The right of self-determination

[PowerWizard]

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.

If we read this in historical context, it was of course a warning to the Soviet Union that it should respect the independence and sovereignity of its subjugated states. But 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?
What should happen if a minority happens to be a part of another nation in another state?

[CountArach]

Do you think that the right of self-determination establishes the right to form new states?
Yes I do, if a degree of autonomy is not granted to the people who wish to form their new state.

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?
Well minorities are in fact the only people who would conceivably wish to break off and form their own state, so I do believe they are the peoples that the UN Charter mentions. I can't think of any way that a Nation could be defined as a Person.

What should happen if a minority happens to be a part of another nation in another state?
I have no problem with letting them form a new state.

[Fragony]

have to agree with CountArach here.

[Fiddling_nero]

[sarcasm] THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!! [sarcasm\]

Can't wait for strike to hear the news.

[Pannonian]

Yes I do, if a degree of autonomy is not granted to the people who wish to form their new state.

Well minorities are in fact the only people who would conceivably wish to break off and form their own state, so I do believe they are the peoples that the UN Charter mentions. I can't think of any way that a Nation could be defined as a Person.

I have no problem with letting them form a new state.
So would you accept if the Irish decide to split away from Victonia and form their own state within that state? And what's happened to Victonia anyway?

[PowerWizard]

So would you accept if the Irish decide to split away from Victonia and form their own state within that state? And what's happened to Victonia anyway?

Funny, I just wanted to ask the exact same question.

How can I add a poll to this thread?

[CountArach]

have to agree with CountArach here.
Wait, wait... that has to be a typo... :wink:

So would you accept if the Irish decide to split away from Victonia and form their own state within that state? And what's happened to Victonia anyway?
No problems at all with that, providing it was democratic. And I have no idea what happened to Victonia - quite likely it became a US Nuclear testing facility.

[Kralizec]

I have to agree with Fragony here.

[Strike For The South]

Where were you guys in the 1860s?

[Xiahou]

So, what if my family wants to declare our house an independent nation? Or maybe my town, or county, or state? At what point does this "right" apply?

[Kralizec]

Okay, now for a more detailed response...

I feel that if the majority of people in a certain region want independence, they should get it. That goes for Kosovo, Montenegro, Abchazia, North-Ossetia,Chechnya and so on. In many cases such regions are not viable as independent countries, but they'll just have to face the consequenses of their own choices :shrug:

I'd apply the same principle to minorities who live in different countries, like the Kurds. If Iraq where to fall apart and there'd be an independent Kurdish state in the north of it, and the majority of Kurds in Turkey is stupid enough to want to join them, I say let them.

[Strike For The South]

Okay, now for a more detailed response...

I feel that if the majority of people in a certain region want independence, they should get it. That goes for Kosovo, Montenegro, Abchazia, North-Ossetia,Chechnya and so on. In many cases such regions are not viable as independent countries, but they'll just have to face the consequenses of their own choices :shrug:

I'd apply the same principle to minorities who live in different countries, like the Kurds. If Iraq where to fall apart and there'd be an independent Kurdish state in the north of it, and the majority of Kurds in Turkey is stupid enough to want to join them, I say let them.

You realize this put every country in the western hemisphere in a very precarious position.

[Kralizec]

You realize this put every country in the western hemisphere in a very precarious position.

Who cares about them?

The only regions that come to mind are Quebec in Canada (where an independence was rejected in a referendum), parts of the southern USA with lots of latinos (of wich I recall you yourself have said that most of it is blown out of proportion) and Santa Cruz in Bolivia (whose rich white population don't want to be governed by a Chavez clone of native extraction)

Oh yeah, there's also the Netherlands Antilles - who could become independent if they wanted it, but they'd be completely hopeless as such and know it.

[Pannonian]

No problems at all with that, providing it was democratic. And I have no idea what happened to Victonia - quite likely it became a US Nuclear testing facility.
Pity, as some of the posts there were classics, eg. Odin's Ernst Roehm and Lemur's mad Tory.

[KukriKhan]

And I have no idea what happened to Victonia - quite likely it became a US Nuclear testing facility.

LOL. Nothing is ever "gone" from the org, just occasionally moved out of sight, to a "secure, undisclosed location".

On topic: I think the documents cited go too far in 'granting' self-determination. In my personal opinion, you are only 'entitled' to property which you can govern/control and defend.

Group a1, currently residing in Country A, wants independence, and asks Country A for it, peacefully. If Country A sez OK, fine. If Country A sez "No", then we have a problem. If Group a1 can take, hold, control and defend their area, I would recognize them as separate.

But if Group a1 just wants local control, and to no longer pay tribute to Country A while receiving services (including defense) from Country A, I say Group a1's claim is bogus.

Just imho.

[Strike For The South]

Who cares about them?

The only regions that come to mind are Quebec in Canada (where an independence was rejected in a referendum), parts of the southern USA with lots of latinos (of wich I recall you yourself have said that most of it is blown out of proportion) and Santa Cruz in Bolivia (whose rich white population don't want to be governed by a Chavez clone of native extraction)

Oh yeah, there's also the Netherlands Antilles - who could become independent if they wanted it, but they'd be completely hopeless as such and know it.

The only reason the mindboggling number of ethnic groups hasn't torn America apart is because we shun determination and work for the ideal of being "American"

If Self determination was the norm than the outcome would not be the same.

A nation state allows people not to be so divided along ethnic or religious lines and instead invest themselves in a republic which rewards merit.

[rotorgun]

I don't think it could have been said any better than in the words of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

I am in favor of the right of self-determination, although I would rather see it achieved through non-violent civil disobedience, such as that which Gandhi espoused. It is unfortunate that violence is sometimes the only way to accomplish the goal. That is a path that is difficult to return from once trodden upon. Freedom is a precious commodity, often bought by the blood of patriots.

[KukriKhan]

I don't think it could have been said any better than in the words of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.



I am in favor of the right of self-determination, although I would rather see it achieved through non-violent civil disobedience, such as that which Gandhi espoused. It is unfortunate that violence is sometimes the only way to accomplish the goal. That is a path that is difficult to return from once trodden upon. Freedom is a precious commodity, often bought by the blood of patriots.

All true. We must remember that later in the US DoI, they detailed why independence (or self-determination) was sought, acknowledging with its final words:


And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

...that they would likely lose everything, yet would defend their assertion.

Then fought a miserable, prolonged war to defend this land they dared call 'their's'. Any group not willing or able to do the same, gets low marks.

I'm all for the Ghandi approach: "You can kill me today, my brother tomorrow, my millions of countrymen the next day, and millions after that. Then you'll get tired (or shamed, or humbled, or broke) and leave." <----(my interpretation)

One-sided non-violence only works with a seemingly unlimited amount of manpower.

[PowerWizard]

Thank you all for your responses.


So, what if my family wants to declare our house an independent nation? Or maybe my town, or county, or state? At what point does this "right" apply?

Founding micronations is apparently the new trend of the 20th century, just take a look at this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations).

If you declare your house independent, and another state somehow de facto acknowledges it (like in the case of Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)), you become an independent state (although you still won't be invited to the UN).

Which leads back to the original problem posted in the OP. If you guys agree that a majority of people or minorities can gain independence, that's fine, but it only works if they are de facto acknowledged, because you can see from the clauses I cited in the OP, that the right of self-determination is unclearly determined (worded). This is due to the compromise by the parties of the Helsinki Final Act (some of them supported full independence, some of them were strongly against it).


Okay, now for a more detailed response...

I feel that if the majority of people in a certain region want independence, they should get it. That goes for Kosovo, Montenegro, Abchazia, North-Ossetia,Chechnya and so on. In many cases such regions are not viable as independent countries, but they'll just have to face the consequenses of their own choices :shrug:

I'd apply the same principle to minorities who live in different countries, like the Kurds. If Iraq where to fall apart and there'd be an independent Kurdish state in the north of it, and the majority of Kurds in Turkey is stupid enough to want to join them, I say let them.

You realize this put every country in the western hemisphere in a very precarious position.

Who cares about them?

Well, they care about their own territorial integrity, so applying this principle is not so easy, especially when there are hostile ethnic groups living in the same country. In your scenario, Iraq falls apart, an independent Kurdistan is established and the Turkish Kurds join. I don't think Turkey would ever agree to this situation. And given that Turkey is a NATO country, i don't think some of the NATO countries (prominently the USA) would be happy too, after all, a reliable ally with a huge army in the region is more important to them, than some small country (take the example of the South-Ossetian war, where NATO was reluctant to intervene).



On topic: I think the documents cited go too far in 'granting' self-determination. In my personal opinion, you are only 'entitled' to property which you can govern/control and defend..

The subjects of these documents are peoples, not individuals.


Group a1, currently residing in Country A, wants independence, and asks Country A for it, peacefully. If Country A sez OK, fine. If Country A sez "No", then we have a problem. If Group a1 can take, hold, control and defend their area, I would recognize them as separate...

But if Group a1 just wants local control, and to no longer pay tribute to Country A while receiving services (including defense) from Country A, I say Group a1's claim is bogus.

Just imho.

Schematically this is true, but in the real world, this isn't so simple. First off, not just Country A, but the majority of the UN countries (or at least all the neighbors and the major world powers) have to acknowledge the new state in order to gain sovereign status in international relations.

Secondly, if group a1 can take hold, control and defend this area, it still doesn't mean they have the right to an own government and own state. What if the Basque people would start an independence war to separate from Spain and win? I can hardly imagine that the rest of the European states would hurry to acknowledge the independent Basque state, let alone Spain.

[Brenus]

“The only regions that come to mind are Quebec in Canada (where an independence was rejected in a referendum), parts of the southern USA with lots of latinos (of which I recall you yourself have said that most of it is blown out of proportion) and Santa Cruz in Bolivia”
Er, and Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, Hungary and Montenegro which were denied to this right by the same who gave this right to Croats, Bosnians and Kosovar. Bulgarian in Macedonia, Albanian in Greece, Dutch and French in Belgium, Catalan (Corsican voted against independence few years ago…).
Sorry I have to go to work, so I can’t enumerate the list… And that is just for Europe…:laugh4:
BORDERS ARE FENCES: BREAK THEM, DON’T BUILT NEW…
:furious3:

[Kralizec]

Ah, but none of those are in the western hemisphere ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One-sided non-violence only works with a seemingly unlimited amount of manpower.

I'd replace "manpower" with "willpower."

Rotorgun:

Nice to see you adding to our backroom again! Though it is NOT at all surprising to see you doing so with such class.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

BORDERS ARE FENCES: BREAK THEM, DON’T BUILT NEW…


Good fences make for good neighbours...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The subjects of these documents are peoples, not individuals.
But individuals choose how to identify themselves - and "peoples" is an imprecise term.

[PowerWizard]

But individuals choose how to identify themselves - and "peoples" is an imprecise term.

That's what is in the UN Charter.

[Pannonian]

That's what is in the UN Charter.
The roots of the right to self-determination should probably be traced back to Woodrow Wilson's ideals after WW1, while the reason for their compromise should probably be traced back to Britain's and France's reading of such at Versailles, and later the Cold War. Strong powers will try to keep their territories together, unless a stronger power intervenes to break it up. Self-determination, or their support of such, would often be but a disguised way of getting these newly independent nations under their hegemony instead, as a protectorate. Britain and France were at it after WW1. The US and USSR were at it after WW2. The US, EU, Russia, and probably anyone else who can manage it are still at it now.

[Subotan]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

[Husar]

Good fences make for good neighbours...

Then prison must be Utopia.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

As a proud US nationalist, I disagree.

[Strike For The South]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

The nation has allowed for more equality and advances than any other form of human society. Not to mention it gives me something to yell at other people when I'm drunk.

"I'm sorry, I thought this was 'Merica"

[Husar]

The nation has allowed for more equality and advances than any other form of human society.

So democracy had nothing to do with it? That would mean nations like Iran have more equality and advances than uhm, Texas.

[Furunculus]

Nationalism is brutish and despicable. It's not something you can chose, and it's therefore not something you should be proud off, certainly not enough to be prepared to declare war to seperate from another state. Unless that minority is actively being repressed by a majority, in which case since the oppressors aren't playing by the rules, it may be nessecary for you to fight back. But of course, since the root of any such conflict would be nationalism, then it all comes back to the central fact that nationalism sowes only death and destruction.

That's a very broad brush you use to paint a diverse concept:

I am proud to consider myself a Liberal Nationalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_nationalism

Precisely because i believe in demos-cratos, i.e their needs to be a "we" if their is to be consent to be "governed" by others.

[edit1]
And it must be pointed out that that "we" is often the result of classical nationalism, i.e. a sense to shared culture and values forged from a millenia of shared history, and if that seems too esoteric for you then just look at English Common Law as merely one example.

[edit2] inspired by Husars entrance:
And this is why i oppose the political integration of the UK into the EU, because I believe i am handing over the power of governance (cratos) to those with whom i share insufficient culture and values (demos). In summary; I do not trust that the decisions taken in my name will be those with which i can agree with.

[Strike For The South]

So democracy had nothing to do with it? That would mean nations like Iran have more equality and advances than uhm, Texas.

Iran is a still a democracy sweetheart. I would argue that Iran has more freedoms and has a better SOL than any tribe or fiefdom ever did.

[Husar]

Iran is a still a democracy sweetheart. I would argue that Iran has more freedoms and has a better SOL than any tribe or fiefdom ever did.

So that must mean under the world government we could finally each the epitome of progress.

[Strike For The South]

A balance must be struck between to big and to small