The right of self-determination VS territorial integrity

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The right of self-determination is the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state. In other words, it is the right of the people of a certain nation to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other country. However it challenges the principle of territorial integrity of states because it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies that people should be free to choose their own state and its territorial boundaries.

The UN Charter says

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 charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, but during the decolonization of Africa, declaring independence and forming new states was acceptable by referring to the right of self-determination.

The Helsinki Final Act (international treaty, concluded in 1975) states that

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self- determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The Helsinki Final Act also enables to modify state borders through peaceful negotiations and the approval of the population. This treaty also laid down that

The participating States recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well- being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States.

In a reading, this ensures the right to self determination and obliges the states to acknowledge this right. But what happens if a certain group of people wishes to establish a state or join another state? As I mentioned earlier, this was acceptable during the decolonization. But the content of this right is not so clear now, take the example of Kosovo that separated from Yugoslavia by the intervention of the international community and became a de facto proctetorate.

Do you think that the right of self-determination establishes the right to form new states?
Who has the right to self-determination? Who are the "peoples" the UN Charter mentions? Nations or minorities as well? Who can tell the difference?


edit: Can a mod move this to the Political Academy, please?

[Chim]

Thread moved to the Political Academy. Have fun!

[Viking Prince]

Wilsonian concepts are a real failure. This is one such concept.

Slicing and dicing of territories has no logical end to it until we are all countries of one person. The state must protect the minorities -- since in one sense we are all at one point or another a part of such a minority.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Wilsonian concepts are a real failure. This is one such concept.

This one is older, at least as old as the Declaration of Independence. Wilson only revived the idea.

Slicing and dicing of territories has no logical end to it until we are all countries of one person. The state must protect the minorities -- since in one sense we are all at one point or another a part of such a minority.

This is interesting, because you live in the USA, yet you don't accept that people should be able to determine their own political status and independence, which means you don't accept the very principles your country was formed upon. It means you would find it fair that North America would still be under British rule.

[Viking Prince]

This one is older, at least as old as the Declaration of Independence. Wilson only revived the idea.

Perhaps -- I still blame him for the codification in international law.

btw -- the basis of the Declaration of Independence was the lack of representation and the unequal treatment as a minority. The solution should have been a correction of the problem. The issue was what authority could enforce such a solution? Today, for example, in Kosovo we have such an international authority (NATO) and Kosovo need not be made seperate from Serbia. Even in Wilson's day, the international community could enforce such issues and did when it suited the international community. As far as the colonial powers and Africa, it can be argued in most cases that the lands were never incorporated into the mother land. France's Algeria is an exception, but even there not all ciizens were truly treated equally.

[IrishHitman]

In a reading, this ensures the right to self determination and obliges the states to acknowledge this right. But what happens if a certain group of people wishes to establish a state or join another state? As I mentioned earlier, this was acceptable during the decolonization. But the content of this right is not so clear now, take the example of Kosovo that separated from Yugoslavia by the intervention of the international community and became a de facto proctetorate.

Do you think that the right of self-determination establishes the right to form new states?
Who has the right to self-determination? Who are the "peoples" the UN Charter mentions? Nations or minorities as well? Who can tell the difference?

edit: Can a mod move this to the Political Academy, please?

The UN mission was handed over to the EU.....
It's a NATO-EU protectorate now.

[Boer]

This is a serious issue that I've been giving a fair amount of thought to in the last year or so. On the one extreme are situations like ethnic cleansing in a state, a clear catalyst for the country to split into two waring states. Most people support the division of former Yugoslavia for that reason. But you find less support when a group is simply disenfranchised from the political system and wants a new country.

And how small does the right to self-determination go? I mean, could the state of Colorado become its own country only to have the city of Colorado Springs become its own? This is a serious topic that has many real world application.

[4th Regiment]

UN right for self determination can not be applied to Kosovo since Albanians have their own national state just across the border!!!

UN chapters are very clear that it can be used only by nations with no national state or former colonies. If it is apply to any minority or/and border dispute in world - chaos is too tender word to describe what would happened

Why and how it happened under patronage of some circles in Clinton administration was explained and discussed too many times here. What we have now is security, criminal, corrupted, chaotic, non-self sufficient, organized crime, drug lords safe haven, black whole in mid of the Europe. I will certainly teach my children not to accept such a “fact” as well ass most of people I know, no matter puppet government and western control media and NGOs try to brainwash whole nation of Serbia for years now.

Next year in Prizren! (As the Jews use to say - Next year in Jerusalem)

[Yuiis]

The issue here is that there is a huge controversy in modern western democracies. We think that we live in the ultimate and best democratic systems but one of the most important issues that marks the life of our citizens is not voted democratically. This issue is the issue of boundaries (self-determination etc.). The perfect western democratic states still believe that boundaries should be fought and killed for, and that democracy takes no part in this issue.

The UN charter is quite clear though:

"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."

but even if these western countries have voted for it, we all know that UN is so weak and useless in these issues that it will never pose a threat to each countrie's current situation. UN charter is only valid for third world countries or unstabilized states. Democracy is only valid when there is murder, assassination, ethnic cleansing or any sort of similar drama.

There is but one exception that I can recall to all this, which is the state of Canada.

[seal]

And how small does the right to self-determination go? I mean, could the state of Colorado become its own country only to have the city of Colorado Springs become its own? This is a serious topic that has many real world application.

Normally, I support self-determination, but at some point it has to pass the logic test. Your examples demonstrate this eloquently. If Coloradans decided they wanted to be independant nation because a lack of representational rights in Washington, what would happen? The would be politically, geographically, and economically dependant on the United States, with even less say in their future. Even more so for the mighty city-state of Colorado Springs. If a group can show that they can truly be independant in all forms, than they deserve to have at least have a plebisite to decide the issue. Full independance is really the litmus to whether or not self-determination is possible.

[Treize]

People should have the right of there own state, BUT ONLY in there historical lands.

Making Israel (particially), kosovo and the Tamil state illigitimate.
But Ossetia and Abkazia are OK.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

People should have the right of there own state, BUT ONLY in there historical lands.

Making Israel (particially), kosovo and the Tamil state illigitimate.
But Ossetia and Abkazia are OK.

I agree, historical origins should be an important factor. Unfortunately this is not how modern politics work. If a new group of people occupy this land - with historical relevance to another group of people - they will claim this land as their own.

[IrishHitman]

People should have the right of there own state, BUT ONLY in there historical lands.

Making Israel (particially), kosovo and the Tamil state illigitimate.
But Ossetia and Abkazia are OK.

Ah, so Britain has a right to most of France because the Brits occupied most of it during the Hundred Years War period?

[Treize]

Ah, so Britain has a right to most of France because the Brits occupied most of it during the Hundred Years War period?

No, but I suppose we could give them Ireland:hmmm:

[Scar Face]

Why isn't there an option saying no minority rights, and territorial integrity? God I hate badly made polls.

[Sidmen]

People should have the right of there own state, BUT ONLY in there historical lands.

What makes land historical? Is owning the land for a year historical? Ten years? Fifty? A hundred? A thousand? At what point do you say "Sorry, but your people only arrived here 200 years ago, so you don't get to be your own country."

[Dromikaites]

The practice after WW2 shows self-determination results in new states being created (some with wide international recognition some without) only if the permanent members of the UN Security Council who have real influence in the area agree with and maybe even support the separation. In other words, nothing happens in an abstract setting. The separatists win only if there is material and diplomatic support for their cause among the big guys who matter in that region. If not, tough luck!

Another aspect is the democratic superpowers need some moral reasons to support a separatist movement. As long as there is no ethnic cleansing or genocide going on separatist movements would have zero support from a democratic superpower. Case in point: all the separatist movements and separatist parties in the EU member countries.

As long as they don't resort to bombings they are free to run for elections, suggest modifications of the constitutions of the respective countries, etc. Most of their proposals fail to gain the support of the majority and are rejected through the democratic process. When some hot-headed separatists say "we can never win through the democratic process because we are a minority so the only solution to achieve independence is armed struggle" their organizations are labeled as terrorist and every democratic country cooperates in suppressing them.

The logic behind this apparently cynical attitude of the functional democracies is simple: "a lot of immigrants want to become citizens of this country while you want out, nobody is oppressing you and still you engage in terrorism, tough luck, you're fair game!"

[Yuiis]

The practice after WW2 shows self-determination results in new states being created (some with wide international recognition some without) only if the permanent members of the UN Security Council who have real influence in the area agree with and maybe even support the separation. In other words, nothing happens in an abstract setting. The separatists win only if there is material and diplomatic support for their cause among the big guys who matter in that region. If not, tough luck!

I agree with you here. This is why I question the supposed "democracy" that these "superpowers" are so proud of.

Another aspect is the democratic superpowers need some moral reasons to support a separatist movement. As long as there is no ethnic cleansing or genocide going on separatist movements would have zero support from a democratic superpower. Case in point: all the separatist movements and separatist parties in the EU member countries.

Again I agree and this is the most flagrant example of this sort of double moral and hypocrisy. The moral reason should be democracy itself. The message that EU countries are throwing in the air is: "We need some sort of ethnic massacre to occur in order to support separatism, democracy alone is not valid. Go ahead and kill yourself for this or we won't support you". Oddly enough, when some minor groups go ahead and kill or get killed for these reasons, they are labeled as terrorists.

As long as they don't resort to bombings they are free to run for elections, suggest modifications of the constitutions of the respective countries, etc. Most of their proposals fail to gain the support of the majority and are rejected through the democratic process. When some hot-headed separatists say "we can never win through the democratic process because we are a minority so the only solution to achieve independence is armed struggle" their organizations are labeled as terrorist and every democratic country cooperates in suppressing them.

The term minority here is very relative. They can be a minority in the state, but in their nation they are a majority. And it is simply not democratic and even dictatorial to a point to prohibit what a majority has voted for.

Example:
-Proposal for referendum on self-determination in the Basque Country.
-A majority of the Basque Parliment votes for it.

-This proposal is banned in Madrid.

Conclusion: Majorities/democracy doesn't count for the spanish state.

[Dromikaites]

Again I agree and this is the most flagrant example of this sort of double moral and hypocrisy. The moral reason should be democracy itself. The message that EU countries are throwing in the air is: "We need some sort of ethnic massacre to occur in order to support separatism, democracy alone is not valid. Go ahead and kill yourself for this or we won't support you". Oddly enough, when some minor groups go ahead and kill or get killed for these reasons, they are labeled as terrorists.

They are terrorist not just labeled as such. Here is the thing:

1. The government is not oppressing the minority in any way. No restriction to use that minority's language, no restricted access to the labor market, no restrictions on having a career in the government, etc;

2. Most of the members of that minority go along with their everyday lives and talk about independence only if asked by reporters or when they're a bit tipsy. In other words independence is not a life-and-death issue for 99% of the members of the minority;

3. Those few who have a "high political consciousness" decide to kill some of the representatives of the authority or some "aliens" (members of the majority population who live in that region) in order to take the struggle outside the democratic framework.

So while the government and the majority does nothing wrong by any standards government officials or members of the majority get assaulted and killed. Why aren't the killers real terrorists? Why is democracy a failure and democratic governments hypocrites?

1. Because they don't open the can of worms which would lead to any gang-controlled favela to proclaim independence in order to avoid the prosecution of the gang leaders?

2. Because they don't open the can of worms allowing the richer regions to separate from the poor ones, like the Northern League wanted to divide Italy in half?

The term minority here is very relative. They can be a minority in the state, but in their nation they are a majority. And it is simply not democratic and even dictatorial to a point to prohibit what a majority has voted for.

Example:
-Proposal for referendum on self-determination in the Basque Country.
-A majority of the Basque Parliment votes for it.

-This proposal is banned in Madrid.

Conclusion: Majorities/democracy doesn't count for the spanish state.

1. Is the Spanish government making the life of the Basques miserable? Are their names changed, are they forced to speak Spanish only, are the schools in the Basque language closed, are the Basques registered as say Castilians in the official censuses, are the Basques forced to convert to a different religion, are the Basques forbidden to move from villages to cities?

2. Is the Basque population on general strike, Ghandi-style, in order to achieve independence form Spain? That would indicate that being part of Spain really doesn't work for the Basques at large and the population is determined to achieve the independence through peaceful means even though that would hurt their pockets. You know, "put the money where your mouth is" and do it peacefully.

or:

3. Are there only a handful of Basque terrorists who place bombs, kidnap for ransom and rob banks in order to achieve independence?

[Yuiis]

So while the government and the majority does nothing wrong by any standards government officials or members of the majority get assaulted and killed. Why aren't the killers real terrorists? Why is democracy a failure and democratic governments hypocrites?

They are hypocrites and you are a hypocrite because you are accepting that the only way for basques to achieve independence is through a violent situation. For you democracy does not count, therefore for you only violence would be a solution, but then you target violent people as terrorists and deny their methods.

1. Because they don't open the can of worms which would lead to any gang-controlled favela to proclaim independence in order to avoid the prosecution of the gang leaders?

Gang controlled favela? What are you talking about?

2. Because they don't open the can of worms allowing the richer regions to separate from the poor ones, like the Northern League wanted to divide Italy in half?

Why is this bad? I'm talking about democracy and you talk about economical interests. In the world of what is fair and just
Democracy > Economy. On the other side it is also questionable to think that its ok that the poor regions live off of gov't subsidies funded mainly by the rich regions, like what happens in southern Italy and southern Spain.

1. Is the Spanish government making the life of the Basques miserable? Are their names changed, are they forced to speak Spanish only, are the schools in the Basque language closed, are the Basques registered as say Castilians in the official censuses, are the Basques forced to convert to a different religion, are the Basques forbidden to move from villages to cities?

You are giving arguments to my thesis. So the only fair enviornment in which Basque independence would be acceptable for you is in case of human genocide. Democracy is not acceptable for you, you are not a democrat. You are a hypocrite.

2. Is the Basque population on general strike, Ghandi-style, in order to achieve independence form Spain? That would indicate that being part of Spain really doesn't work for the Basques at large and the population is determined to achieve the independence through peaceful means even though that would hurt their pockets. You know, "put the money where your mouth is" and do it peacefully.

I told you before that the Basque parliment has tried the peaceful way more than once, and it constantly gets rejected in Madrid. For the spanish gov't there is no possible peaceful way because democracy can't solve the basque problem.

or:

3. Are there only a handful of Basque terrorists who place bombs, kidnap for ransom and rob banks in order to achieve independence?

I don't like them either. But I can understand that the radical side of a society (the radical side that exists in all societies) thinks that there is no possible peaceful way of doing things and therefore violence is the only way out. I don't support them, but I can understand them, because the spanish gov't doesn't allow democracy to take part in this conflict.