Doctrine of Self-Determination: Confined to Colonial Situations?

This article explores the proposition that the doctrine of self-determination is confined to colonial situations. It delves into the history of the doctrine, its internal and external aspects, and the extent to which it has been recognized under international law. The article also discusses the implications of the proposition and the ongoing debates surrounding the delineation of the 'self'.

Explain and comment upon the proposition that the doctrine of self-determination is
confined to colonial situations.
In its most basic form, the doctrine of self-determination can be described as the pride of the
designated to select its own political destiny. It includes making choices related with the exercise
of sovereignty and having independent external relations. Similarly, it can also be related with
the selection of the type of government.1 The basic concept of self-determination, which is the
right to choose, finds its basis in French and American revolutions that took place in the 18th
century. The emphasis of these revolutions was on liberty, justice and freedom from
authoritarian rule. The most significant expressions of this were found after the First and Second
World Wars. After World War I, it was considered that the doctrine of self-determination was
the basic principle adopted by Woodrow Wilson for redrawing European and world maps. In
order to establish a new and just order. In the same way, after World War II, the right to self-
determination was made a part of United Nations charter. This initiated the transformation of this
doctrine into a legal right.2 That was available under international law. At the same time, this
notion provided in practice, the justification and the impetus for de-colonization. Generally this
doctrine is conflated with independence. In recent times, the term self-determination is related
with the struggles that have been started by groups that are present in the state and seek greater
1 Rajen Harshe 2005, “Changing Profile of Imperialism in Global Political Order/Disorder” Economic and Political
Weekly , Vol. 40, No. 20 pp. 2071-2076
2 Asbjorn Eide, 1996, “Peaceful Group Accommodation as an Alternative to Secession in Sovereign States” in Self-
Determination: International Perspectives ed. Donald Clark and Robert Williamson, (United States of America: St.
Martin’s Press, Inc

autonomy or independence, mainly ethno-nationalist claims or as a counter reaction to
authoritarianism or oppression.3
During the recent academic debates and the international diplomacy, the focus is on internal self-
determination, while making proposals to resolve claims. Therefore, they often shied away from
the term self-determination completely in order to avoid mistakenly conflating every question
related with self-determination with the efforts for independence that may shatter a particular
State.4 Therefore, as in case of theory, the law also relied on the notion of self-determination in
self reference to the right to choose. It should not regulate your business specific outcomes.
Continuous discussions are taking place in legal, and diplomatic circles regarding the delineation
of the 'self'.5 In other words, to find the people who were entitled to self-determination and what
is implied or allowed by applying determination. The basic differences that are present in the
meaning are based on how circumscribed each of these components are interpreted by one.
Whether the exercise of self-determination is only confined to certain defined groups like
oppressed or colonial peoples or, it necessarily implies independent statehood in the form of
ideal outcome. According to the present knowledge of the doctrine, self-determination can be
described as a right to choose. That is available to all people, but with flexibility regarding the
application of satellite in context of particular claims.6
Since the nationalist wars that took place in the 19th century for the reunification of Germany of
the Cold War, the doctrine of self-determination has been accused of shattering large empires as
3 Erica-Irene Daes, 1996, “The Right of Indigenious Peoples to ‘Self-Determination’ in the Contemporary World
Order,” in Self-Determination: International Perspectives ed. Donald Clark and Robert Williamson, (United States
of America: St. Martin’s Press, Inc
4 Paul Collier, 2007, The Bottom Billion Oxford University Press
5 Graham Bird, 1978, The International Monetary System and Less Developed Countries London: Macmillan Press
6 Francisco Rodríguez and Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1999 “Why do resource-Abundant Ecnomies Grow More Slowly?”
Journal of Economic Growth , Vol. 4, No. 3 pp. 277-303

well as small states alike. Similarly it is also responsible for State building and state formation.
After World War I, the doctrine of self-determination achieve the classical or Wilsonian meaning
according to which a community that was trying to achieve sovereignty and full independence at
the expense of an existing state or other communities. In this way, self-determination
automatically involves a change in the present sovereign boundaries. Similarly, it also implies
that this is the right to form a government and administration in accordance with the wishes of
the community.7 Historically, the doctrine of self-determination has acted as the assertion of
national identity and statehood at the expense of large multinational empires. This doctrine has
also contributed in the resolution of colonial empires. Similarly, in recent times, the doctrine of
self-determination helped in the unification of Germany, the fall down of the Soviet Union and
its empire, the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the breakup of Czechoslovakia. At the same time
conflicts are also going on in Africa, Asia and Europe, to achieve autonomy and secession and as
a result, self-determination conflicts can be seen in different parts of the world like Chechnya,
Darfur, Sri Lanka and Kosovo.
Although the roots of the doctrine of self determination lie in the ideals behind French and
American revolutions but as a political concept, self-determination, was initially articulated as a
tool to maintain order and to spread democratic ideals in the first part of 20th century.8 Before
the Bolshevik Revolution, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin were also in favor of the doctrine of
self-determination as an anti-imperialist measure that was required to ensure world peace.9
7 Gudmundur Alfredsson, 1996, “Different Forms of and Claims to the Right of Self- Determination” in Self-
Determination: International Perspectives ed. Donald Clark and Robert Williamson, (United States of America: St.
Martin’s Press, Inc
8 Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish Notable and the Ottoman State (University of New York Press, 2004
9 Hugh Seton- Watson in Nations and States(Methuen, Limited: 1977)

At the same time, self-determination was also considered by Woodrow Wilson as the basis of
offering no rights to the people of Austro-Hungarian Empire and also to rebuild order that was
based on new and more democratic principles following the end of the World War I. On the basis
of the tenets mentioned in his Fourteen Points Speech, he insisted on the right of the people ruled
by the Germans and the Habsburgs, to have self-determination.10 As a result, these demands
featured in the Versailles peace process was still under the rubric of the colonial order for
satisfying the interests of great powers. Although the inducements to break apart the
multinational empires that was present with Wilson and replacing these empires with nation-
states so a more peaceful and democratic global order can be achieved, the essence of this desire
of self-determination is based on the stress on the relationship between peoples and independent
states. It was two decades later, when self-determination was used with the negative connotation
by Adolf Hitler. He had used this concept for justifying the consolidation of German-speaking
territories in order to achieve, "Volksraum".
In this regard, it is worth mentioning that self-determination has two aspects, internal and
external. Internal aspect oself-determination can be described as the right enjoyed by the people
of a particular state to govern themselves without any interference from the outside. On the other
hand, external self-determination can be described as the right available to the people according
to whom they can decide own political status and the people are free from alien domination
which includes the formation of their independent state.11 However, independence is not the only
possible outcome in case of the exercise of the right of self-determination.
Under international law, self-determination has been accepted in 1960s and it has been construed
as the right available to all colonial territories of becoming free or to assume any other status that
10 Hurst Hannum, 1990, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination University of Pennsylvania Press
11 Human Rights Watch, 2013, World Report: Democratic Republic of the Congo

they want.12 The ethnic or other distinct groups present in the colonies did not have the right to
break up from the people of the territory. However, in modern times, the right enjoyed by the
groups govern themselves is increasingly being considered in context of human rights,
particularly the rights available to indigenous people and minorities. Although the international
law has not yet recognized the right of secession, but it is probable that in future, it may be
acknowledged as an extraordinary measure, if the people of a dissimilar group are being
methodically deprived of the right to take part in the governance of the state or if the persons of
the group are suffering systematically and there are gross violations of human rights during the
week it becomes impossible for these people to take part in the state.
As mentioned above, the US President Woodrow Wilson was among earliest proponents of self-
determination. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that self-determination is not merely an
expression. It is an essential doctrine of action which will be ignored by any statesmen at their
peril. Despite the injunction of Woodrow Wilson, the attempts to give self-determination the
form of a obligatory norm did not take place for nearly 40 years, even after the death of tens of
millions of people in the two world wars.13 Although the Covenant of the League of Nations had
tried to directly deal with the notion of self-determination even if the term was not used, in the
system of mandates established by, the recognition of mandates and the execution of system was
completely dependent on politics and not on law. As a result, most of the territorial adjustments
that took place after World War I, the winners and losers who decided on the basis of political
12 Immanuel Kant, 2006, “The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals” in Toward Perpetual Peace
and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History ed. David Colclasure Yale University Press
13 J. King Gordon, 1962, UN in the Congo: A Quest fror Peace Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

calculations and the perceived requirements of the great powers instead of being decided on the
basis of the fact that the group had the strongest claim of self-determination.14
The extent of self-determination has been scrutinized by two groups of international experts who
were selected by the league of Nations for examining the case of Aland Islands, which was
linguistically and culturally the Swedish territory, but it wanted to join up with its original
homeland, Sweden instead of remaining a part of the Finnish State that had acquired
independence from the Russian Empire in 1917. In this context, it was stated by the first body of
experts that the doctrine of self-determination has not achieved the standing of international
law.15 Therefore, it stated that even if the notion of self-determination plays a significant role in
contemporary political thinking, particularly after the World War, but needs to be stated that
there is no mention of this doctrine in the covenant of the league of Nations. Therefore, the fact
that this principle has been recognized in certain number of international treaties cannot be
sufficient to place this principle on the equal footing as any other positive rule of international
law.
The second group of experts was also alike opinion regarding the extent of self-determination,
which was considered by it as a notion of justice and liberty, articulated by being and general
formula that results in most varied interpretations and difference of opinion. To give a right to
the minorities, either of religion, language or to any section of people, the right to withdraw from
the community in which they belonged, because they wants so, can result in destroying stability
and order in the States and also it will result in anarchy in international life.16 Therefore it would
be equal to upholding a theory that is mismatched with the idea of States as having political and
14 Immanuel Kant, 2006, “Perpetual Peace” in Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and
History ed. David Colclasure Yale University Press
15 James Raymond Vreeland, 2007, The International Monetary Fund, Politics of Conditional Lending Routledge
16 Ira Lapidus, 2002, A History of Islamic Societies Cambridge Universtiy Press

territorial unity.17 But it was suggested by this commission that at least in cases of extreme
oppression, a kind of self-determination was possible for the citizens of Aland Island has a
completely exceptional solution or as a last resort when the State did not have the will or the
authority to introduce and affect effective and just guarantees.
Self-determination finds mention only two places in the Charter of the UN. On both occasions, it
is done regarding the development of friendly relations among the nations and along with the
doctrine of equal rights enjoyed by the people. The mention of the peoples clearly includes the
growth beyond states and it also includes non-self-governing territories, "where the people have
not yet achieved full measure of self-government". With the increase in the process of
decolonization, the blurred doctrine of self-determination that was present in the Charter soon
developed into a right. This development took place in the decade between 1960 and 70. This
was the time when a large number of former colonies achieved independence. The first
significant text in this regard was the Declaration on the Granting of Independence from Colonial
Countries and Peoples. It was adopted in 1960 by the UN Gen. Assembly. It basically rested on
the need for peace, stability and the respect for human rights, the Declaration on Colonial
Independence, proclaimed the need for bringing quick and unqualified end to colonialism in all
its shapes. It also declared that all peoples have the right to self-determination.18 As a result of
the site, they can freely decide their political status and freely pursue their social, economic and
cultural development.19 It was further declared that the inadequacy of social, political, economic
and educational preparedness should not be used as the reason for delaying independence.
17 Jeremy Waldron 2006 , “Kantian Theory of State” in Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics,
Peace, and History ed. David Colclasure Yale University Press
18 Kevin Shillington, 1995, History of Africa St. Martin's Press
19 Mahir Aziz, 2011, The Kurds of Iraq I.B. Tauris

Another basic principle was provided by paragraph 6 of the declaration. Without this principle,
generally there is never a UN reference to self-determination. Therefore, it was stated that any
attempt made at partially or totally disrupt international unity and the territorial integrity of the
nation is incompatible with the purposes and principles provided by the Charter of the United
Nations.20 In this way the thrust of the religion is clear, our right to independence is available to
all colonial territories, however a closer reading reveals a number of uncertainties present in this
regard.
First of all, even if the title of the resolution only reference to colonial states and peoples the
operative paragraph 2 also mentions the right enjoyed by all the people to self-determination. In
this regard, operating paragraph 5 goes one step further, as it calls for transferring all powers to
trust and non-self-governing territories or all the other territories that may not have achieved
independence yet. Therefore the question arises if the peoples have to be associated with
territories, in view of the final paragraph? In case there are self-governing areas that are still
entitled to independence? Can subjugation be allowed if it is not by aliens? The answer is still
some of these questions can be found in Gen. Assembly Resolution 1541. It was adopted, one
day after Declaration on Colonial Independence. This resolution provides a list of principles that
can be used for guiding the states deciding if they should transmit information in accordance
with article 73e, Charter on "non-self-governing territories". In effect, the charter defines at least
one category of people that are integral to self-determination. First of all, it is noted by the
resolution that Chapter XI of the Charter applies to territories which were known as colonial type
in 1945" and then there is the continuous obligation of reporting until full measures of self-
20 Martain Ewans, 2002, European Atrocity, African Catastrophe: Leopold Ii, the Congo Free State and its
Aftermath RoutledgeCurzon

governance have been achieved by a territory and its peoples.21 In the same way it has been
mentioned in Principle IV that prima facie an obligation is present to transmit information
regarding a territory that is geographically separated and is also distinct culturally or ethnically
from the country which administers it.
The rest of the principles are linked with territories and not peoples. The above mentioned
quotation also makes it clear that a solitary region can be moved to several different peoples and
therefore it unreservedly rejects the separate right to self-determination for the peoples living in
present colonial regions. The ethnic differences present between a colony and its metropolitan
state is also relevant, but only as one of the factors that need to be considered while deciding if
the colony is non-self-governing. 10 years later, self-determination was dealt with. Even if it was
not clarified in the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations
and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It is also
known as the Declaration on Friendly Relations. It is believed that this declaration is based on
customary international law. It is also considered as the most authoritative statement regarding
the meaning of self-determination.
It has been reiterated by the Declaration on Friendly Relations that all peoples have the right to
self-determination. It identifies two purposes in this regard that are to be achieved by its
realization. The first is to promote friendly relations and cooperation among different States. The
second is to bring a speedy end to colonialism.22 Therefore, the definition of peoples has not been
offered by this Declaration. Similarly, the resolution also suggests that one of the objectives of
self-determination is providing a state to every ethnically distinct people. In this way, it is
reaffirmed by this resolution than self-determination can be achieved through independence and
21 Lewis Henry Gann, 1979, The Rulers of Belgian Africa 1884-1914 Princeton University Press
22 Louis Dupree, 1998 “Kant’s Theory of History and Progress” The Review of Metaphysics , Vol. 51, No. 4

free association and also through the emergence into any other political state, but it is really
decided by a people.
Therefore the above discussion reveals that in spite of having alteration in rhetoric all through
the years and the awareness that there has been an improvement in international situation, the
plight of millions of people still remains a reality. In this regard it can also be stated that despite
its spoken significance, the global society has never implemented the right of self-determination.
The denial of the right of self-determination to millions of people across the world has resulted in
a myriad of social, political and economic debacles due to which millions of people are still
suffering. As a result of the lack of self-determination, there has been an great loss of life and it
has also resulted in poverty or millions. The correlation that exists between the states that were
under foreign rule at one time and those countries that are facing the problems of under
development and poverty is an remark that has been made numerous times throughout the
history. However, this correlation is not a coincidence. Instead, it reveals the lack of willingness
on the part of the world leadership to take steps for ending the ongoing interventions into the
affairs of other countries.
Self-determination has not been implemented in global politics only due to the greed of the
nations that have the means of exerting power over other countries that have the resources that
they want. If such greed is replaced by integrity, effective leadership and morality, there will be a
complete change in the face of global community.

Bibliography
Asbjorn Eide, 1996, “Peaceful Group Accommodation as an Alternative to Secession in
Sovereign States” in Self-Determination: International Perspectives ed. Donald Clark and
Robert Williamson, (United States of America: St. Martin’s Press, Inc
Erica-Irene Daes, 1996, “The Right of Indigenious Peoples to ‘Self-Determination’ in the
Contemporary World Order,” in Self-Determination: International Perspectives ed. Donald
Clark and Robert Williamson, (United States of America: St. Martin’s Press, Inc
Francisco Rodríguez and Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1999 “Why do resource-Abundant Ecnomies Grow
More Slowly?” Journal of Economic Growth , Vol. 4, No. 3 pp. 277-303
Graham Bird, 1978, The International Monetary System and Less Developed Countries London:
Macmillan Press
Gudmundur Alfredsson, 1996, “Different Forms of and Claims to the Right of Self-
Determination” in Self-Determination: International Perspectives ed. Donald Clark and Robert
Williamson, (United States of America: St. Martin’s Press, Inc
Hakan Ozoglu, Kurdish Notable and the Ottoman State (University of New York Press, 2004
Hugh Seton- Watson in Nations and States(Methuen, Limited: 1977),
Human Rights Watch, 2013, World Report: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Hurst Hannum, 1990, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination University of
Pennsylvania Press
Immanuel Kant, 2006, “Perpetual Peace” in Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on
Politics, Peace, and History ed. David Colclasure Yale University Press

Immanuel Kant, 2006, “The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals” in Toward
Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History ed. David Colclasure Yale
University Press
Ira Lapidus, 2002, A History of Islamic Societies Cambridge Universtiy Press
J. King Gordon, 1962, UN in the Congo: A Quest fror Peace Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace
James Raymond Vreeland, 2007, The International Monetary Fund, Politics of Conditional
Lending Routledge
Jeremy Waldron 2006 , “Kantian Theory of State” in Toward Perpetual Peace and Other
Writings on Politics, Peace, and History ed. David Colclasure Yale University Press
Kevin Shillington, 1995, History of Africa St. Martin's Press
Lewis Henry Gann, 1979, The Rulers of Belgian Africa 1884-1914 Princeton University Press
Louis Dupree, 1998 “Kant’s Theory of History and Progress” The Review of Metaphysics , Vol.
51, No. 4
Mahir Aziz, 2011, The Kurds of Iraq I.B. Tauris
Martain Ewans, 2002, European Atrocity, African Catastrophe: Leopold Ii, the Congo Free State
and its Aftermath RoutledgeCurzon
Paul Collier, 2007, The Bottom Billion Oxford University Press
Rajen Harshe 2005, “Changing Profile of Imperialism in Global Political Order/Disorder”
Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 40, No. 20 pp. 2071-2076