External self-determination

A few constitutions will determine that certain nominated constituent entities enjoy a right to external self-determination. This is by no means an entirely novel phenomenon. For instance, the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma, provided ... 

In the Philippines autonomy settlement, the autonomous unit is also constituted through a plebiscite, although no external self-determination is provided for. Final Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro National Liberation Front of 2 September 1996, at http //www.intstudies. cam.ac.uk/centre/cps/documents philippines final.html, accessed 3 November 2008. 

The open-ended assignment of external self-determination status in the cases of Liechtenstein and Ethiopia appear extraordinary at present. 

In case of a change of the status of the Republic of Moldova as an independent state, the people of Gagauzia shall have the right of external self-determination. 

Of course, classically, self-determination has been defined as the right of peoples freely to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.In practice, the application of this provision had been severely contextually reduced, in both its external and internal dimensions. As was noted at the outset, external self-determination in the sense of secession would appertain only to colonial peoples defined by prolonged colonial administration within uti possidetis boundaries. Internal self-determination would address both the constitutional system of public authority and the right of democratic participation in governance. However, it was simply presumed that any constitutional system and structures of governance were, merely by virtue of their existence, the product of free determination by the people concerned. Internal self-determination was therefore, until quite recently, practically irrelevant. 

The contextual restriction of external self-determination and the sharp division between external and internal self-determination... 

The Independent Expert has been quiet on territorial issues or anything that could be understood as approaching external self-determination. Only in her first report did she state that autonomy is a possible but not a required and sometimes not even most effective solution to minority issues. The opinions of the Independent Expert are no source of international law. 

A second but very important point is the applicability. Principle IV defines a colony and establishes the so-called salt-water rule. A colonial power must report on a territory that is geographically separate from the administering country. The territory must also be ethnically and/or culturally distinct. This rule is taken to establish that giving away an overseas territory does not threaten the territorial integrity of the colonial power. This is important in relation to minorities. If they were given any kind of external self-determination, most cases would threaten the territorial integrity which in turn would be against the spirit of the UN Charter. 

CERD General Comment The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has adopted a General Comment on self-determination even though the Convention does not mention self-determination. The Committee points out that self-determination has an internal and an external aspect. Internal self-determination concerns the economic, social and culmral development while external self-determination means freely determining the political stams. ... 

Note that external self-determination cannot necessarily be seen as being contrary to the predetermined values of peace and stability. Prolonged conflicts about external self-determination could be a bigger threat to peace and stability of a state than an act of secession. 

Regarding self-determination, this tripartite covenant is tested. The exercise of self-determination is not dependent on the breach of obligations by the state. Self-determination can be exercised under any circumstance. It is the form self-determination takes that can be dependent on the state behaviour. Internal self-determination— in a narrow or a wide understanding—can be (and this will be agreed upon in the original position) part of the covenant. Internal self-determination structures society. External self-determination is only a possible remedy when the covenant is broken by the state. 

The understanding of internal and external self-determination becomes extremely important. The term self-determination is simply too broad and too general. While internal self-determination lies within the contract, external self-determination does not. The contract is negotiated in the original position. 

The contract on self-determination is a compromise. While peoples do not seek external self-determination, the states obligate themselves to treat peoples well. Internal self-determination does not pose a threat to a liberal state. If there is agreement on the right to possibility of participation, equality and the right to existence, then internal self-determination can be used as the term covering all this. Internal self-determination needs then to be defined more closely and the self-determination of the minority may clash with that of the majority, but in a liberal state there is an underlying agreement that internal self-determination is valuable. 

Thomas Franck s procedural fairness termed legitimacy and aspects of John Rawls distributive justice have been introduced as the tools chosen for the analysis. As has been shown, the basis of the discussion is contractarian in the sense that the different actors are related by contracts. Minorities and their rights are considered with a positive attitude without letting minorities have unlimited rights. Self-determination needs to be divided into internal and external self-determination. Internal self-determination is a positive value for individuals. It is still valuable for the group however, the group s needs have to be balanced with those of the majority. This is the content of the contract the restriction to internal self-determination balanced by the well treatment by the state. 

Self-determination has undergone a change of understanding. The concept has been re-interpreted and filled with new possibilities. As the term is still tmclear on many issues, it is necessary to account for the different interpretations relevant to this project. First and most important, there is the distinction between external and intemal self-determination, which both are explained in more detail below. Conceptually, external self-determination takes a territorial approach, while intemal self-determination foremost takes a non-territorial approach. 

If this statement can be taken to mean that autonomy and self-government in general mean a denial of self-determination is not entirely clear. What is clear, however, is that we are dealing with an issue in the context of decolonization and here, external self-determination is undoubtedly applicable. 

I choose to focus on internal self-determination for three main reasons. Most importantly, I see external self-determination as the exception and not the rule. Self-determination was originally conceived to be an internal concept and focusing on internal self-determination today follows up oti the original understanding. Secondly, minority rights are already quite close to internal self-determination. If there indeed can be spoken of a right to self-determination for minorities, then it... 

The concept of self-determination with the two dimensions internal and external self-determination is firmly established however, this dichotomy has recently been challenged. It has been challenged on the basis of being a Western approach to self-determination, as the roots of self-determination are traced back to events in the Western world. To a certain degree, this is true however, as this project moves within a framework of liberal states, it seems rally fitting to use their narrative of self-determination. 

On a different point, one may note that self-determination after World War I was only applicable to those peoples and territories whose destinies had to be resettled. It hardly promotes general applicability of self-determination, but it should soothe states that external self-determination can be made applicable only to abnormal situations. Settled and stable states do not need to fear self-determination. 

Before concluding this chapter, a short note on external self-determination is appropriate. External self-determination should not be linked to minority rights. As the Hague Recommendations stress, persons belonging to national minorities have a responsibility to integrate into the wider national society. This is not only applicable in the area of language but is the overall approach to minorities. 

Even though minority rights and self-determination have been known for centuries, this project focuses on the twentieth century. The milestones of the century were the protection of minorities in connection with the League of Nations, decolonization and post Cold War time in the last decade of the century. Decolonization and the implications it has for external self-determination is excluded as far as possible. However, one cannot understand self-determination in the twentieth century without this dimension. 

---