Justification of the Right to National Self-Determination

Right to self-determination - If someone needs help to make decisions then decision-making should involve that person as much as possible

This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.

In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)

“Self-determination is ultimately about the concept of sovereignty: the right of a people to govern themselves. Indian tribes are viewed as sovereign nations by the constitution. The Supreme Court has described tribes as domestic, dependent nations, meaning that some of their aboriginal sovereignty has been given to the federal government” (Native American Netroots.)

The article “Freedom For All” was mainly about how a list of events in past time led up to the day that we give, known as National Freedom Day. National Freedom Day, which we celebrate on February 1st every year is a day where we commemorate the independence that all Americans savor today(“Freedom For All” 1).

According to Stephen Krasner and his shared sovereignty mentality it can be noted that many of the sovereignty rules do not apply due to, no truly autonomous, internationally recognized well-governed states. Stated in the article he points out three

Secession occurs due minorities wanting independence or sovereignty for political-cultural identity reasons. Self-determination, which is the idea that a people that possess some sort of unanimous identity have the right to pursue their own political interests and form their own state, is most commonly considered the primary justification for secession (Clark 739). However, there is an ongoing debate as to when a people can put this notion of self-determination into practice. The ‘extent’ of self-determination that a people has is one of the major factors that determines whether or not a secession can be successful. However, there are many other contributing determinants of success. In particular, this paper will demonstrate that state systems and their power structures are an equally important aspect of secession that can ultimately impact and alter its outcome and success. It will contend that secessionist movements are more likely to achieve a favourable outcome or be considered successful if the parent state is governed as a federation rather than a unitary state.

When we look at international law we can see that there is definitely a right of self-determination as defined in 2 covenants (the ICCPR and ICESCR). In both of these covenants in article 1 people “have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. We can then divide this right, there is the internal self-determination and the rights of the people in the state along with external self-determination which is where a claim directly affects the territory of a state. The Kimeshian case is a case of external self-determination driven by issues of internal self-determination.

The “Right of Secession” has become a major political issue in the world. In the USA history, during civil war, the southern states seceded from the union because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. The civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 until the USA resolved the issue of secession. On the hand, today, the case of secession is growing movement in the world. Many people want secede from their government and form their own nation. Many conflicts around the world today are between the central government and ethnic groups. Some parts of the world governments are not properly representative of all the constituent ethnic groups within its inequity between majorities and minorities. For these reasons the UN and the human Rights

Through understanding where ultimate authority resides in political institutions, the features and key principles of democracy are analysed. Furthermore, through revising sovereignty, it can be understood how it applies to non-democratic institutions such as dictatorships or one party political regime. By studying sovereignty, a comparison of the contrasting political regimes, (democracies and dictatorships) can be undertaken. Sovereignty, in this way is an intrinsic part of the study of politics. The concept of sovereignty enables a student to explore one of the political controversies of the C21st.

2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members – above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

The history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is so deeply ingrained in both the Arab and Jewish population that the viability of self-determination rests on the recognition and management of past conflicts and disagreements. It is crucial to recognise that both Zionist and Palestinian movements are based on nationalist ideology and both peoples seek self-determination. The argument for self-determination needs to be framed within the historical and political context of the area. Key considerations for viability to consider in this exam will be the history of nationalism and identity of the Arabs and the Jews and the importance of religion and historical significance of the area. It is important to qualify that these areas, within the

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

State that influenced by Western Christianity culture often have great confusion on the role and interests of "human rights and humanitarian" due to "religious obstacles". According to the UN Charter, " collectivity benifits derive from Individualism" (can be understood as human rights above sovereignty), which is actually its legal basis of existence. However, this term is vetoed by "the sanctity of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member of the right". Any use of "human rights above sovereignty" for explaining the legitimacy of rebellion also means that "unity at any cost" is the statutory power for both sides in a civil war.

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.