The right of self-determination of peoples holds out the promise of sovereign statehood for all peoples and a domination-free international order. But it also harbors the danger of state fragmentation that can threaten international stability if claims of self-determination lead to secessions. Covering both the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century independence movements in the Americas and the twentieth-century decolonization worldwide, this book examines the conceptual and political history of the right of self-determination of peoples. It addresses the political contexts in which the right and concept were formulated and the practices developed to restrain its potentially anarchic character, its inception in anti-colonialism, nationalism, and the labor movement, its instrumentalization at the end of the First World War in a formidable duel that Wilson lost to Lenin, its abuse by Hitler, the path after the Second World War to its recognition as a human right in 1966, and its continuing impact after decolonization.

The Right of Self-Determination of Peoples: The Domestication of an Illusion

Notions of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ and ‘the responsibility to protect’ are often fra-med as radical departures from the ‘traditional’ conception of sovereignty. Many assume that sovereignty has, until recently, entailed only rights and not responsibilities. In con-trast, this article argues that sovereign authority has been understood to involve varied and evolving responsibilities since it was first articulated in the 16th and 17th centuries. It then traces the historical emergence of the tension between the right of sovereign states to be self-governing and free from outside interference and their responsibility to secure the safety of their populations. It cautions against a simplified story of ‘traditional’ sovereignty which reifies supposedly concrete and ahistorical rights of sovereigns while casting sovereign responsibilities as a morally abstract and late-arriving challenge.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354066109346889

The antecedents of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’

Little over 200 years ago, a quarter of a century of warfare with an 'outlaw state' brought the great powers of Europe to their knees. That state was the revolutionary democracy of France. Since then, there has been a remarkable transformation in the way democracy is understood and valued - today, it is the non-democratic states that are seen as rogue regimes. Christopher Hobson looks at the historical contrast between the strongly negative perceptions of democracy in the 18th century and the very high degree of acceptance and legitimacy in contemporary international politics. Building on this, Hobson looks at the role of democracy in international relations: in the past, its present role and the likely future challenges.

The Rise of Democracy: Revolution, War and Transformations in International Politics since 1776

Deconstructing ethnic conflict and sovereignty in explanatory international relations : the case of Iraqi Kurdistan and the PKK

Chapter I. Introduction 1. Balancing Order and Justice: External Self-Determination after Serious Injustices? 1.1. The Contentious Issue of Unilateral Secession 1.2. Unilateral Secession and Self-Determination 1.3. Unilateral Secession as a Remedial Right? 2. The Approach of this Study 2.1. Defining (Unilateral) Secession and Remedial Secession 2.2. Principal Research Question 2.3. Structure and Methodology Chapter II. Self-Determination: The Development from Principle to Right 1. Introduction 2. The Emergence of the Principle of Self-Determination 2.1. Democratic Political Theory 2.2. Ethnic Nationalism 2.3. Liberal Nationalism 3. Self-Determination Before the Second World War 3.1. Lenin's Conception of Self-Determination 3.2. Wilson's Conception of Self-Determination 3.3. Self-Determination in the Wake of the First World War 3.4. The Aland Islands Case 4. Self-Determination in the Post-War Era 4.1. The Charter of the United Nations 4.2. The Decolonization Process 4.2.1. The Meaning of Self-Determination in the Context of Decolonization 4.2.2. The Subjects and Legal Status of Self-Determination in the Context of Decolonization 5. Conclusions Chapter III. The Contemporary Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination 1. Introduction 2. Self-Determination as a Continuous Entitlement 2.1. The International Human Rights Covenants of 19 2.2. The Friendly Relations Declaration 2.3. Subsequent Documents 3. Internal Self-Determination 3.1. The Content of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.1.1. Implementation of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.1.2. Internal Self-Determination and Democratic Governance? 3.2. The Status of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.3. The Subjects of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.3.1. All Inhabitants of a State 3.3.2. Subgroups within States 3.3.3. Minorities 3.3.4. Indigenous Peoples 3.4. Conclusions on Internal Self-Determination 4. External Self-Determination 4.1. The Content of the Right to External Self-Determination 4.1.1. Dissolution 4.1.2. (Re)union or Merger 4 1.3. Secession 4.1.4. Dissolution and Secession: A Blurred Distinction 4.2. The Status and Subjects of the Right to External Self-Determination 4.3. Conclusions on External Self-Determination 5. Conclusions Chapter IV. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Contemporary International Law? 1. Introduction 2. Recognizing a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession? 2.1. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in International Conventions 2.2. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Doctrine 1 2.2.1. The Content of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession 1 2.2.2. The Subjects of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession 1 2.2.3. Contraindications 2.2.4. Conclusions on Doctrine 2.3. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Judicial Decisions and Opinions 2.3.1. The Aland Islands Case 2.3.2. Katangese Peoples' Congress v. Zaire 2.3.3. Loizidou v. Turkey 2.3.4. Reference re Secession of Quebec 2.3.5. Kevin Ngwanga Gumne et al. v. Cameroon 2.3.6. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo 2.3.6.1. Background of the Case 2.3.6.2. The Advisory Opinion 2.3.6.3. Individual Opinions of Judges on a Right to Remedial Secession 2.3.7. Conclusions on Judicial Decisions and Opinions 2.4. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in General Principles of (International) Law 2.4.1. The Principle of Respect for the Territorial Integrity of States 2.4.1.1. The Content of the Principle of Territorial Integrity 2.4.1.2. The Principle of Territorial Integrity and the Right to Self-Determination 2.4.1.3. A Balancing Approach 2.4.1.4. Conclusions on the Principle of Territorial Integrity 2.4.2. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 2.4.2.1. The Content of the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 2.4.2.2. The Applicability of the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 1 2.4.2.3. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris and the Right to Self-Determination 2.4.2.4. Conclusions on the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 2.4.3. The Principle of Self-Determination 2.4.4. Conclusions on General Principles of (International) Law 2.5. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Other Possible Sources of International Law 2.5.1. Unilateral Acts of States 2.5.2. Acts of International Organizations 2.5.3. Conclusions on Other Possible Sources of International Law 3. Conclusions 1 Chapter V. Customary International Law: Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession 1. Introduction 2. The Two Conventional Elements of Customary International Law 2.1. State Practice 2.1.1. Uniformity 2.1.2. Extensiveness and Representativeness 2.1.3. Duration 2.1.4. The Interrelationship of the Three Factors 2.2. Opinio Juris 3. Customary International Law beyond the Conventional Model? 3.1. Progressive Approaches towards Customary International Law 3.2. A Critical Appraisal 4. Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession 5. Conclusions Chapter VI. A Customary Right to Remedial Secession? 1. Introduction 2. The Recognition of States: a Brief Introduction 2.1. The Constitutive and Declaratory Approach 2.2. Recognition and Unilateral Secession 3. Acknowledgement of A Right to Remedial Secession in Practice? 3.1. The Case of Kosovo 3.1.1. General Responses to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence 3.1.1.1. Recapitulation 3.1.2. The Advisory Proceedings before the International Court of Justice 3.1.2.1. Support for the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.1.1. Views and Arguments Supporting a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.1.2. Recapitulation 3.1.2.2. Opposition to the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.2.1. Views and Arguments Opposing the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.2.2. Recapitulation 3.1.3. Conclusions on the International Responses to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence 3.2. Other Cases 3.2.1. Bangladesh 3.2.2. Eritrea 3.2.3. The Baltic Republics (and the Other Successor States to the USSR) 3.2.4. Croatia and Slovenia (and the Other Successor States to the SFRY) 3.2.5. Conclusions on the International Responses to Other Cases 4. Legal Appraisal of International Responses to Attempts at Unilateral Secession: State Practice and Opinio Juris 4.1. State Practice 4.2. Opinio Juris 4.3. Taking Stock: A Customary Right to Remedial Secession? 5. Conclusions Chapter VII. Recapitulation, Conclusions, and Final Reflections 1. Introduction 2. A Right to Remedial Secession? 2.1. The Development of the Right to Self-Determination 2.2. The Contemporary Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination 2.3. Traces of a Right to Remedial Secession in Contemporary International Law 2.4. Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession 2.5. A Customary Right to Remedial Secession? 2.6. Conclusions on a Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Lata and De Lege Ferenda 2.6.1. A Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Lata 2.6.2. A Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Ferenda 3. Final Reflections on Remedial Secession 3.1. Effectuating Remedial Secession through Recognition? 3.2. Remedial Secession and the Humanization of the International Legal Order

Anthony Whelan

Papers

Wilsonian Self-Determination and the Versailles Settlement