A catalyst for conflicts?

With the collapse of the Western colonial system, the overwhelming majority of oppressed nations and countries globally have secured their liberation and attained independence. It could be argued that the principle of self-determination, which was designed to combat colonialism and advance national emancipation, has accomplished its historical role. Yet, in practical terms, we are witnessing that self-determination has not been relegated to the annals of history. Furthermore, within Western political and academic dialogues, the concept of self-determination has undergone a transformation, acquiring novel dimensions and roles:

On one side, the applicability of self-determination has been delineated into external and internal spheres. The external aspect pertains to self-determination in opposition to colonialism and national oppression, while the internal aspect allows peoples to freely organize their governance, choose the form of their government, and determine their economic, social and cultural systems.

Professor Antonio Cassese, who first proposed the concept of internal self-determination, pointed out that internal self-determination is equivalent to the right to autonomy within the domestic political sphere. However, Chinese scholars Bai Guimei and Wang Yingjin both argue that this method of dividing self-determination into internal and external aspects is neither logically sound nor legally justifiable, mainly because it blurs the boundary between international law and domestic political systems.

The right to self-determination is a principle and a right stipulated by international law, whereas the right to autonomy is an institutional arrangement within the domestic political sphere and should be determined by all the people of a country. The distinguishing between internal and external affairs causes the right to self-determination to be applied not only to international relations but also to ethnic relations within sovereign states. This can easily lead to foreign interference in the internal affairs of others under the pretext of self-determination. It also enables some regional ethnic elites with ulterior motives to demand separation under the pretext of "real autonomy," with the ultimate aim of achieving independence and statehood.

On the other side, according to the declaration adopted by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975, internal self-determination refers to the respect for human rights and the right to democratic elections. Henceforth, the notion of "human rights" has been correlated with "national sovereignty" via the concept of "internal self-determination." Given that self-determination is instrumental in the construction of national sovereignty, and that human rights constitute the essence of "internal self-determination," the notion that "human rights surpass sovereignty" appears to follow as a matter of course.

In actuality, however, this new interpretation conferred upon self-determination is advocating for "the supremacy of self-determination" and the principle of "one nation, one state." It posits that the principle of self-determination extends to every ethnic group within the confines of a nation-state. From a theoretical standpoint, all ethnic groups, irrespective of their size, are endowed with equal rights to self-determination. Nevertheless, the dilemma emerges that should every ethnicity be entitled to self-determination without any limitations, the end result could be the endless disintegration of sovereign nations, leading to fragmentation of the international order predicated on sovereign states. Furthermore, the genesis of ethnic groups within countries is diverse and does not necessarily align with the "peoples" as recognized within the purview of international law.

Moreover, if the establishment of a nation-state is considered a reasonable demand in line with historical trends, it is bound to cause separatist movements in a multi-ethnic country or lead to ethnic cleansing in a relatively mono-ethnic nation. In either case, it would plunge sovereign states and the international community based on them into extreme chaos and turmoil. Historical events such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, referendums on independence in Scotland and Catalonia, separatist movements of the Kurds and Tamils, and genocides in Burundi and Rwanda have repeatedly proven this point.

In conclusion, irrespective of the novel interpretations ascribed to the right to self-determination, employing this principle, which is inherently defined by political self-determination and national independence, within the domain of sovereign states is bound to engender forces of fragmentation that are profoundly destabilizing. Consequently, employing self-determination to advocate for autonomy or independence of a particular region or ethnic group within a multi-ethnic nation largely constitutes an act of secession, thereby jeopardizing the sovereign and territorial integrity of that nation.

Therefore, with the collapse of the colonial systems in the contemporary era, is there still a relevant context within which the principle of self-determination can be applied?

Is it still applicable in today's world?

We can delineate the applicability of "self-determination" within the framework of international law by examining three key dimensions: the entities entitled to self-determination, the objectives pursued through such exercise, and the mechanisms by which it is implemented. That is to say, it is imperative to specify the collectives possessing the authority to invoke self-determination, the goals intended to be achieved thereby, and the avenues through which these goals are to be realized.

Considering the entity that holds the right to self-determination, such right is vested exclusively in the "people" or "nation." The term "people" in this context denotes "the entire populace of a nation," whereas "nation" pertains to nations as recognized in international law—entities that constitute the fabric of the global community and are members of the United Nations. Chinese scholars occasionally refer to these as "state-nations," highlighting their intrinsic connection to the concept of statehood. Examples include the Chinese nation, the American nation, and the Spanish nation. It should be clear that the term "nation" in this context transcends the ethnic categorizations found in ethnological studies, instead denoting a "unified people" that emerges from the collective of all ethnicities or groups within a state. Once this "unified people" has secured state sovereignty, it must uphold the principle that sovereignty is supreme, and any act of self-determination that compromises national sovereignty does not align with the foundational principles and rights as defined by international law.

That is to say, the right to self-determination does not extend to any community exhibiting cultural or ethnic distinctions within a state (which are variably termed in the international discourse as nationalities, ethnic groups, tribes, linguistic communities, etc.).

Considering the objective of self-determination, Lenin conceptualized self-determination as a right to independence. This self-determination as the right to independence is specifically vested in colonial territories and oppressed nations. The United Nations' Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, enacted in 1960, further solidified in international law that independence constitutes the rightful objective of self-determination for colonial subjects, although the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the United Nations in 1970, elucidates that a nation can realize the objective of self-determination not only by the establishment of an independent state but also by the free association or integration with an independent state or the emergence into any other political status.

However, we must be vigilant about one issue: when a nation opts to integrate with an independent state or emerge into any other political status, it does not imply that it has entirely forsaken its "right to independence." History has repeatedly shown that independence is the ultimate goal a nation pursues in exercising self-determination. Yet, for those nations that have already chosen to "integrate or emerge," any future attempts to exercise self-determination will lack legality and legitimacy, from both the standpoints of international law and domestic law.

In terms of domestic law, it is clear, as the legal systems of sovereign states do not permit claims to self-determination that would undermine the state's sovereignty or territorial integrity. In the context of international law, the liberation of a nation from imperialistic or colonial oppression is recognized as "independence," while the act of secession from a sovereign state is considered "separation." Self-determination oriented toward independence is recognized as a legal entitlement within the parameters of international law. In contrast, self-determination with the aim of secession is neither sanctioned by international law nor endorsed by the global community.

From the perspective of the means to achieve self-determination, the majority of self-determination has been the result of armed struggle. Therefore, self-determination is highly likely to lead to conflict and turmoil, which runs counter to the contemporary theme of peace and development.

Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the principle of self-determination within the framework of international law has largely been stripped of its applicable contexts and scenarios. Given the current historical context, any endeavor to invoke the right to self-determination within the confines of a multi-ethnic nation constitutes an act of secession. The efforts of separatists to find legitimacy in self-determination are therefore likely in vain, and represent a unilateral desire that defies the legal and political realities of our time.

The authors are Zhu Lun, Distinguished Professor, Jiangsu University, and Sun Mingchen, School of International Culture and Communication, Beijing City University.

Liu Xian /Editor    Zhang Rong /Translator

Yang Xinhua /Chief Editor    Liu Xian /Coordination Editor

Liu Li /Reviewer

Zhang Weiwei /Copyeditor    Tan Yujie /Image Editor

The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.