Internal self-determination contexts

Originally, self-determination or rather self-government was conceived as an internal instmment. It was meant as a tool in an ongoing process. The focus on determining a status once and for all belongs to the era of decolonization and is only applicable in that context. Internal self-determination has made a come-back with the right to democratic governance. 

The Right to Internal Self-Determination of Minorities in Larger Context... 

It is too general to conclude that minorities have a right to self-determination. It is necessary to keep in mind that minorities are meant to be classic minorities. Self-determination is understood as meaning internal self-determination. Thus, a right to internal self-determination for classic minorities seems to emerge. This conclusion is reached within the framework of legitimacy and justice. It is necessary to place this conclusion in a larger context. 

Legitimacy is the procedural aspect of fairness. Justice is the substantive aspect of fairness. For the conclusion this means, in short, that a right to internal self-determination for classic minorities is fair. This does not mean that political reality will be changed. However, as the context shows, a right to internal self-determination for classic minorities is not threatening states in Europe. It is rather the recognition of a reality that has existed for the past 15-20 years and which has solid historical roots. 

Chapter 11 takes this conclusion and provides the larger context. It draws on previous chapters and establishes that a right to internal self-determination for classic minorities in Europe does not threaten states. Furthermore, the chapter shows that recognizing a minority right to internal self-determination is simply to recognize a reality that has existed for the last 15-20 years. 

Chapter 9 offers the understanding of self-determination. Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with introducing self-determination to the international community, regarded it foremost to be an internal concept. Apart from relying on solutions that respect territorial integrity, internal self-determination focuses on self-determination as process. A third point in this context is that self-determination cannot reasonably be limited to the era of decolonization. The second part of Chap. 9 addresses the four dimensions of self-determination and what they actually cover. This is important when comparing minority rights to the four dimensions of self-determination. 

There is new movement in the discussion about self-determination and statehood. The contested declaration of independence by Kosovo will soon be subjected to review by the International Court of Justice. Russia s recognition of the purported independence of Abkhasia and South Ossetia has caused additional controversy. These developments may well put an end to the attempt by governments to keep in place the highly restricted doctrine of self-determination that has only been made available in the colonial context. 

Manifestly, the doctrine of self-determination has different legal consequences in these various contexts. Within the confines of this discussion, the principal focus must lie on self-determination as an entitlement of peoples freely to determine the international legal status of a territory. Traditionally, there are three options independence, association or integration with another state. ... 

The classical right of colonial self-determination is now a core part of international law and enjoys a status that is legally superior to other international norms that do not enjoy this elevated position (jm cogens). However, it is applied only to colonial and non-self-governing territories of which practically none remain. This is the second disenfranchising aspect of the doctrine of self-determination it is established as an exception to the doctrine of territorial unity (above), but the exception is framed so narrowly that it does not apply to many or any situations of struggle for independence outside of the colonial context. 

With respect to the first question, this review has clearly shown that there is now considerable practice in this area. This practice, while in some aspects diverse, is uniform in relation to at least one issue it does indeed address self-determination claims outside the colonial context. This in itself is noteworthy, given previous hesitation on the part of international actors. The practice is widespread, covering difficult cases on most continents. 

Russian Federation in relation to Eastern/Central Europe) and others have faltered due to the attitude of the one or other local actor (say, Cyprus or Sri Lanka), it is likely that the trend of settlements chronicled here will continue in due course. But what is the legal significance of this trend for the international legal order, beyond the recognition that self-determination conflicts outside the colonial context can be addressed in various ways if the relevant actors so decide ... 

Eyassu Gayim Reflections on the Draft Articles of the International Law Coimnission on State Responsibility Articles 14, 15, and 19, in the Context of the Contemporary International Law of Self-determination , 54 Nordisk Tidsskrjifor International Ret... 

Sabyasachi Ghoshray, Revisiting the Challenging Landscape of Self-determination within the Context of Nation s Right to Sovereignty , 11 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law (2005). 

Self-determination has shown itself to be a flexible concept. From Wilson s internal idea to decolonization it is argued it has turned back to political participation. If art. 1 is understood in this form there is much less reason to argue against a universal applicability. The Human Rights Committee has continuously applied self-determination to post-decolonization contexts and the idea has undoubtedly taken a general hold. ... 

International law on minorities, their rights and self-determination can be found in treaties. Minorities and self-determination are kept apart. However, taking a second look, there are overlaps in the content of the rights. It is already now clear that a right like participation so to speak has a foot in both camps. Participation is discussed in the context of self-determination. Participation is also an explicit minority right. Keeping minority rights and self-determination apart does not seem so sensible anymore. This issue is addressed in Chap. 11. 

Those phrasing and interpreting international law keep minorities and the term self-determination far apart. There is no explicit link between minority rights and self-determination. At second sight, this is not so clear. Autonomy and participation are only two terms that have been used in both the context of self-determination and in the context of minorities and their rights. We may take this as an indication that there is more to the discussion than textbooks and most scholarly articles make us believe. 

The paragraph on the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation that constitutes a violation of the principle of self-determination has to be understood in a wider context than the colonial cmitext. Understanding the FRD to be a concretization of the UN Charter, a document that was formed by the experiences of World War 11 and its miseries, would be cOTitraiy to its very aims to leave internally subjugated, dominated and exploited peoples completely defenceless towards their state. 

European Organizations European organizations are mostly quiet on the issue of self-determination. The Final Act of Helsinki includes the principle of self-determination however, this is one of the very few times self-determination is mentioned in non-binding instruments of the OSCE and the Council of Europe. Principle Vin of the Final Act stresses that all peoples always have the right... to determine their internal and external political status. A couple of things need to be noted. This principle clearly takes self-determination out of the colrmial context. Secondly, self-determination is limited to the political sphere. There is no reference to economic, social and cultural development. 

The term national was frequently avoided in the international arena for many years. The close relationship to the terms nation, nationality and nationalism has led to it being viewed with caution by states lest it be used to open doors to further demands of self-determination. Also, the use of the term national minority has in the European context allegedly shown a tendency to mean minorities with a kin-state, meaning that the minority has a mother state across the border, which would exclude many groups that have always been a separate group within a state. Only some declarations to the Framework Conventions support this view. ... 

---