Internal 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... 

Stephen Allen, Recreating one China Internal Self-determination, Autonomy and the Future of Taiwan , 4 Asia-Pacific... 

Christine Bell and Kathleen Cavanaugh, Constructive Ambiguity or Internal Self-determination , 22 Fordham... 

Scott Andrew Schaelen, New Directions for Intervention The Growing Acceptance of the Use of Force to Promote Internal Self-determination, MA Thesis on file at San Diego State University (1998). 

Chapter 2 provides the adequate international relations framework. This chapter establishes the possibility of inclusion of non-state actors and non-binding instrument into the analysis. Chapter 3 takes a step back and provides an overview of established international law on minority rights and self-determination. There is no need to exclude undisputed international law. The overall evaluation of a minority s right to internal self-determination is only comprehensive when both undisputed... 

Understanding self-determination is crucial to this project. There is a classic tale of self-determination which focuses on the external dimension. Here, the tale is different because it focuses on internal self-determination and self-determination as process rather than result. 

U. Barten, Minorities, Minority Rights and Internal Self-Determination,... 

As accepted international law today stands it remains true that black letter treaty law does not explicitly link minorities or minority rights to self-determination. There seems to be reluctance among states to recognize a right to internal self-determination for minorities. If this is all there is to be found in treaties, it is time to turn to the second source of international law which is customary international law. 

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. ... 

The question is whether a right to internal self-determination is fair. Franck provides procedural fairness under the heading legitimacy and Rawls provides substantive fairness under the name of justice. The theories are introduced below. Later on, they are applied in different ways and at different stages. In this chapter, the fairness approach is used on those documents that the sources doctrine considers as non-binding. In Chap. 10, I return to the fairness approach. Here, four specific minority rights are discussed regarding their procedural and substantive fairness. Franck is followed closely while Rawls serves as a framework and inspiration but I do take more liberties with him. 

Legitimacy and justice have received their share of criticism. Yet, I believe they contribute with a new filter on an old issue. Regarding my specific research question of whether minorities have a right to internal self-determination I think it is quite fitting to put the question to the test. 

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. 

The original position is a hypothetical exercise of the mind. A just society is envisaged and principles are agreed upon that lead to a just society. However, reality rarely mirrors or fulfils our ambitions, goals and ideals. While 1 argue within a fair and just framework, the ultimate question of whether minorities have a right to internal self-determination cannot be answered without taking reahty into account. 

In the field of human rights, issues of bindingness remain. Positivism cannot explain why principles of the CSCE Copenhagen Document are treated as rules. It is therefore necessary to go further and seek alternative explanations. The question to be answered is whether minorities have a right to internal self-determination. The answer is proposed in two steps. First, as many minority rights and also issues of self-determination appear in so-called non-binding instruments, it is important to show their relevance. Once this is done, the second step is taken. 

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. 

Considering the reactions at the time, there does not seem to be much doubt that autonomy within a state is what was understood by Wilson s tenth point. Wilson aimed at internal self-determination. The peoples in the Austro-Himgarian Empire had been advocating their independence for some time then and were disappointed because they saw this point as falling far short of their aspired secessimi. ... 

Today, the discussion has changed somewhat. The concept of internal self-determination plays an ever more important role. From strong internal self-determination follows, at least in theory, both a strengthening and a relative decline of sovereignty. Treatment of one s own citizens is no longer an exclusively... 

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... 

---