Self-determination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about self-determination in international law. For other uses, see Self-determination (disambiguation).
A republican mural in Belfast showing solidarity with the Basque nationalism.

The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form, the right to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

On 14 December 1960, the United Nations General Assembly adopted United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) under titled Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples provided for the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples in providing an inevitable legal linkage between self-determination and its goal of decolonisation, and a postulated new international law-based right of freedom also in economic self-determination. In Article 5 states: Immediate steps shall be taken in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,[7] or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom, moreover on 15 December 1960 the United Nations General Assembly adopted United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) under titled Principles which should guide members in determining whether or nor an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the United Nations Charter in Article 3 provided that [ i ] nadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. To monitor the implementation of Resolution 1514 in 1961 the General Assembly created the Special Committee referred to popularly as the Special Committee on Decolonization[8] to ensure decolonization complete compliance with the principle of self-determination in General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), 12 Principle of the Annex defining free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government[9] compliance with the principle of self-determination.[10][11]

"National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . "

Woodrow Wilson with his famous self-determination speech on 11 February 1918[12] after he announced his Fourteen Points on 8 January 1918.

By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.[13][14]

History[edit]

Pre-20th century[edit]

Origins[edit]

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.[6] 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.

Empires[edit]

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.[15]

Rebellions and emergence of nationalism[edit]

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.[6] The French Revolution was motivated similarly and legitimatized the ideas of self-determination on that Old World continent.[16][17]

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 the 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.[6]

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.[18] In 1914 Vladimir 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."[19]

World Wars I and II[edit]

Europe, Asia and Africa[edit]

Map of territorial changes in Europe after World War I (as of 1923)
Map of the world in 1945, showing United Nations Trusteeship Council territories in green[20]

Woodrow Wilson revived America's 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."[19] The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.[6]

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.[6] 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.[21]

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. By the Treaty of Kyakhta (1915) 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 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...

The Cold War world[edit]

The UN Charter[edit]

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.

  • Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."[22]
  • Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[23] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)[24] reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
  • The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

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.[25][26] 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.[6][27][28] 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.[25]

The communist versus capitalist worlds[edit]

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 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.[6] 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 contained 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 anti-communist countries and military interventions. Consequently, many self-determination movements, which spurned some type of anti-communist government, were accused of being Soviet-inspired or controlled.[6]

Asia[edit]

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 circumstances 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 Islamic Pakistan and Secular 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.[29] In 1971 Bangladesh obtained independence from 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.

North Borneo and Sarawak[edit]

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 North Borneo and Sarawak in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the new Malaya Federation.[30] 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 formation of Malaysia. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without any referendums self-determination being held.[31][32][33] Unlike in Singapore, however, no referendum was ever conducted in Sarawak and North Borneo.[34] they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there was Manila Accord, an agreement between the Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia on 31 July 1963[35][36] to abide by the wishes of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak within the context of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), Principle 9 of the Annex[37][38] taking into account referendums in North Borneo and Sarawak that would be free and without coercion.[39] This also triggered the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.[40][41]

After the Cold War[edit]

Celebration of the declaration of independence of the Kosovo in Vienna

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.[6]

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 by one or more major states. Significant movements for self-determination also persist for locations that lack de facto independence, such as Kurdistan, Balochistan, Chechnya, and the State of Palestine

Current issues[edit]

Southern Sudanese expressed joy and jubilation on their day of independence, July 9, 2011, from Sudan.

Since the early 1990s, the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, as sub-groups seek greater self-determination and even full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.[42] 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."[26][43]

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.[44] These include:

Defining "peoples"[edit]

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, with the notable exception of cases in which such groups are systematically disenfranchised by the government of the state they live in.[26] 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.[44] 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.[21]

Self-determination versus territorial integrity[edit]

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.[44] 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. [45][46][47][48]

Pavkovic and Radan describe three theories of international relations relevant to self-determination.

  • The realist theory of international relations insists that territorial sovereignty is more important than national self-determination. This policy was pursued by the major powers during the Cold War.
  • Liberal internationalism has become an alternative since that time. It promotes the abolition of war among states as well as increased individual liberty within states, and holds the expansion of global markets and cross-border cooperation diminishes the significance of territorial integrity, allowing for somewhat greater recognition of greater self-determination of peoples.
  • Cosmopolitan liberalism calls for political power to shift to a world government which would make secession and change of boundaries a relatively easy administrative matter. However, also would mean the de facto end of self-determination of national groups.[44]
Donetsk status referendum organized by separatists in Ukraine. A line to enter a polling place, 11 May 2014

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.[26]

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.[26]

A number of states have laid claim to territories, which they allege were removed from them as a result of colonialism. This is justified by reference to Paragraph 6 of UN Resolution 1514(XV), which states that any attempt "aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter". This, it is claimed, applies to situations where the territorial integrity of a state had been disrupted by colonisation, so that the people of a territory subject to a historic territorial claim are prevented from exercising a right to self-determination. This interpretation is rejected by many states, who argue that Paragraph 2 of UN Resolution 1514(XV) states that "all peoples have the right to self-determination" and Paragraph 6 cannot be used to justify territorial claims. The original purpose of Paragraph 6 was "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions". Further, the use of the word attempt in Paragraph 6 denotes future action and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past action.[49] An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.[50][51]

Methods of increasing minority rights[edit]

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.[44]

Self-determination versus majority rule/equal rights[edit]

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.[52][53]

Constitutional law[edit]

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.[54]

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."[55][56] 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.[44]

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."[54]

As of 1996 the constitutions of Austria, Ethiopia, France, Singapore,[citation needed] 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.[54]

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.[54] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities[57] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.

Drawing new borders[edit]

In determining international borders between sovereign states, self-determination has yielded to a number of other principles.[58] 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 opposed to being incorporated into a Quebec nation and even stated a determination to resist it by force.[44]

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.[citation needed]

Notable cases of self-determination[edit]

A republican mural in Belfast showing solidarity with Palestine

There have been a number of notable cases of self-determination. For more information on 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.

Australia[edit]

Recently (2003 onwards), self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In the 1970s, the Indigenous 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.

Basque Country[edit]

Main article: Basque nationalism

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.[citation needed] 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.[59] Since[citation needed] 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. It was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74.6% of the votes in the Basque Country.[60] However, the overall turnout in the Basque Country was 45% when the Spanish overall turnover was 67,91%. The derived autonomous regime for the BAC was approved by Spanish Parliament and also by the Basque citizens in referendum. The autonomous statue of Navarre (Amejoramiento del Fuero: "improvement of the charter") was approved by the Spanish Parliament and, like the statues of 13 out 17 Spanish autonomous communities, it didn´t need a referendum to enter into force.

A girl during the Nigerian Civil War of the late 1960s. Pictures of the famine caused by Nigerian blockade garnered sympathy for the Biafrans worldwide.

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (English: Basque Homeland and Freedom; pronounced [ˈeta]), is an armed Basque nationalist, separatist and terrorist 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.[61][62]

Biafra[edit]

Main article: Biafra

From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law.[63]

Canada[edit]

In Canada, many in the province of Quebec have wanted the province to separate from Confederation. The Parti Québécois has asserted Quebec's "right to self-determination." There is debate on under which conditions would this right be realized.[64] French-speaking Quebec nationalism and support for maintaining Québécois culture would inspire Quebec nationalists, many of whom were supporters of the Quebec sovereignty movement during the late-20th century.[65]

Catalonia[edit]

A mural in Belfast

After the 2012 Catalan march for independence, in which more than 1.5 million citizens marched, the President of Catalonia, Artur Mas, called for new parliamentary elections on 25 November 2012 to elect a new parliament that would exercise the right of self-determination for Catalonia. The Parliament of Catalonia voted to hold a 'referendum or consultation' in the next four-year legislature in which the people of Catalonia would decide on becoming a new independent and sovereign state. The parliamentary decision was approved by a large majority of MPs: 84 voted for, 21 voted against, and 25 abstained.[66] On December 2013 the President of the Generalitat Artur Mas and the governing coalition agreed to set the referendum for self-determination on 9 November 2014.

Chechnya[edit]

Under Dzhokhar 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 Akhmed Zakayev-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the UK and the USA), and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate.

Falkland Islands[edit]

Self-determination is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[67] and is a factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.[68] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.,[69] a wish re-iterated in the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum. As administering power, the British Government considers that, since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.[70]

Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population. Which was expelled by an 'act of force', forcing the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the occupied islands. This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[71]

Gibraltar[edit]

Gibraltar National Day, 2013

The right to self-determination is referred to in the pre-amble of Chapter 1 of the Gibraltar constitution,[72] and, since the United Kingdom also gave assurances that the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians would be respected in any transfer of sovereignty over the territory, is a factor in the dispute with Spain over the territory.[73] The impact of the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians was seen in the 2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, where Gibraltarian voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to share sovereignty over Gibraltar between the UK and Spain. However, the UK government differs with the Gibraltarian government in that it considers Gibraltarian self-determination to be limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, which prevents Gibraltar achieving independence without the agreement of Spain, a position that the Gibraltarian government does not accept.[74][not in citation given]

The Spanish government denies that Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination, considering them to be "an artificial population without any genuine autonomy" and not "indigenous".[75] However, the Partido Andalucista has agreed to recognise the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians.[76]

Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Main article: Kashmir 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.[77][78]

Kurdistan[edit]

Kurdish flag in northern Iraq, 2007

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 (Ağrı Province, Turkey), the Republic of Mehabad (West Azerbaijan Province, Iran) and the Kingdom of Kurdistan (Sulaymaniyah Province, Iraqi Kurdistan, 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.

Nagalim[edit]

Naga refers to a vaguely-defined conglomeration of distinct tribes living on the border of India and Burma. Each of these tribes lived in a sovereign village before the arrival of the British, but developed a common identity as the area was Christianized. After the British let India, a section of Nagas under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo sought to establish a separate country for the Nagas. Phizo's group, the Naga National Council (NNC), claimed that 99.9% of the Nagas wanted an independent Naga country according to a referendum conducted by it. It waged a secessionist insurgency against the Government of India. The NNC collapsed after Phizo got his dissenters killed or forced them to seek refuge with the Government.[79][80] Phizo escaped to London, while NNC's successor secessionist groups continued to stage violent attacks against the Indian Government. The Naga People's Convention (NPC), another major Naga organization, was opposed to the secessionists. Its efforts led to the creation of a separate Nagaland state within India in 1963.[81] The secessionst violence declined considerably ater the Shillong Accord of 1975. However, three factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) continue to seek an independent country which would include parts of India and Burma. They envisage a sovereign, predominantly Christian nation called "Nagalim".[82]

South Africa[edit]

Main article: Volkstaat

Section 235 of the South African Constitution allows for the right to self-determination of a community, within the framework of "the right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination", and pursuant to national legislation.[83] This section of the constitution was one of the negotiated settlements during the handing over of political power in 1994. Supporters of an independent white homeland have argued that their goals are reasonable under this new legislation.[83]

Turkish Cypriots[edit]

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.[84] Turkish Cypriots and their former leader, Fazıl Küçük said that Turkish Cypriots had the right of self-determination, as well as Greek Cypriots.[85] The Turkish Cypriots prior to the invasion constituted an 18% minority and were not concentrated in a specific region of the island. Only after the forced removal of the Greek Cypriots from the North of Cyprus did they form a local majority.

United States[edit]

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 retained a certain degree of autonomy within the United States. The federal government recognizes Tribal Sovereignty and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments. The Constitution and later federal laws recognize the local sovereignty of tribal nations, but do not recognize full sovereignty equivalent to that of foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations".

Certain Chicano nationalist groups seek to "recreate" an ethnic-based state called Aztlán, the legendary homeland of the Aztecs comprising the Southwestern United States.[86] Furthermore, black nationalists have a claim to the black belt region of the United States, from which to form an independeny black state of New Afrika.

There are multiple active Hawaiian autonomy or independence movements each with their own distinct modality of realizing some level of political control over single or several islands. The groups range from those seeking territorial units similar to Indian reservations under the United States with the least amount of independent control to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement which would have the most amount of control, The Hawaiian Sovereignty movement aims at reviving the Hawaiian nation under the Hawaiian constitution, which supposedly has retained its sovereignty while under control 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.[87] 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.[88] In a referendum that took place in November 2012, a majority Puerto Rican residents voted to change the territory's relationship with the United States, with the statehood option apparently being the preferred option, however a large number of ballots—one-third of all votes cast—were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. When counted, the blank votes are viewed as anti-statehood votes, resulting that the statehood option would have received less than 50% of all ballots received.[89] As of January 2014, Washington has not taken action to address the results of this plebiscite.

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."[90][91]

It is important to note that in the case of Hawaii, the struggle for self-determination does not fall under secession, as it is less a break from federal administration, than a return to the process through which cession was claimed to have occurred: namely the ongoing occupation via a US imposed military coup; and/or removal from the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The US largely ignored its Sacred Trust[92] to educate or properly inform the citizenry of Hawaii of its options for self-determination and sidestepped guidelines laid out in UN General Assembly resolution 742 (1953).[93] U.N. Resolution 742 declares that one of the “factors indicative of the attainment of independence or of other separate systems of self-government,” is “freedom of choosing on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities including independence.”[94]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ See: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 in Wikisource states
  2. ^ McWhinney, Edward (2007). Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-Building and the Alternative, Federal Option. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 8. ISBN 9004158359. 
  3. ^ See: Chapter I - Purposes and Principles of Charter of the United Nations
  4. ^ See: Clause 3 of the Atlantic Charter reads: "Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them" then became one of the eight cardinal principal points of the Charter all people had a right to self-determination.
  5. ^ "United Nations Trust Territories that have achieved self-determination". Un.org. 1960-12-14. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Betty Miller Unterberger, Self-Determination, Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, 2002.
  7. ^ "Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories listed by the United Nations General Assembly". Un.org. Retrieved 2014-04-10. 
  8. ^ See : United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)
  9. ^ See: General Assembly 15th Session - resolution 1541 (XV)[dead link] (pages:509-510)
  10. ^ See:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514
  11. ^ See:United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages:509-510)[dead link]
  12. ^ "President Wilson's Address to Congress, Analyzing German and Austrian Peace Utterances (Delivered to Congress in Joint Session on February 11, 1918)". gwpda.org. February 11, 1918. Retrieved September 5, 2014. 
  13. ^ "Merriam-Webster online dictionary". Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  14. ^ Answers.com definition.
  15. ^ Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Since 1500 , p. 767, Cengage Learning, 2008, ISBN 0-495-50287-1, ISBN 978-0-495-50287-6.
  16. ^ Chimène Keitner, Oxford University, Self-Determination: The Legacy of the French Revolution, paper presented at International Studies Association Annual Meeting, March 2000.
  17. ^ "Self-Determination Not a New Expedient; First Plebiscite Was Held in Avignon During the French Revolution—Forthcoming Book Traces History and Growth of the Movement", New York Times, July 20, 1919, 69.
  18. ^ Erica Benner, ‘’Really existing nationalisms: a post-communist view from Marx and Engels’‘, p. 188, Oxford University Press, 1995 ISBN 0-19-827959-0, ISBN 978-0-19-827959-4
  19. ^ a b "What Is Meant By The Self-Determination of Nations?". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  20. ^ "http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world45.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  21. ^ a b Murray N. Rothbard, National Self-Determination, Rothbard Archives at Lewrockwell.com, August 1990.
  22. ^ "United Nations Charter". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. [dead link]
  23. ^ "Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". .ohchr.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. [dead link]
  24. ^ "Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights". .ohchr.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. [dead link]
  25. ^ a b Paul R. Hensel and Michael E. Allison, Department of Political Science Florida State University and Ahmed Khanani, Department of Political Science, Indiana University, The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability: Uti Possidetis and Territorial Claims in the Americas, research paper at Paul Hensel's Florida State university web site.
  26. ^ a b c d e Vita Gudeleviciute, Does the Principle of Self-determination Prevail over the Principle of Territorial Integrity?, International Journal of Baltic Law, Vytautas Magnus University School of Law, Volume 2, No. 2 (April 2005).
  27. ^ Resolution 1514 (XV) "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"
  28. ^ Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples[dead link], General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.
  29. ^ [1] p.220
  30. ^ "United Nations Treaty Series Nr.10760: Agreement relating to Malaysia" (PDF). United Nations Treaty Collection. United Nations. July 1963. Retrieved 2010-07-29. [dead link]
  31. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514
  32. ^ "United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages:509-510)" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. [dead link]
  33. ^ "United Nations General Assembly 18th Session - the Question of Malaysia (pages:41-44)" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. [dead link]
  34. ^ Jeffrey Kitingan: There was no Sabah referendum, published by Free Malaysia Today, March 8, 2013.
  35. ^ "United Nations Treaty Registered No. 8029, Manila Accord between Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 JULY 1963)". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-05-29. 
  36. ^ "United Nations Treaty Series No. 8809, Agreement relating to the implementation of the Manila Accord". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-05-29. 
  37. ^ General Assembly 15th Session – The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages:509–510)[dead link]
  38. ^ General Assembly 18th Session – the Question of Malaysia (pages:41–44)[dead link]
  39. ^ "United Nations Treaty Registered No. 8029, Manila Accord between Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 JULY 1963)" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-04-10. 
  40. ^ "United Nations list of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, North Borneo and Sarawak". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  41. ^ "United Nations Member States". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  42. ^ Martin Griffiths, Self-determination, International Society And World Order, Macquarie University Law Journal, 1, 2003.
  43. ^ "United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (08 09 2000), paragraph 4." (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  44. ^ a b c d e f g Aleksandar Pavkovic and Peter Radan, In Pursuit of Sovereignty and Self-determination: Peoples, States and Secession in the International Order, Index of papers, Macquerie University Law Journal, 1, 2003.
  45. ^ "Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and their implications for international peace, security and development. The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, Security Council, Sixty-third year/ General Assembly, Sixty-third session, Agenda items 13 and 18, A/63/664–S/2008/823, 29 December 2008" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. [dead link]
  46. ^ "Prof. Johan D. van der Vyver (Professor of International Law and Human Rights, Emory University School of Law), Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec Under International Law, Journal of TRANSNATIONAL LAW & POLICY, Vol. 10:1, FALL 2000, USA" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  47. ^ CRIA. "M.Mammadov, Legal Aspects of the Nagorno-Garabagh Conflict, Caucasian Review of International Affairs, Vol. 1 (1) - Winter 2006, Germany, pp. 14-30". Cria-online.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  48. ^ "S. Neil MacFarlane (Professor of International Relations and Fellow, St Anne's College, University of Oxford), Normative Conflict – Territorial Integrity and National Self-Determination, Centre for Social Sciences, December 14, 2010". Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  49. ^ Thomas D. Musgrave (2000). Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford University Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-19-829898-4. Retrieved 5 March 2012. 
  50. ^ [2][dead link] Falkland Islands Government, Dick Sawle MLA, The Challenge of Sovereignty in small states As I mentioned previously, the UN itself, in 2008, rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming self-determination to be “a basic human right.”
  51. ^ "General Assembly GA/SPD/406". UN Department of Public Information. 20 October 2008. Retrieved March 10, 2012. 
  52. ^ Aleksandar Pavković, Majority Rule and Equal Rights: a Few Questions, Macquarie University Law Journal, 1, 2003.
  53. ^ Harry Beran, "A Democratic Theory of Political Self-Determination for a New World Order" in Percy Lehning (ed), Theories of Secession (1998) 36, 39, 42–43.
  54. ^ a b c d Andrei Kreptul, The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100.
  55. ^ Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession, p. 222, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
  56. ^ Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection.
  57. ^ Xenophon Contiades, Sixth Scholarly Panel: Cultural Identity in the New Europe[dead link], 1st Global Conference on Federalism and the Union of European Democracies, March 2004.
  58. ^ Sebastian Anstis, The Normative Bases of the Global Territorial Order, Diplomacy & Statecraft, Volume 21, no. 2 (June 2010), pp. 306–323.
  59. ^ "EITB: Basque parliament adopts resolution on self-determination". Eitb24.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  60. ^ [3][dead link]
  61. ^ ¿QUÉ ES EL MLNV? ( y 4) "What is the MNLV (4)"
  62. ^ "What is the MNLV (3)" (in Spanish). Goizargi.com. 2002-01-27. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  63. ^ "Nigeria profile". BBC Africa. May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2012. 
  64. ^ Guy Leblanc. Canada: Parti Québécois convention meets as support for separation wanes
  65. ^ Dominique Clift (1982). Quebec nationalism in crisis. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. pp. 106–108. ISBN 978-0-7735-0383-0. 
  66. ^ "Two thirds of the Catalan Parliament approve organising a self-determination citizen vote within the next 4 years". Catalan News Agency. 28 September 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2012. [dead link]
  67. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  68. ^ Victor Bulmer-Thomas (17 August 1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-521-37205-3. Retrieved 11 September 2012. 
  69. ^ "Falklands’ 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-08-09. 
  70. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  71. ^ [4][dead link] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  72. ^ "The Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006". Gibraltarlaws.gov.gi. 2006-12-14. Retrieved 2013-07-11. 
  73. ^ "Gibraltar’s Quest for Self-Determination: A Critique of Gibraltar’s New Constitution". OREGON REVIEW OF INT’L LAW [Vol. 9, 2007]. 2007. Retrieved 2013-07-11. 
  74. ^ Despatch. Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006, section 5
  75. ^ "Andalusian nationalists say ‘yes’ to Gibraltar’s self-determination". Gibraltar Chronicle. 11 July 2013. Retrieved 11 July 2013. 
  76. ^ "Right To Self-determination, A Key To Kashmir Solution". Countercurrents.org. 24 February 2007. Retrieved 12 August 2009.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
  77. ^ Kashmiri-cc.ca on UN Resolution 47[dead link] and United Nation resolutions on Kashmir[dead link].
  78. ^ Chaube, Shibani Kinkar (1999) [1973]. Hill politics in Northeast India. Orient Longman. pp. 153–161. ISBN 81-250-1695-3. OCLC 42913576. 
  79. ^ Samaddar, Ranabir (2004). The Politics of Dialogue: Living Under the Geopolitical Histories of War and Peace. Ashgate. pp. 171–173. ISBN 978-0-7546-3607-6. OCLC 56466278. 
  80. ^ Hamlet Bareh (2001). Encyclopaedia of North-East India: Nagaland. Mittal Publications. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-81-7099-793-1. 
  81. ^ Dr. Kunal Ghosh (1 January 2008). Separatism in North East India: Role of Religion, Language and Script. Suruchi Prakashan. p. 85. ISBN 978-81-89622-33-6. 
  82. ^ a b "Section 235". South African Constitution. 1996. Retrieved 2009-05-17. 
  83. ^ "BBC Timeline: Cyprus, accessed 2-26-2008". BBC News. 2011-12-13. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  84. ^ Küçük, Fazıl. Mücadelemizin Görkemli Günleri, p.10
  85. ^ Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'[dead link], Associated Press, 2000
  86. ^ "Special Committee on Decolonization Calls on United States to Expedite Puerto Rico’s Self-determination Process – General Assembly GA/COL/3160 – Department of Public Information – June 14, 2007". Un.org. Retrieved 2012-03-04. 
  87. ^ For complete statistics of these plebiscites, see Elections in Puerto Rico:Results.
  88. ^ Castillo, Mariano (November 8, 2012). "Puerto Ricans favor statehood for the first time". CNN. 
  89. ^ Middlebury Institute/Zogby Poll: One in Five Americans Believe States Have the Right to Secede, Zogby International, July 23, 2008.
  90. ^ Alex Mayer, Secession: still a popular idea?[dead link], St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 25, 2008.
  91. ^ Sacred Trust
  92. ^ Statehood Hawaii
  93. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 742 (VIII)

Bibliography[edit]

  • Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., ed. The Self-Determination of Peoples: Community, Nation, and State in an Interdependent World, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
  • Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., and Arthur Watts, eds. Self-Determination and Self-Administration: A Sourcebook, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997.
  • Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford Political Theory), Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.
  • Annalisa Zinn, Globalization and Self-Determination (Kindle Edition), Taylor & Francis, 2007.
  • Marc Weller, Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution (Kindle Edition), Taylor & Francis, 2007.
  • Valpy Fitzgerald, Frances Stewart, Rajesh Venugopal (Editors), Globalization, Violent Conflict and Self-Determination, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
  • Joanne Barker (Editor), Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination, University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
  • David Raic, Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (Developments in International Law, V. 43) (Developments in International Law, V. 43), Springer, 2002.
  • Y.N. Kly and D. Kly, In pursuit of The Right to Self-determination, Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination & the United Nations, Geneva 2000, G E N E V A 2000, preface by Richard Falk, Clarity Press, 2001.
  • Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures), Cambridge University Press, 1999.
  • Percy Lehning, Theories of Secession, Routledge, 1998.
  • Hurst Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.

External links[edit]