The notion that every generation enters into a contract with notions of justice, dignity, peace, and purposeful existence needs reflection. Perhaps through this idea of generational contract we come to understand the perpetual changing realities defining the present and future as well.
Take state boundaries for example, and how the old boundaries consistently manifest itself in different ways with newer challenges; and how societies have chosen to respond to them. One needs to recall that old boundaries - “colonial boundaries” – were in effect functioning “as the boundaries of emerging states;” whereby the focus on the territory and boundaries rather than on peoples limited the notion of peoples seeking their right to decide their own destiny.
The old-boundaries of Western Europe have broken down as the European Commission implements the freedom of movement, which they proclaim as the “main rights of human beings.” The Schengen Treaty zone facilitates free movement of people through 26 sovereign states, with only a Schengen visa, thus altering the concept of state frontiers and territorial integrity. It is hard to imagine that just a generation ago these old-boundaries were the symbols of division; and that countless wars had been fought to establish them.
Indeed a new sense of pragmatism is beginning to define the manner in which old-problems are being addressed. Yet, the rationale of state territorial integrity continues to test human imagination in former colonies in Asia and Africa. With traditional notions of territorial integrity being redefined and transformed into less rigid lines of control, it is becoming quite apparent that the principle of territorial integrity is conditioned to the right to self-determination. This suggests that in conflicts between territorial integrity and self-determination, the right to self-determination should prevail. The concept and value of self-determination is not only a broader concept, but is a source that gives birth to the idea of peoples’ sovereignty itself.
Under International Law, the principle of territorial integrity is not the end, neither is it absolute in itself; and accordingly, such a principle is to ensure that the interests of the people of a given territory are safeguarded. Consequently, the rationale of state territorial integrity is applicable and meaningful only so long as it continues to fulfill that purpose. No state can claim to safeguard the interest of the people unless the people have themselves expressed their consent and will to be part of it. This dual condition needs fulfillment when the principle of territorial integrity is invoked.
The limitation of territorial integrity is best illustrated by Judge Hardy Dillard in the International Court of Justice case on Western Sahara, when he said, “it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
The greatest irony is that while former colonial powers have moved on from its past, even to the extent of breaking down old-boundaries, former colonies continue to rigidly hold on to colonial boundaries. Unless the burden of this history begins to be healed, yesterday will remain the same as today, because it is a future with no tomorrow.
