In such a context of general bewilderment, one thing was clear to the Allies: self-determination had to be reviewed and reformulated. The principle was thus formalised in international law through its inclusion in the UN Charter. However, similarly to the Paris Peace Conference, it was again loosely defined Articles 1 and 55 of the Charter and was arguably conceived more as a foreseeable norm than as an imminent measure for all.
A major transformation took place in the s, when delegates from independent Third World countries used the UN as a political arena to uphold the cause of self-determination for those peoples still under colonial rule. In addition to the invocation of self-determination and human rights, Resolution also led to the creation of an array of new states in Asia and Africa.
Again, when the new post-imperial states came to draw the boundaries of their political communities, discrimination often prevailed over inclusion. With minor exceptions, newly proclaimed state leaders set up both formal and informal discriminatory practices, often along local kinship ties, to favour certain domestic groups over others.
The set of values governing the liberal international order were simply not reflected within territories that had understandably no experience with state structures and rights recognition.
After all, these new states were all formed following the arbitrary principle of uti possidetis , presupposing that independent statehood was granted following the formal lines of the old colonial borders. However, explanations stressing the persistence of colonial norms within the newly formed states did not have much popularity. Generally, these statements were made in reference to extremely violent situations, as was the case in Nigeria.
In this country, Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbos were the three main groups recognised by British authorities. Subsequently, they were the ones legally recognised after independence.
The political and social structure of colonial Nigeria was thus maintained after independence, with power being transferred directly to those loyal individuals that had most closely collaborated with British authorities: the Igbos.
Such devolution reinforced ethnic divides Ibhawow: 2. Discontent was widespread. In the first years of independence, political coalitions shifted rapidly, and during the period, Igbos started to be excluded, often with violence, from national political life. Hence, despite the liberal connotation of self-determination, its actual application domestically was not positively received internationally. Its easy instrumentalisation to justify discrimination and violence led to widespread concern regarding the existence of a discriminatory dimension, which was perhaps inherent to the principle.
The matter, it was generally thought, was somehow solved, after all. Self-determination was the principle that, invoked, had led to the end of empires, first in Europe and then in colonial territories, and to the constitution of independent states. What else could be done with it? To some extent, due to the existence of a strong non-interference norm during the Cold War Glanville , if violence occurred after independence, notwithstanding how problematic it could be, it was fundamentally a domestic matter.
The principle was nonetheless inscribed in the first article of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in — though, as said, the document had already been negotiated throughout the s.
The principle was later mentioned in the Helsinki Final Act, giving origin to the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe. While the debate over self-determination was considered to be finished, the break-up of Yugoslavia brought back claims of national self-determination in the name of ethnicity on the international scene.
Formulated to legitimise new states, these claims were also used to justify physical and administrative practices of ethnic cleansing.
Even though, after the events of World War II, the UN promoted the ideal of ethnically blind polities, ethnicity as a category of identification had never actually disappeared from the Balkans Stiks Indeed, for almost half a century, ethnicity had been a matter related to national politics of recognition.
In addition, these claims were being made precisely in the area where, in , the Paris Peacemakers had attempted to guarantee the smooth transition from empires to nation-states. The difference was that, when in the s the newly proclaimed leaders uttered their respective claims, in they were not internationally tolerated.
These attempts were, in fact, occurring right at the same moment in which liberalism was ponderously endorsed internationally Clark Interestingly, the coexistence of divergent understandings of self-determination — one ethnic and one liberal — led to greater international confusion as to what should be done.
In August , more than a year after Croatia and Slovenia had shown the first signs of their intention to proclaim independence, the Council of Ministers of the European Community EC created a special arbitration commission, commonly known as the Badinter Committee.
It consisted of EC mediators and the representatives of the parties involved, namely the Yugoslav delegates and the representatives of each constituent republic. Some months later, the Committee clearly established that, following the principle of uti possidetis , it recognised the borders between Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia.
By applying the colonial principle of border recognition to the Balkans, the Conference recognised previously internal borders as the new international frontiers. In doing so, the Conference acknowledged the possible coincidence between the boundaries of the new states with those of the claimed ethnic nations. Accordingly, from the start of the s, newly proclaimed leaders found in such international recognition the indirect justification to constitute states grounded on ethnic exclusion.
The initial international confusion surrounding the response to these ethnic self-determination claims became even more pronounced.
Today, the international actors involved in former Yugoslavia are still paying the costs of their confused involvement. Bosnia and Kosovo are perhaps the two most visible cases, due to the still ongoing international engagement on the ground. Understandably, reference to self-determination a few years after these events still provokes perplexity with regard to, firstly, the content of the principle, and secondly, the appropriate response to self-determination claims.
Many of these national minorities found themselves in bad situations because the modern governments were intent on defining the national character of the countries, often at the expense of the minorities.
The League of Nations sponsored various Minority Treaties in an attempt to deal with the problem, but with the decline of the League in the s, these treaties became increasingly unenforceable.
One consequence of the massive redrawing of borders and the political changes in the aftermath of World War I was the large number of European refugees. These and the refugees of the Russian Civil War led to the creation of the Nansen passport. Ethnic minorities made the location of the frontiers generally unstable.
Where the frontiers have remained unchanged since , there has often been the expulsion of an ethnic group, such as the Sudeten Germans. Economic and military cooperation among these small states was minimal, ensuring that the defeated powers of Germany and the Soviet Union retained a latent capacity to dominate the region.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, defeat drove cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union but ultimately these two powers would compete to dominate eastern Europe. At the end of the war, the Allies occupied Constantinople Istanbul and the Ottoman government collapsed. The occupation of Smyrna by Greece on May 18, , triggered a nationalist movement to rescind the terms of the treaty. As a result, Turkey became the only power of World War I to overturn the terms of its defeat and negotiate with the Allies as an equal.
The right of peoples to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. It states that peoples, 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 interference. The explicit terms of this principle can be traced to the Atlantic Charter, signed on August 14, , by Franklin D.
It also is derived from principles espoused by United States President Woodrow Wilson following World War I, after which some new nation states were formed or previous states revived after the dissolution of empires.
The principle does not state how the decision is to be made nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy, or full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people.
The process of international recognition, by other states and the United Nations, offers another threshold limiting the chances of full independence as a result of classic self-determination. Recent scholarship and practice suggest an emphasis on self-determination as a more dynamic concept-ongoing accommodation of all groups in the political process-rather than as a question of acquiring the status of a new, internationally-recognized independent state.
In the fields of international law and political philosophy, some scholars place contemporary self-determination claims in the context of international human rights and good governance regimes.
Discourse in the legal literature suggests that a post-colonial right to self-determination does exist and can be accommodated by current legal instruments, while several political philosophers advocate at least a remedial right to self-determination resulting in secession when serious human rights abuses have occurred over time. Recent debates have attempted to decouple formal legal sovereignty-recognition based on territorial control-from effective governance and the full benefits of sovereign statehood in the international system, which depend on a legitimate government as it is defined and accepted by the international community.
Judging self-determination claims through a prism of legitimate governance suggests that a state has responsibilities to its domestic constituents-groups as well as individuals-for which it can be held internationally accountable. Failure by the state to adhere to these responsibilities can justify a self-determination claim; in extreme cases of oppression, secession may be justified. In a sense, the full realization of classical self-determination-secession, independence, and the recognition of new international boundaries-represents a dichotomy between the traditional perspective of a state-based international system during the Cold War and the emergence of a new world order characterized by interdependence and globalization.
States are increasingly challenged on one hand by the pressure of greater education and contacts abroad, increased personal mobility, economic and strategic interdependence, and the real-time global media, and on the other hand by an emerging insistence upon traditional national or communal values in decision-making, culture, laws, and administration. Contrary to widespread assumption, the intensification of globalization has not diminished the frequency or violence of struggles for self-determination and secession.
Though accepting increased economic and industrial interdependence, people are also eager to maintain communal and socio-cultural values and traditions-in particular, local language. This may be a counter-reaction to international interdependence and globalization, may emanate from observing secessionist precedents in geographically-proximate areas, or may be born out of a longstanding communal desire for greater freedom from central authorities.
Heightened global mobility and interaction also enhance the role of diaspora in self-determination struggles. The fact that members of the ethnie afar are frequently the most fervent and defenders of its rights only spurs radicalization. Interdependence and technological globalization also increase the prominence of younger leaders inciting the struggle via the internet. Unfortunately, this perception effectively strengthens international and state opposition to the claim.
The resultant tension makes the future development of the concept of self-determination less predictable and questions the general assumption of a reduced role of the state. Thus, it is time for a thorough analysis of the classical concept of self-determination and the examination of its new role and meaning in the emerging global system. Contemporary scholarship and practice suggest that the search for self-determination and autonomy need not necessarily or automatically cause the breakup of sovereign states or change external boundaries.
Other solutions may satisfy the aspirations of the community looking for greater independence while enabling the state to continue existence within its current boundaries. In addition, experience with self-determination crises has shown that the effects of a community seeking greater independence from the center cannot be considered in isolation from other communities within the state and region. Other communities may find precedent value in greater autonomy or successful secession, leading to a possible domino effect of secession and potential state collapse e.
Members of the state majority community who suddenly find themselves the minority in a secessionist-minded region may initiate population movements, cause violence, or seek international security guarantees.
Often, the community desiring independence has kin in other states within the region. The resolution of the original claim affects other states as well: spillover effects as other minorities seek to replicate their kin's success; implications for regional security if secessionists wish to join another state; and direct involvement of kin states in settlement negotiations. Thus, the struggle for self-determination is rarely a zero-sum game between one community and one central authority, but may have repercussions for other communities within the same state and in neighboring states as well.
Deng, et. At the beginning of the 21st century, new self-determination struggles have emerged around the globe while other, long-simmering conflicts continue unabated. But each case harbors its own, very specific background and level of development and differs in intensity and orientation. Self-determination claims have unique root causes, encompassing a wide range of issues: economic or resource control, leadership interests, quests for sovereignty by communities with lingering interethnic problems, and historical grievance to name a few.
To complicate analysis of self-determination, the international response to claims also exhibits diversity, from suppression and domination to deliberate manipulation and incitement as well as outside power involvement. The international community, still possessing the attitudes and strategies toward self-determination that were developed before and during the Cold War, has rarely responded effectively or consistently to contemporary claims.
Neither has it acted in a timely fashion or shown much innovation. A distinguishing feature of self-determination conflicts that makes them difficult to resolve is their inherent combination of three overlapping disputes over identity, territory, and governance. Self-determination claimant groups articulate the importance of a shared identity-often ethnic, tribal, or religious in origin-as the basis of their claim.
This perception of distinct identity, and the desire to preserve that identity, compels the group to become or remain politically active.
In other words, part of the inherent conflict concerns the distinctiveness of the group relative to other communities and to the central authorities and how that separate identity should actuate in the political process. Further complicating self-determination claims is the link between this identity of the group and a particular defined piece of territory.
The claim may originate from a sense of entitlement to the territory-based on historical grievance, religious importance, or economic motivation-or a desire to be free of 'alien domination'. In either case, the claim necessarily involves a desire to control a parcel of land or share in the distribution of its resources. This could include secessionist or state-shattering claims to take a piece of territory and leave an existing state , state-unifying claims Germany, e.
Third, underlying the identity and territorial claims is a deep-rooted governance dispute: who rules and how.
0コメント