Did You Know This?

Nharnet.com is pleased to continue presenting to its readers selected articles on topical issues. The term self-determination is one of the principal concepts that appear in the recently adopted Charter of the Eritrean Democratic Alliance (EDA). The terms ‘sovereignty’ and federalism also pop up in current political writings and discussions among Eritreans. The material below is thus a recommended reading for readers who seek fuller grasp of ongoing political issues in our arena. The material party states:

There is tension between the concept of self-determination and that of territorial integrity. This conflict has been resolved in practice by defining the notion of "people" entitled to self-determination as persons living in a particular nation-state rather than persons sharing a common culture or language. Hence, self-determination as it is understood in the early 21st century does not generally promote the political aspirations of oppressed ethnic minority or ethnic minorities.
Many of the newly independent former colonies faced secessionist and irredentist movements and therefore there was an international consensus that self-determination did not apply to these movements.

Good reading. Nharnet Team.

***

Self-determination is a principle in international law that a people ought to be able to determine their own governmental forms and structure free from outside influence.

This principle was first articulated by the US president Woodrow Wilson at the end of his World War I in his Fourteen Points; and that legal term was important in the Treaty of Versailles for drawing the boundaries of Eastern Europe and affecting decolonization. Many of the concepts embodied in the ideal of self-determination, however, can be found in earlier documents such as the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

The right to self-determination has been used in recent decades by people all over the world. In most cases there is an ethnic or religious minority seeking independence from a majority to escape prejudice or persecution.

The constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged this right for its sister republics (although not for declared "autonomous" regions), but it was not applied in practice until the perestroika, when it led to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

At the ratification of the UN Charter in 1951, the signatories introduced the right of all people to self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

The purpose of the self determination clause was to allow the former colonies that existed before World War II to have a say in their future. However, after decolonization the right to self-determination became understood to apply only to states and not to peoples, and to be circumscribed by the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs. Many of the newly independent former colonies faced secessionist and irredentist movements and therefore there was an international consensus that self-determination did not apply to these movements.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights in 1970 committed the idea of the right for self-determination to the body of international protocol. In essence, all people reserve the right to seek self-determination to address a lack of proper representation or oppression from any given government.

There is tension between the concept of self-determination and that of territorial integrity. This conflict has been resolved in practice by defining the notion of "people" entitled to self-determination as persons living in a particular nation-state rather than persons sharing a common culture or language. Hence, self-determination as it is understood in the early 21st century does not generally promote the political aspirations of oppressed ethnic minority or ethnic minorities.

Wilson's ideas of self-determination originated in his U.S. Southern states|Southern heritage and sympathies. His favorite movie was The Birth of a Nation, and his Democratic Party beliefs and personal ties were steeped in Southern pride and resentment of U.S. Northern states|Northern power. Hence Southern interpretations of States-Rights directly led to Wilson's ideas of self-determination. Many have criticized both concepts, however, for promoting secession and division over unity. Further, the key question is at what level do populations have the right to self-determination and the formation or preservation of a state, the empowerment of a local majority, and the formation of a local minority. In the United States, southern states' rights to determine their own destiny during the American Civil War and Civil Rights era were held to be not absolute, especially since significant minorities there were oppressed. In Europe after World War I, many of the former Empires destroyed in that war were broken up into ethnic states which themselves were amalgamations of peoples containing their own minorities, in Yugoslavia, the former Russian and Austro-Hungarian provinces, and in the Middle East. In History of Palestine, Jewish immigrants would claim self-determination to justify the creation of the state of Israel in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire, just as people in the West Bank would later claim independence as "Palestine".

Hence, self-determination has been held to be an example of democracy at work, but also as an example of an abstract theory that when implemented has sometimes led to and fed further ethnic, national, and regional civil conflict.

Sovereignty in certain contexts

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people, or one's self. Sovereignty over a nation is generally vested in a government or political agency, though there are cases where it is held by an individual. A monarch who rules a sovereign country can also be referred to as the sovereign of that country

In International law, the important concept of sovereignty refers to the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

For instance, in theory, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of mainland China and Taiwan. Some foreign governments recognize the Republic of China as the valid state, most now recognize the People's Republic of China. However, de facto, the People's Republic of China exercises sovereign power over mainland China, while the Republic of China exercises sovereign power over Taiwan. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the People's Republic often entertain de facto but not de jure diplomatic relationships with Taiwan by maintaining 'offices of representation', such as the American Institute in Taiwan, rather than embassies there.

Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of tribes or of federally recognized American Indian nations to exercise limited jurisdiction within and sometimes beyond reservation boundaries.

The etymology of the word sovereignty, with origins in the Latin super, conveys the idea of "overness".

In some regions of the world, such as Quebec, the word "sovereignty" has become the preferred synonym for national independence.

Different views of sovereignties

There exist vastly differing views on the moral bases of sovereignty. These views translate into various bases for legal systems:

Partisans of the divine right of kings argue that the monarch is sovereign by divine right, and not by the agreement of the people. This, pushed to its conclusion, translates into a system of absolute monarchy.
Most democracies are based on the concept of popular sovereignty: ultimately, sovereignty is vested in the people, who freely grant the exercise of it to the government.
Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments.
Supporters of democratic globalization consider that nation-states should yield some of their power to world organization controlled by world citizens instead of being organized as now in an intergovernmental basis

The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction.

Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("no de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient, sovereignty requires both elements.

Sovereignty and federalism

Federal systems of government, such as that of the United States of America, sovereignty also refers to powers a state-government has independently of the federal government.

The question whether the individual states, particularly the so-called 'Confederate States' of the American Union remained sovereign became a matter of debate in the USA, especially in its first century:

According to the theory of John C. Calhoun, the states had entered into an agreement from which they might withdraw if other parties broke the terms of agreement, and they remained sovereign. Calhoun contributed to the theoretical basis for acts of secession, as occurred just before the American Civil War. However, Calhoun propounded this as part of a general theory of "nullification", in which a state had the right to refuse to accept any Federal law that it found to be objectionable. These self-same southern states refused to accept that non-slave states had any such nullificatory right and insisted that the Federal government enforce the Fugitive Slave Act over any state's attempt to nullify it. Therefore, to accept the Calhoun doctrine, one would have to likewise admit that the southern states only applied it when it was to their own advantage, throwing it away when it was inconvenient.
According to the theory expounded in the Federalist party, the individual states did not, after the formation of the constitution, remain completely sovereign: they retained possession of certain attributes of sovereignty, while others were ceded to the Federal government; while many states existed, only one sovereign survived. Even if the origin was a compact or contract, after the "United States" were formed by a "constitutional act" there no longer existed a mere contractual relation: there existed a state to which all were subject, and which all must obey.
According to Austin: In the case of a composite state or a supreme federal government, the several united governments of the several united societies together with a government common to these several societies, hold joint sovereignty in each of these several societies and also in the larger society arising from the federal union, the several governments of the several united societies remain jointly sovereign in each and all.

Contact Us at: webmaster@nharnet.com