One of the most controversial and misunderstood principles in modern international politics which has evoked such strong emotions has been the right to self-determination. While the principle and values of self-determination has been a beacon of light in shaping the destiny of humanity, yet the holistic language of self-determination has been dichotomized in confusing people that it implies different things. Today in international politics self-determination has been divided into two components: ‘external self-determination’ meaning the demand for sovereignty and independence; and ‘internal self-determination’ which is a demand for autonomy and self-government.
The underlying importance of self-determination is not so much the focus on the political status, but on how a people exercise their freedom to choose the basis on which they can determine their own destiny in a way that realizes their aspirations. So for instance, you have East Timor which exercised their right to self-determination by becoming independent, while the Sámi people exercised theirs in the form of an autonomy. Hence, notwithstanding the formation of a political status as an independent state or as an autonomous people, it is the principle of self-determination that provides the basis on which a spectrum of political status can be arrived upon.
The significance of the right to self-determination has been firmly established in the two human rights covenants of the United Nations as well as Resolution 1514 which is the Granting of Independence to colonized states. Without the presence of the right to self-determination, the process of decolonization would not have had any legal acceptance by international law. It is therefore to be erroneous to assume that the right to self-determination means only autonomy, or for that matter only sovereignty. In actual self-determination as a principle embodies a spectrum of political status that ranges from self-government to sovereignty. Self-determination is the principle on which political aspirations are realized; and it is for the people to decide the nature of political status they desire.
Once the decolonization process served the interest of the ‘free world,’ the great powers of the world started constructing the language of the right to self-determination in a manner that was no longer consistent with the values and principles of self-determination, a right that forms the very basis and legitimacy for sovereignty. State centric intellectuals began propounding the idea that it was the pursuit for self-determination that caused many of the world’s conflict, while people based activists resisted that idea, declaring it was the denial of the right to self-determination which was the root cause for the conflicts today, resulting in state repression and political violence.
However, with the United Nations General Assembly recently adopting the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on September 13, the language of the right to self-determination has been restored to give new meaning as a collective right inherent to indigenous peoples. The recognition of the right to self-determination for indigenous people by the United Nations enables the principle of self-determination to be implemented as a process towards liberating a peoples rather than just simply serving as a remedy to a historical problem. By this it means, that self-determination is not just a method of decolonization, but a right that recognizes and enables the right to self-definition and the right to fully exercise one’s political status.
Many of the worlds political conflict revolves around issues of independence and sovereignty; or in other words conflicts which are fought over the denial of the right to self-determination. Most of these conflicts which are armed and protracted in nature are waged between state and non-state actors; and because there has been a serious absence of a broad framework to enable conflicting parties to negotiate, their differences have only intensified into polarized political realities. The missing dimension on all failed peace processes has clearly shown that the inability of governments to recognize the right to self-determination has been responsible for break-down of negotiations. In other words, the right to self-determination is the defining factor between a successful and a failed negotiation.
The appeal of the principle of self-determination is simple, for it expresses the human desire that it is surely better that nations should determine their own destinies rather than someone else do it. The concept of self-determination best demonstrates the idea of democracy, according to which the people are accepted to be most qualified to govern themselves. The values of the right to self-determination is foremost the most common and minimum denominator on the basis of which nations and states interact with each other. Considering that the right to self-determination gives rise to ideas of freedom and sovereignty, it must invariably form the very basis and principle on which governments and people must negotiate to form a just and lasting peaceful solution.
It is without doubt that self-determination has been a leading principle in the breakup of colonial empires and in the creation of independent and sovereign states in the Twentieth Century. And it is in the same breath that one must assert the right to self-determination as a unifying value on which peoples, nations and governments must begin building a more secure and just world. It is indeed incomprehensible to imagine a just and dignified relation between any two political entities in the absence of self-determination. Certainly in the case of Indigenous people, if they are to have full and effective enjoyment of all of the human and fundamental freedoms recognized by the UN, it is imperative that the right to self-determination is respected and implemented so that by virtue of that right “they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
