SELF-DETERMINATION ON DIPLOMACY INDEPENDENCE.

Independence remains a powerful impulse for the creation of new states, particularly among peoples repressed by central governments. But one thing is certain is that some top administration’s policy makers argues that the rise of interdependence among nations offers a less drastic remedy for violent secessionist conflicts.

“The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century. In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination. This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that “self-determination” exists on a spectrum.  Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given ‘people’ from the larger politico-legal state.”

INTRODUCTION:

Self-determination implies the right of a particular group of people to determine for themselves how and by whom they wish to be governed. The principle was little known for much of human history, as groups were either small self-governing communities whose legitimacy was based on religion or culture or, within kingdoms and empires, communities that had no expectation that people could choose their rulers. In the 18th and 19th centuries, political philosophers began to assert that nations or peoples, groups possessing a shared ethnicity, history, language, and/or culture, should control their “own” government, rather than be subjected to alien or foreign rule. This principle of congruence between the “nation” and political governance became known as nationalism, although it remained only a political principle or goal, as opposed to an international legal norm (see Nationalism). The Covenant of the League of Nations proclaimed that it was a “sacred trust” for states to promote the advancement of colonial territories that had previously belonged to the countries defeated in World War I, and these territories were placed under the League’s system of international mandates. However, the League rejected calls from US President Woodrow Wilson that the Covenant include specific reference to self-determination, and there was no recognition of a general right for all peoples, nations, or colonies to be self-governing or independent. Twenty years later, the Charter of the United Nations did recognize the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and called upon states to develop “free political institutions” in non-self-governing territories under their control. In the 1960s, these general provisions gradually developed into a new international law of self-determination, based not on ethnic or national identity but on non-self-governing status; thus, colonial territories were deemed to possess the right to self-determination and independence, but not the ethnic or cultural “nations” within them. International law has largely maintained this conservative, statist perspective, which rejects the notion that distinct “peoples” within existing states have any right to secession or self-government. The primary self-determination issues debated by contemporary international lawyers, diplomats, and international relations theorists are whether there are any conditions under which groups might acquire a right to external self-determination (independence) and whether self-determination in its internal dimension could imply a right to autonomy or other devolution of power within an existing state for distinct groups within that state.

At its most basic, the principle of self-determination can be defined as a community’s right to choose its political destiny. This can include choices regarding the exercise of sovereignty and independent external relations (external self-determination) or it can refer to the selection of forms of government (internal self-determination). The fundamental concept of self-determination-the right to choose-has its roots in the American and French revolutions in the eighteenth century with their emphasis on justice, liberty, and freedom from authoritarian rule. It found its most prominent expressions following World Wars I and II. In the aftermath of the First World War, self-determination was perceived to be Woodrow Wilson’s guiding principle for redrawing European and world maps to establish a new, just order. Following World War II, self-determination was enshrined in the United Nations Charter, initiating its transformation into a legal right under international law. In practice, this notion provided the justification and impetus for de-colonization and is often conflated with independence. More recently, the term is associated with struggles by groups within a state for greater autonomy or independence-primarily ethno-nationalist claims or counter-reactions to oppression or authoritarianism. Current academic debates and international diplomacy tend to emphasize internal self-determination in proposals for resolving claims, often shying away from the term altogether to avoid mistakenly conflating every question of self-determination with a quest for state-shattering independence. In law as in theory, the principle itself refers to the right to choose and should neither privilege nor dismiss specific outcomes. Discussion continues in academic, legal, as well as diplomatic circles as to the delineation of the ‘self’-in other words, who are the peoples entitled to self-determination-and what is implied or allowed by the application of ‘determination.’ Fundamental differences in meaning hinge upon how circumscribed one interprets each of these components: whether the exercise of self-determination is restricted to certain defined groups (e.g., colonial or oppressed peoples) or necessarily implies independent statehood as the ideal outcome. Contemporary understanding of the principle defines self-determination as the right to choose for all peoples, but with flexibility as to the application of that right in the context of particular claims.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION:

From the nationalist wars of the nineteenth century to the reunification of Germany after the Cold War, self-determination has been responsible for shattering large empires and small states alike as well as for state formation and state-building. Since World War I, self-determination has acquired a classical or Wilsonian meaning: a community striving for full independence and sovereignty at the expense of the existing state(s) and other communities. In this sense, self-determination automatically entails a change in existing sovereign boundaries and also implies the right to form a government and administration according to that community’s wishes. Historically, this notion of self-determination served the assertion of statehood and national identity at the expense of large multinational empires (e.g., Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and czarist Russian); contributed to the dissolution of colonial empires; and, more recently, fueled the unification of Germany, the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire, and the breakup of Czechoslovakia. Struggles for autonomy and secession have been and continue to be a source of conflict in Africa, Asia, and Europe-witness the ongoing self-determination conflicts in places as diverse as Chechnya, Kosovo, Sri Lanka, and Darfur.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS:

Given the legal weight of self-determination as well as its symbolic power as a beacon of freedom, leaders of claimant groups frequently use the term self-determination to try to capitalize on international sympathies-attempting to internationalize issues by linking their situation or goals to international law and precedent in the rhetoric of “neo-colonialism.” However, the international community eschews such linkages, often associating demands for self-determination solely with separatist tendencies. The political ramifications of rewarding every claimant group a separate right to self-determination-in the Wilsonian sense of independence-are potentially destabilizing in a world where boundaries overlap and ethnicities mingle. Despite Woodrow Wilson’s vision for a more harmonious world order after World War I, the ideal of having an individual state for every nation is unachievable without widespread violence and bloodshed. Instead, many statesmen and scholars alike would agree that self-determination is a loaded term often identified closely with secession and thus can be considered extremely destructive. State representatives often avoid the word altogether or deliberately emphasize its negative connotations. The process of international recognition, by other states and the United Nations, offers another threshold limiting the chances of full independence as a result of classic self-determination. Recent scholarship and practice suggest an emphasis on self-determination as a more dynamic concept-ongoing accommodation of all groups in the political process-rather than as a question of acquiring the status of a new, internationally-recognized independent state. In the fields of international law and political philosophy, some scholars place contemporary self-determination claims in the context of international human rights and good governance regimes. Discourse in the legal literature suggests that a post-colonial right to self-determination does exist and can be accommodated by current legal instruments, while several political philosophers advocate at least a remedial right to self-determination resulting in secession when serious human rights abuses have occurred over time. “

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS:

At the beginning of the 21st century, new self-determination struggles have emerged around the globe while other, long-simmering conflicts continue unabated. But each case harbors its own, very specific background and level of development and differs in intensity and orientation. Self-determination claims have unique root causes, encompassing a wide range of issues: economic or resource control, leadership interests, quests for sovereignty by communities with lingering interethnic problems, and historical grievance to name a few. To complicate analysis of self-determination, the international response to claims also exhibits diversity, from suppression and domination to deliberate manipulation and incitement as well as outside power involvement. The international community, still possessing the attitudes and strategies toward self-determination that were developed before and during the Cold War, has rarely responded effectively or consistently to contemporary claims. Neither has it acted in a timely fashion or shown much innovation. A distinguishing feature of self-determination conflicts that makes them difficult to resolve is their inherent combination of three overlapping disputes over identity, territory, and governance. Self-determination claimant groups articulate the importance of a shared identity-often ethnic, tribal, or religious in origin-as the basis of their claim. This perception of distinct identity, and the desire to preserve that identity, compels the group to become or remain politically active. In other words, part of the inherent conflict concerns the distinctiveness of the group relative to other communities and to the central authorities and how that separate identity should actuate in the political process.

If we must get it right, the government of the Kingdom of New Atlantis must allow self-determination on diplomacy independence to strived.