The denial of a people’s inherent sovereign capacity to chart their own destiny has been the primary cause of many complex and violent conflicts. Such conflicts between States and Peoples are characterized by the lack of peoples’ self-determination and the presence of incompatible interests around justice and legitimacy. This conflict of interest epitomizes the inherent contradictions present within the modern State in which the struggle between power on one hand, and rights, on the other, is a constant feature. Whereas States seek to secure and establish their legitimacy over peoples within a defined territory through the use of force and coercion, Peoples generally seek to effectively exercise their rights in order to improve their quality of life.
Consequently, neither military means nor political negotiations have been able to lead to settlements by peaceful means that conform to principles of justice. The Sri Lankan military's aggressive approach with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, as well as the unfruitful cycles of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are examples that have demonstrated the limitations of military options and the negotiating process when it comes securing a long-term durable settlement that is consistent with international justice standards. In light of these circumstances and the increasing tension between the Peoples’ right and the State's territorial integrity, new theories and models of conflict transformation have to be constantly explored and created.
Keeping this in mind, the concept of “Earned Sovereignty” is fast emerging as a means of bridging the historic impasse between peoples’ struggle for self-determination and the State's position on territorial integrity. It has been used effectively as an option for ending conflict and resolving sovereignty based conflicts that resulted in reducing the accompanying human rights violations and the use of violence. Scholars, lawyers and peace practitioners have termed “Earned Sovereignty” as the most promising approach in addressing sovereignty and self-determination based conflicts. It has been used when developing peace agreements for East Timor, Kosovo, South Sudan, Northern Ireland and Bougainville. While in some of these cases, the conflict has been resolved, some of them are still in transition based on this approach.
“Earned sovereignty” is a multistage approach used to optimize the people's final political status developed within a peace process. Ideally, it is a framework or platform where conflicts on sovereignty and self-determination can be addressed. It can provide mechanisms for the peoples’ to be guided through a transition with viable options such as attaining full sovereign Statehood, or acquiring new autonomy political relations, or any other status as determined by both sides. This approach is based on promoting peaceful coexistence between a State and a political community by establishing an equitable and acceptable power sharing agreement. The status is usually determined through a referendum.
Recent experiences have shown that “Earned Sovereignty” is emerging as a valid and pragmatic approach to address self-determination and sovereignty conflicts. This includes a “managed devolution” of sovereign authority and State functions to a political community that provides flexibility both in terms of process and time period. This flexibility allows it to be a relevant and meaningful framework to address the conflict's unique and distinct circumstances, as well as, each party’s particular needs. Considering that the Naga conflict has been in a deadlock for many decades, it will be worthwhile for both India and the Nagas to explore the potential for applying “Earned Sovereignty” to uplift their aspirations and interests in order to co-exist in harmony.
