scholarly journals The Right to Self-Determination of Modern Secessionist Movements under International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Ja’far Mohammad Khair Al Sabbagh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Parent State ◽  
The World ◽  
New States ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Right ◽  
Universal Order

States’ boundaries have changed to a large extent over the course of time, in fact, the world has not always been the same as nowadays. In place of archaic forms of social organisation, the universal order has appeared where determinate and inviolable borders play a crucial role in ensuring the stability of states and resisting separatist movements. At the same time, secessionist movements throughout the world continually aim to gain independence from the ‘parent’ state invoking the right to self-determination. In this paper, the researcher will examine whether a part of the population of a state or a sub-unit of that state has a right to secede and create a new state and/or integrate into another. The article consists of a strong theoretical part dealing with statehood, self-determination and secession with a view of the dynamic development of these notions since the rapid birth of many new states as a result of decolonization. Thereafter, the validity of the gathered results will be verified by a comparative analysis of the cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Catalonia with regard to the historical background of these secessionist entities.

scholarly journals Origin, establishment and development of the idea of self-determination of peoples

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-73
Author(s):  
Azer Kagraman Ogly Kagramanov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

The subject of this research is the examination of evolution of the idea of self-determination of peoples based on the fundamental works of the Russian and foreign scholars, thinkers of the antiquity and modernity. The author considers the transformations experienced by the principle of self-determination at various historical stages of development; as well as builds a corresponding systems of the development cycles. The conclusion is made that after conception of the idea of self-determination, the colonial powers viewed this concept as ethical, seeing the threat to legitimacy of the established order. Therefore, throughout almost a century, the leading countries refused to include this right into the corresponding international and domestic documents. The main conclusions are as follows: after consolidation of the principle in the Charter of the United Nations, it became the foundation for the emergence of news states and destruction of the colonial world; the principle served as a leitmotif for the development of human rights and international relations, but at the same time became a threat and challenge to the territorial integrity; wars between the countries are replaced with the civil and interethnic conflicts; the world is captured with such phenomena as state nationalism that subsequently grew into extremely radical forms, such as fascism and Nazism; the modern international law actively promotes the two competing principles – territorial integrity and self-determination; in modern world, the right to self-determination is not limited by peoples under the colonial past – there occur new forms of self-determination that threaten the existence of sovereign states. Uncertainty of the status of the newly emerged states formations serves as the source of domestic and international tension, which inevitably leads to intergovernmental clashes and negatively impacts geopolitical situation in separate regions and in the world as a whole.

scholarly journals The Complex Knot between Sovereignty of States and Secession in International Law: Evidence from Around the World

2019 ◽  
Vol IV (III) ◽  
pp. 56-63
Author(s):  
Ayaz Ali Shah ◽  
Nilofar Ihsan ◽  
Hina Malik
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
Parent State ◽  
The World

It is interesting to note that international law doesn't talk about the secession of any group from the parent state in express words. However, at the same time, it doesn't deny people's right to self-determination too. Despite all this ambiguity about secession in international law, state dissolution hasn't stopped. This secession is justified on two strands of theoretical arguments. The first one suggests that it is everyone's fundamental right to live or not to live in a particular state by forming a state of their own. The second one suggests that if a state commits atrocities on a particular community, and the victims exhaust all legal and democratic means to emancipate themselves and their community, they can resort to secession and separation from the parent state in the last resort. However, secession on such grounds is covered by norms and provisions of international law in the post-colonial world.

scholarly journals Crimean conflict – from the perspectives of Russia, Ukraine, and public international law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-45
Author(s):  
Milena Ingelevič-Citak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Crimean Crisis ◽  
Secessionist Movement

Abstract The article presents the Crimean conflict from Russian and Ukrainian standpoints, confronting them with international law analysis. It is worth to mention, that Crimean crisis is still extremely controversial, since both parties are justifying their actions with norms of international law. This article starts with brief introduction of historical background of the Crimean crisis. Second chapter assesses the Crimean secessionist movement claiming the right of self-determination, and its compliance with Ukrainian law. Third chapter examines Russia’s position and its actions on the basis of Russian law. Fourth chapter presents the international law analysis of events in Crimea and its current legal status. Results of the analysis are presented in a conclusion.

Political Participation of Aboriginal People (Orang Asli) in Peninsular Malaysia: Examining the Compatibility of the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 with Undrip Standards

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Muhamad Sayuti Hassan ◽  
Rohaida Nordin
Keyword(s):  
Political Participation ◽  
International Law ◽  
Aboriginal People ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Peninsular Malaysia ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Orang Asli ◽  
The Right

The main objective of this article is to critically evaluate the compatibility of the ‘right to political participation’ of the Orang Asli by looking at international law standards. The present study utilises a qualitative socio-legal approach, which analyses the political participation of the Orang Asli under Malaysian law and determines whether the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 (apa) can provide for the protection, well-being, and the advancement of the Orang Asli. Arguably, the existing provisions of the apa are not in conformity with the recognition in undrip and in no way guarantee the Orang Asli’s right to self-determination as recognised by international law. Thus, the current study recommends an amendment to the apa and introduces guidelines to empower political participation of the Orang Asli by incorporating the principles of undrip. The amendment is necessary to ensure that the protection of the right to self-determination of the Orang Asli is compatible with international law standards.

scholarly journals History of self-determination of the people of Donbass. experience of the Soviet Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog

2019 ◽  
pp. 148-152
Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Dmitriy A. Babichev ◽  
Natal'ya A. Babicheva
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Status ◽  
The People ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Historical Past

The article is devoted to the burning problem that arose in 2014 in the Ukraine, in the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk, and that concerns the right of the people of Donbass to self-determination. This problem is not only of a local territorial nature, but it is also one of the most complex debatable problems of international law. Since the right to self-determination contradicts the principle of territorial integrity of the state, the consideration and solution of this issue is the most burning for the whole population living on the territory of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. In the article, the authors analyse the concept of "self-determination of the people" and give a generalised characteristic of it, approving that it is the right of every nation to solve the issues of state structure, political status, economic, social and cultural development independently and at its own discretion. The author also examines the historical past of the people of Donbass, where, in terms of the Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog and various documentary historical and legal materials, we come to the conclusion that the population of Donbass has the right to social, economic, cultural, spiritual and other development just as all the recognised countries of the world.

Part Three Protection and Solutions, VI Focusing on Specific Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albanese Francesca P ◽  
Takkenberg Lex
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Mena Region ◽  
Cultural Economic ◽  
Palestinian Refugees ◽  
The Right

This chapter focuses on a number of specific rights and entitlements of Palestinian refugees under international law, including the rights to self-determination, return, and compensation, as well as a number of civic, cultural, economic, political, and social rights, relevant because of the protracted nature of Palestinians’ exile and the main vulnerabilities to protection threats, as discussed in Part II. Despite being firmly established in international law, and being reaffirmed multiple times by the United Nations, both the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, and the right to return and compensation of the refugees, remain unmet. This is largely because of the lack of a solution in accordance with international law. The chapter argues that recognizing other fundamental rights of the Palestinians as refugees, stateless persons, and/or protected persons under international humanitarian law, and above all, as human beings, does not undermine the right to return and rather helps ensure human dignity while a just and lasting solution remains pending. These rights remain an important benchmark for assessing the treatment of Palestinian refugees in the MENA region and beyond, for as long as the more fundamental rights to self-determination, return, restitution, and compensation remain unrealized.

Frontiers of International Law, Part One: The Chechen People, Continued

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
René Lefeber ◽  
David Raič
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Parent State ◽  
The People ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

We agree with André de Hoogh that the Chechens did not possess a right to external self-determination prior to the massive indiscriminate use oi military force by Russia in December 1994. At no point have we argued or suggested otherwise. Hence, up to December 1994, the Chechen claim did indeed not meet the conditions set by paragraph seven of the Friendly Relations Declaration. However, the Friendly Relations Declaration needs to be interpreted in view of usus and opinio iuris. In other words, one has to analyse how this paragraph has developed in customary international law. According to our analysis of the law of self-determination, the emergence of a right to external self-determination depends on two cumulative conditions, viz. 1) the serious and persistent violation of the right to internal self-determination and 2) the exhaustion of all total and international peaceful remedies by the people concerned to effectuate its right to internal self-determination. These conditions must be deemed fulfilled if the parent state seriously and massively violates the fundamental human rights and freedoms – in particular by an arbitrary violation of the right to life – of the persons belonging to the people concerned.

Redrawing Maps, Manipulating Demographics: On Exchange of Populated Territories and Self-Determination

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Union ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Israeli Arabs ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Right

In “The Blessing of Departure—Exchange of Populated Territories The Lieberman Plan as an Abstract Exercise in Demographic Transformation,” Prof. Timothy Waters offers a strong endorsement of the right of ethnic majorities within a state to redefine their state's boundaries in ways consistent with the majority's right to self-determination and to opt out of a political union with minority groups, regardless of the latter's' political preferences. Applied to the Israeli context, Waters concludes that parts of the Lieberman Plan—a plan advocating the redrawing of Israel borders, inter alia, in ways which exclude some areas populated by Israeli citizens belonging to the Arab-Palestinian minority (Israeli-Arabs)—does not run afoul of international law (although Waters accepts that the Plan might be politically undesirable).This short response challenges two points that are central to Waters’s analysis. First, that the right to self-determination of peoples—in particular, the right to external self-determination (i.e., the right to create independent or other types of polities that express the will of an identifiable “people”)—is subject to temporal or contextual limitations. The right is fully applicable only in exceptional and formative moments in the life of a nation—e.g., during the formation of a new polity or the collapse of an existing political arrangement (which invites the configuration of new political entities in their lieu), and when states systematically fail to respect the basic interest of some of the groups that comprise its populace—i.e., in response to extraordinary situations of groups exclusion or oppression. Second, even if Waters is correct and an ongoing right to self-determination—including, a right to secede from existing states—is available to ethnic groups comprising diverse national societies, the invocation of such a right must necessarily be limited by other positive rules of international law designed to protect group and individual interests. Specifically, Waters’s concept of self-determination as a right of a preliminary nature, that overrides other human rights (which are themselves often characterized as rights of a pre-political nature), is debatable.

Two Faces of Self-determination in Political Divorce

ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Liu
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Real Problem ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Parent State ◽  
Daunting Task ◽  
The Right

AbstractFor decades, international law has denied the right to secede even if it enshrines self-determination. Existing scholarship explains this contradiction by opposing the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity: self-determination itself does not justify a valid claim to the disputed territory. This article, against conventional wisdom, argues that the opposition is superficial. The real problem lies within the notion of self-determination itself. Self-determination contains within it two opposite faces: one breeds separatist movements; the other supports unification and territorial sovereignty. Historically, self-determination grounded both union and separation in the rise of the nation-state; secessionist self-determination only came into play when epochal wars had weakened the sovereignty of the parent state. Conceptually, the ambiguity of self-determination makes defining the ‘self’ a daunting task for the law, especially when both the parent state and the seceding group make national claims.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document