle of self-determination, the principle does not, by itself, define which group is a nation, which groups are entitled to sovereignty, or what territory they should get for that purpose. It's application in international law creates a tension between this principle and the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs.
The principle of self-determination formally expresses a central claim of nationalism, namely the entitlement of each nation to it own nation state. It has itself become a typical demand of nationalist movements. However, the formal expression of the principle came later than the nationalist movements, and the first nation-states. In the 20th century the principle was central to the process of decolonisation, but its use is not limited to contesting colonialist or imperialist rule.
Some interpretations of the principle in ethics treat it as a translation or extension of universal rights of individuals (political freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech) to a group. Sometimes it is treated as a specific collective right, distinct from individual rights. It is a disputed principle in ethics, with some arguing that no such entitlement exists, other than perhaps the right to resist or secede from tyranny.
Contents |
[edit] History and overview
The principle that a state should be sovereign and autonomous has long been associated with the idea of the state itself. The ideal of self-determination by a specific population (rather than their rulers) is of later origin. Early statements of the principle can be found in the Declaration of Independence of the United States. In 1859 John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that political communities are entitled collectively to determine their own affairs. He argues that states should be seen as self-determining communities even if their internal political arrangements are not free, self-determination and political freedom are not equivalent terms.
[edit] Wilsonianism
This principle was first applied to the modern international relations context by Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points of January 1918, in which he set out a blueprint for a just and lasting peace in Europe after World War I. The Wilsonian approach influenced the idealist tradition in International Relations, which has at times supported military intervention in support of self-determination.
[edit] The Soviet Union
The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged this right for its sister republics (although not for declared "autonomous" regions), but was not applied in practice until the Perestroika, when it led to the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Lenin supported the concept of the right of a culturally distinct grouping to self-determination, albeit within the framework of proletarian internationalism and, as it turned out in the policy of the Soviet Union. The policy of Korenizatsiya seemed to indicate Lenin's sincere belief in national self-determination. However, Lenin also assumed that the populations of the ethnically diverse Soviet republics were voluntarily confederated with Russia in the form of the Soviet Union. During the German invasion in 1941, some national minorities saw the invading forces as liberators, and some fought with Nazi Germany. After the Soviet victory, this was treated as collaboration: the issue is still contentious in the Baltic States.
In regard to a long running argument going on between Rosa Luxembourg, right-wing tendencies within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, and the Bolsheviks, Lenin said:
...[T]he tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. ... [T]he national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period. Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations ... by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. ...[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning-anything but the right to existence as a separate state." -Lenin, What Is Meant By The Self-Determination of Nations?
[edit] The UN Charter
At the ratification of the UN Charter in post World War II 1945, the signatories introduced the right of all people to self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy. In addition, the right to self-determination holds the prestigious position of Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Its presence in the two covenants points to the right's complex nature and importance.
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the United Nations states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality. Self-determination is often invoked in national liberation struggles, secession of territories and constitutional disputes about how this right can be expressed to the satisfaction of opposing interest groups.
[edit] Conflict with territorial integrity
At the time of the UN Charter, the focus was on the former colonies of the Axis powers, and implicitly on all overseas colonies. There was no intention to support secessionist claims in, for instance, European states. However, the concept of self-determination is by definition in tension with that of territorial integrity, which is an older principle of international law. Territorial integrity applies to integral parts of a state, and since the colonies were not seen as such (except by France), their independence was not seen as an attack on the principle. The importance attached to territorial integrity was exemplified by adherence to the principle of uti possidetis during the decolonization process. The colonial borders were retained at independence, even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic and cultural boundaries. Once these new nation-states were established in Africa and Asia, some felt that the principle had been sufficiently applied, and that the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention should again prevail. Certainly, the United Nations never supported any secession during the Cold War, other than from a colonial power.
When some of the newly independent ex-colonies faced secessionist and irredentist movements, the international consensus was that self-determination did not apply to these movements. The consensus defined a "people" entitled to self-determination as persons living in a particular geographic area, rather than persons sharing a common culture or language (a nation). This did not generally promote the political aspirations of oppressed ethnic minorities. Since the end of the Cold War, however, this consensus has eroded. Most notably, western powers gave covert and overt support to the serial secession of the constituent Republics of Yugoslavia. One of these conflicts, in Kosovo (formerly an autonomous district within the Serbian republic), is still unresolved.
Self-determination is a notoriously difficult principle to define and apply. A state is self-determining even if its citizens strive, and fail, to create free political institutions, however in turn, it is deprived of its self-determination if such institutions are established by an external power. Mill argued that the members of a political community must seek their own freedom, just as they may seek to be virtuous, they cannot be 'set free' just as an individual cannot be made virtuous. In this way self-determination can be seen to be a parallel to state sovereignty.
Given the perceived risk of constant fragmentation, states have approached self-determination cautiously. Methods of self-determination range from sovereignty referendum, as in the case of the people of Quebec in Canada, or as an armed struggle in the case of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. The threat of fragmentation due to self-determination can be regarded as very dangerous to other communities in a country, especially if the groups striving for self-determination live in an area with the majority of a country's wealth. On the other hand, supporters of self-determination argue that if the wealth is coming from the land they live in the local inhabitants deserve the wealth not the country as a whole. This is an important dimension of the self-determination arguments in Iraq and Nigeria as well as many other countries.
[edit] Twentieth Century issues
[edit] Vietnam
- See also: First Indochina War
French Indochina came out of World War Two having defeated the Japanese invasion, and yet was still a colony of the French Empire. France was arguably too weak militarily and economically, and perhaps psychologically, to maintain control of the territory, especially during the First Indochina War in the early 1950's. After the French defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, a conference convened in Geneva, Switzerland to resolve the dispute. The Geneva Conference (1954) divided the country into North Vietnam and South Vietnam, and guaranteed the Vietnamese self-determination, through a plebiscite to be held in July of 1956.The committee was too weak to enforce the accord, and South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem refused to allow free elections for determination. A Communist resistance was formed against Diem's government (the Viet Cong), sowing the seeds of the Vietnam War.
[edit] Scotland
Scotland has been part of Great Britain since 1707. In the 1980s and 1990s efforts began in earnest to create a devolved parliament in Scotland, deriving power from the British Parliament. Such a parliament was put into place in 1999, after a referendum in 1997. It grants Scotland specific powers, and a real measure of self-determination.
[edit] Current issues
[edit] Australia
Recently (2003 onwards), self-determination has become a topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aborigines (indigenous Australians). In the 1980s, 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.
[edit] Turkish Cypriots
Since 1974, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (a state recognized by Turkey only), has been governing the northern part of the Mediterranean island, Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot community used their right of self-determination after the Greek Cypriots and Greek junta jeopardized their mutual existence on the island and their partnership in the Republic of Cyprus.
[edit] Self-determination issues of the United States
The colonisation of the North American continent and its Native American population has been the source of legal battles since the early 1800's. The Westward push of European-American settlers eventually brought about the destruction of most Native American cultures, and what few remained were reduced to living on reservations. These had been given a certain degree of autonomy, within the United States federal government, which allows for their exclusion from various national legal restrictions.
There is an active Hawaiian sovereignty movement which aims at rectifying the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in the late 19th century which resulted in the incorporation of Hawaii into the United States. They hold that self-determination was never granted to native Hawaiians after the overthrow and thus a large measure of autonomy or independence should be granted to Hawaii. Opponents allege that this would violate the self-determination rights of the non-Hawaiian majority living in Hawaii now.
Some historians argue that the South was fighting for self-determination during the American Civil War, however others argue that the point is invalid because the South was repressing not only the self-determination rights of African Americans (a majority in some of the Confederate states) but also basic human rights in the institution of slavery.
Further, there have at times been calls for local self-determination by ethnic minority communities. For example, the Young Lords, a Puerto Rican internationalist group founded in Lincoln Park, Chicago in 1968, called not only for independence for Puerto Rico but also for neighborhood empowerment within cities in the continental United States, which they characterized as self-determination in every barrio or neighborhood.
[edit] Israel and Palestine
The right to self-determination as outlined in the public international law is often referenced by both sides in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict —Palestinians assert a nationalist right to self-determination that has been and is currently hindered by Israeli policies in the regions it militarily occupies. Israel was, in turn, formed under the right to self-determination as outlined in the U.N. Charter, and still regularly cites this principle in its defense against anti-Zionist criticisms that argue or imply that Israel is not a legitimate state within the international community.
British support for Zionism was originally advanced by Lord Palmerston ,who was a very successful means by which European Jewry would establish a colonial outpost in the Middle East that would be European in culture, grateful to European power, and therefore friendly to European interests. This purpose was in mind when the Mandate of Palestine was formed, and, according to Israel's critics, remains effective to this day. Hence Western support for Israel is commonly criticized by Palestinians as being colonialist in nature, and likewise Israel itself is criticized as being colonial both culturally and functionally. These criticisms continue despite Israeli claims to territorial precedence homeland, the immigration of Jews from communities in the Middle East and North Africa, and the anti-colonialist character of the self-determination principle. According to Freedom House, Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. However, Freedom House notes that its governance in areas of the West Bank falls short in terms of political and civil liberties.
Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Old City) and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip from 1949 through 1967. Throughout those years, the King of Jordan had annexed the West Bank, providing its residents with citizenship, but not with the right of mobility across the Jordan River. The king forbid the use of the word "Palestine" on official documents. The Jordanian position on this was that historically the East and West Bank had been one cultural entity and thus one nationality though Palestinians dispute this. This led to open fighting between Palestinian refugees and the Jordanian government in 1970. However, in 1988, the Jordanian government relinquished its claim to the West Bank. Egypt never annexed the Gaza, and denied its residents of citizenship and did not allow its residents to move into Egypt or anywhere else. Despite this Egypt was not subject to a rebellion. In fact, the Palestine Liberation Organization was created in 1964 by the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt, and was controlled by and large by the Egyptian government. Neither country attempted to relieve the refugee crisis (although Jordan did alleviate this somewhat by granting Palestinians citizenship) and neither allowed (to different extents) self-determination in these territories. . The PLO stated its goal to be the destruction of the State of Israel through armed struggle, and replacing it with an "independent Palestinian state" between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Israelis argue this would deny self-determination by the millions of Israelis now living there.
[edit] Kosovo
Kosovo Albanians are currently trying to seek independence from Serbia on the grounds of self-determination. In any officially-sanctioned referendum it is likely a majority of the 2 million ethnic Albanians will favour independence, while the minority 100,000 Serbs will oppose it. The case for self-determination in Kosovo was heightened by the 2006 referendum in Montenegro that saw a vote for independence.
[edit] Jammu and Kashmir
Kashmiri Muslims in Indian Occupied Kashmir (the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir) are currently trying to seek full Independence for the whole region from India on the grounds of its right to self-determination. In any official-sanctioned referendum it is likely a majority of the of the 2 million ethnic Kashmiris including Azad Kashmir will favour seperation as a last resort despite close ties with Pakistanis.
[edit] Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland offers a complex demonstration of the problems of self-determanition. In this case it is establishing who is eligible to vote in any such referendum. A majority of the population of Northern Ireland still favours continued union with Great Britain, and will do for the forseeable future. However there are claims by Irish nationalists that any vote should be taken by the whole of Ireland. This would most likely result in Northern Ireland joining the rest of Ireland in a 32-county Republic.
A plebiscite in 1973 showed overwhelming support for the union with Great Britain, but this was boycotted by most nationalists.
[edit] Spain
Movements are pushing for independence amongst the Basques, Catalans and Galicians
[edit] See also
- Nationalism
- Ethnic nationalism
- Identity politics
- International relations theory
- Nation-state
- Non-Intervention
- Sovereignty
- Anglo-French Declaration, November 7, 1918
- Wars of national liberation
- Puerto Rican Independence Movement
- Self-ownership
- Individualist anarchism
[edit] External links
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV). "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"
- Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization on Self-determination
- Self Determination - International Law and Practiseat tamilnation.org
- Parliamentarians for National Self-Determination Unofficial page for London based Parliamentary lobby group
- The Right of Nations to Self-Determination V. I. Lenin February-May 1914
