Thanks for watching. I felt it was probably time to tackle the question of self-determination as there is a lot of confusion about the subject. As I try to show, the way in which the concept of self-determination is defined in the modern world tends to set an insurmountable obstacle for most independence movements. This goes a long way towards showing why most find it so hard to get anywhere. Obviously, I'd be keen to hear what others think about the way in which the idea of self-determination is defined. But can, and should, it be changed?
The history of the United States shows that internal self determination becomes useless when the ruling class of a state finds subjugation irresistible. The US Constitution recognizes very significant sovereignty of each member state of the USA. Yet, the ruling class today, as in 1861, feels morally obligated to ignore this sovereignty. For example, abortion policy in 1973 was decided at the level of the Union and was stolen away from the sovereignty of the member states. Personally I'm a northerner but I'm desperate to find a way to create external self determination for some conservative state in North America. Do you have any advice for us?
I just found your channel and am impressed. Thank you for the great content. I know this is only tangentially related, but I was just remembering an amecdote told by Dinesh D'Souza wherein a native American was talking about again acquiring the land taken from his people by American settlers. The native American man was then asked if he would turn and give the land back to the tribe which had been driven off by his own, were it returned. The native American man replied in the negative. All of history has been conquest. To tell you the truth, I don't much care for international law. I'm drowning in a sea of language all making up demands for past wrongs I didn't commit in a time where wrong meant another thing altogether. I simply wanna see my son grow up well. Any unpacking you could do regarding the chaos the world is enduring would be appreciated. We're all certainly looking for it. Best regards.
And to answer your question, I ain't trying to cop an attitude, and I don't know about the term (I'm not that smart) -- but I'm of the opinion the UN should be obliterated altogether. Any organization that puts the worst offenders of human rights on the human rights council, has the US overpaying for a crop of freeloaders, and takes every opportunity it can to attack the only true democracy in the middle east on account of its own bitter antisemitism deserves nothing less than to be razed to the ground. Sorry, I don't care for the UN. Maybe the answer to the question about self-determination is just a simple secondary question: "who has the bigger guns." Wanna take on another nation? Better be able to back it up. Want autonomy from your own nation? Better have some firepower or shut your yap. Can't everything just be settled Bosnia-style? Wanna ethnically cleanse with barbarity? Uh oh! USA's comin' to blast you back a couple of decades. Why do we even need international organizations who attract nothing but the worst of the worst from most seedy locales, while all of the relatively modern and wealthy Western nations sit spineless, impotent, and silent. Just bang it out.
Very sad that few countries decides whom to give freedom or independence, because the case of Biafra and Nigeria is an example, Because everyone knows that Biafra is due for Referendum but UK refused to call for Referendum for Biafrans despite the death of more than 5 million Biafrans.
Hey! This is a great video. I am doing an online course involving international relations and rights, and the term of national self-determination is popping up quite a lot with no explanation. This video was super! It was straight to the point, not too long, and explained the topic in a very understandable manner. I will definitely be coming back to this channel! xxx
Hi Dorota, thanks so much. So glad it was helpful. It is quite a complex topic. Far more complicated than many people realise. Anyway, I’m so glad you discovered the channel. A very warm welcome! :-)
Can't help but wonder if it was really just a stick one lot of powerful people (governments of America, USSR) used to beat others (governments of Britain and France). The distinction between 'overseas' colonies and those connected to your state by land is totally spurious
as a self-proclaimed proponent of "self-determination" in Scotland, this gave me food for thought. Personally, I see self-determination as more of a philosophy on life but I really do agree that there are many nuances, subjectivity, and criticisms of the concept in the real world. This explanation has given me much to think about before using "self-determination" as a justification for my constitutional position. As you made clear in your video, the question of applicability is certainly up for debate. It's hard not to end up in the realm of philosophy with this topic, but I would love if you could give a short reply to my comment with your views or analysis of how "self-determination" can square with the concept of sovereignty?
Thanks Myles. This is exactly the problem isn’t it? We’ve got used to talking about self-determination, especially in independence disputes, but few are aware of the complex political and legal dimensions that have grown up around it. Ultimately, states still remain the core actors if the international system and set the rules. While they might talk about the right of self-determination, the principal of territorial integrity ranks far, far higher. This is why they squared the circles by defining the two forks of self-determination I discussed. I’ve long thought that the international community needs to rethink how it deals with self-determination. Are there ways groups seeking independence can achieve it in a defined and orderly manner. But it is hard to see any practical changes. States will just want to protect their borders from interval and external challenges. It is such an interesting and complex area. And I have to say that I often find myself torn when looking at various cases. I can see a logic of statehood, but I also understand that it isn’t always the most beneficial outcome (even for those concerned), and I also worry about the effects of an unfettered right to self-determination. Just imagine a world of warring micro-states.
@@JamesKerLindsay warring microstates or the situation where established nations that are pillars of the international free world get picked to pieces ... are weakened by large authoritarian states who exploit their democratic nature and then take over the world, thus.
@@JamesKerLindsay Ironically the forced combination of various pre-exisiting microstates around the 19th and 20th century is what led to the need for self determination
Self Determination ZIONISM Snp Scottish party Self Determination So the Distraction From Apartheid in the middle east , QUACKERY YUP SO IN SHORT THE PYSOPTHS have taken over the nut house
President Wilson's views on self determination, especially for descrete ethnic groups, should be read with the understanding that historical evidence indicates that he was an unapologetic racist (to a scandalous degree even for the times) and a leader who frequently violated the sovereignty of other nations (Haiti, Vera Cruz, Vladivostok, Panama, Cuba, etc)
Interesting to hear that the definition of self determination is written down differently in UN documents to what I or perhaps many would expect. The term itself would make you think it is about people having the right to determine their own future. Likely the reluctance for nations to support succession has contributed to this limited definition of self determination. Perhaps what the definition should be, is what most people think it means.
what about the when the right of self determination is refused by the own inhabitants? and i mean cases like French Guyana, French Polinesia or similar. should they keep continued to be refered as colonies or as mere territories that are far from mainland?
Very good question! Hadn’t really thought about it in those terms. :-) But I guess there’s a clear case to say that they have been allowed to determine their own future and so the relationship needs to be understood accordingly. France’s relationships with its territories has always been rather interesting. Something to add to my growing list of topics to cover!
They don't refuse the right to self determination. They use the right and they decide they want to continue in France. When you use the right you can choose to leave or to stay
Thank You for this informative video. Could you also plausibly to a video explaining the elements of self-determination? Like what exactly justifies a state to claim for self-justification and what is the threshold of each element?
With that video, I think I understood, why a legal text may contradict with itself without this being a problem. How else can you balance between two extremes if not by softly tone down two opposite desires? Thanks, great video as always!
Self-Determination "stares at Balkan Peninsula". Also stares at countries that have a chance of getting balkanized like Indonesia and my country the Philippines.
truth seeker Thanks. I’m certainly planning to do something on Taiwan. It is a fascinating case, and another situation that is widely misunderstood. I must admit that I hadn’t thought of doing anything on Hong Kong. However, it could be interesting to examine its position too. I very clearly remember watching the handover over 20 years ago.
Taiwan independence, so-called is not about independence. It is about dependence. Dependence upon the US Empire, to aid and abet Quislings to collude with foreign neocolonialists whose goal is to Balkanize designated enemies through color revolutions and regime change. The result, if successful, is not "local self-government", but the addition of another vassal state to the many already under the boot of the American Hegemon.
@@eltacmansur British Empire started this s*it by colonizing India and stealing trillions of dollars from it to make the Industrial Revolution more possible and cost human lives. US and Britain and other Western powers killed more than communism according to dissident libertarian leftist Chomsky but whatever. Industrial Capitalism emerged only in 17th century so its not mainly communist's only fault.
This is a fantastic question! Up until recently, the idea was that very little could happen in such cases. Other countries we’re duty bound to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. However, in certain quarters attention has turned to the idea of something called ‘remedial secession’. This is a really interesting idea that is meant to address just this very point. What should happen if a community is denied internal self-determination and also suffers serious human rights abuses? However, it is very problematic in some ways, and also very hard to put into practice. It is so interesting that you raised this issue as I have actually been thinking of doing a video on just this very subject in the next few weeks. Keep a watch out for it!
@@JamesKerLindsay that would be great! i am currently doing my dissertation on self-determination and the kurds, despite being a huge population in turkey there is suppression and lack of political representation. therefore i am arguing that they have a right to external self-determination (secession) as a remedy.
Thank you for watching and for letting me know. That’s great! I am really glad it was useful. Good luck with the studies! And if you know anyone else who might find the videos useful, do pass the details of the channel on to them.
Thank you so much! I am revising for my Public Internation Law exams and landing on this video is a blessing. I wonder if you could comment on the Chagos Archipelagos Case and the position of UK and USA? Again many thanks!
Thanks. So glad it was useful. As it happens I have a video on the Chagos Islands: ua-cam.com/video/3mK6XJOqe9E/v-deo.html Good luck with the exam. (And do pass the channel on if there’s anyone else who might also find it useful!)
The quote from President Wilson is quite interesting. It seems like the conceptual basis of self determination (and thus international relations) changed radically after WW1. Was this the result on an international consensus or something imposed by the victors of WW1? Does the UN essentially enforce consensus today? Are there schisms in the world community around difficult topics like self determination?
Hi, great video! Thank you for taking the time to make it, it was a really engaging and entertaining video to watch. My understanding is limited so please forgive my ignorance. The topics discussed seem to cover the two avenues for legitimised claims for self determination. Assuming the external criteria is met are there any governing principles in place to ascertain if a group of people can be successful should they be given independence. I suppose I am imagining a situation where the criteria is met for self determination but the once independence is achieved the state immediately fails and one problem has been swapped for another. Should there be any governing principles in place are they enough to legitimately deny the states assertion of independence?
Thanks so much! You raise an incredibly interesting and important question. In recent years there has been a growing realisation that it shouldn’t just be about if a territory should have independence, but whether it is really able to exist as a sovereign and independent state if it is is recognised as such. The experience of South Sudan is important in this regard (I hope to cover this in a video soon). I think this will also shape questions regarding Bougainville (this I gave covered in a couple of videos already). However, it is a tough balance. While there’s the risk of creating failed states by hastily accepting independence, denying a people independence can perpetuate conflict. Not easy! Thanks so much again for the great comment! Really appreciated. I should try to do something on this point.
@@JamesKerLindsay So should it be judged then by pre-established political + physical infrastructure? because then some states have that infrastructure destroyed or heavily repressed by the state that they are attempting to become independent from
Could you please look into the situation in Nigeria (the Yoruba agitation for self-determination and secession) and give an analysis? 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Thank you.
Thank you professor James, excellent video with clear explanations. You have earned a subscriber from me! My only outstanding question would be that, if the historical context to a prior 'unification' of people was indeed colonial and was followed by military subjugation by the eminent party within the union, to what extent would this be relevant at a later stage, especially if those aspects of military occupation/colonialism no longer presently apply? Does the law only concern the present day situation as relevant?
Thanks so much Markus. Really appreciated. Great question. The general principles is that once the act of self-determination has been exercised by a territory or people and led to the creation of an independent state, the territorial integrity of that state should be respected - from external and internal challenges. Hence minority communities don’t have a right to break away. Perhaps take a look at my video on the Biafran War. This was a good example of this in action. ua-cam.com/video/meAmQf31Te8/v-deo.html There are also rather interesting elements at play in neighbouring Cameroon as well, where the Anglophones argue that the Francophones have steadily downgraded their status: ua-cam.com/video/6cXXw2tPFcU/v-deo.html
Do you think your category, external and internal self-determination, can explain the case of Taiwan and Kurdistan Region of Iraq or almost all de facto states? Almost all de facto states consider the military of their parent states as a form of foreign military occupation. If not, it is hard to apply the concept of external self-determination. Thank you.
Very good point! I also hear this a lot in the case of Kosovo. The argument is that it should have been regarded as a colony of Serbia, or under occupation. While I can understand where they are coming from, and why they want to press this point, this isn't obviously how their situations are read by the outside world. In all this, I think it is always bearing in mind that the rules are written by states. They want to close off options for independence for parts of their territory, and so the definition of colonies and military occupations was strictly limited to overseas imperial holdings and areas that have clearly been forcefully denied an accepted right of external self-determination - most usually again in colonial settings (such as East Timor, Palestine, Western Sahara). So, while they may regard themselves as being under military occupation, this isn't the way it is seen by those who matter.
@@JamesKerLindsay I think this is a crucial (if not the most salient) part of the argument and can't understand why it's not included on the original explanation. Concepts such as "military occupation" and "alien subjugation" completely lose their operational capability as they are portrayed uniquely by one of the parties (the strong one). Thank you.
Thanks so much. It was one of my earlier videos so the production values and presentation was rather less developed. But I hope the essential information was all there.
What are your thoughts on one of the British Overseas Territory, known as British Indian Ocean Territory, also commonly known as Chagos Archipelago. Do the native born and descendants of Chagos Archipelago have the right to claim self determination?
Thankyou for this informative and simplified video :) I have a query about this concept in association with your video on the importance of UN membership. As you mentioned, UN can't formally recognize States, then why does its criteria of external self- determination becomes integral for a territory to attain international recognition as a state.
Thanks so much! I hope people find it interesting. I’m trying to do videos on the concepts to support the case studies. Hopefully it all fits together and explains why things happen the way they do.
Thanks a lot for the video. Could you also explain, please, the relation between sovereign equality of states and self-determination of nations? Which is supreme? Or, should they be treated equally? Thank you in advance.
Thanks. The sovereignty of states is supreme - if only because states are the ones that write the rules! Self-determination is certainly an important and accepted principle in international politics. However, as I try to show, it doesn't extend to challenging the boundaries of established countries. In most cases, the idea of self-determination extends to a degree of autonomy for communities living within a state.
@@JamesKerLindsay No! It is the winners who is higher! 13 colonies never respect British sovereignty! Did Ireland rebelled in 1900s respect UK sovereignty!! Did Greece, Balkans independent in 1800s and 1900s respect Ottoman sovereignty!! Did Kosovo Independence respect Serbian sovereignty??? No!
Thanks Professor , the video was very informative on the topic . I have one question , who exactly is qualified for autonomy and self-governence ? What are are the criteria , the steps and to what extent autonomy can be pushed ? If the population involved wanted extensive autonomy , how could they obtain it? Can a country like Nigeria for example , give autonomy to its igbo population ? Can they have their own currency , can they have their own passports?
Thanks. A great set of questions, which, sadly, I can’t really answer in considerable detail here. In essence, a lot depends on the country and the group in question. Self-determination applies to all group, but varies enormously from country to country and situation to situation. In the case of the Igbo in Nigeria, one would certainly see an argument for significant internal self determination, including autonomy. But there’s nothing that outside powers can do to insist on this except call on the Nigerian government to put in place measures to bring it about.
Another very interesting and comprehensive video. Thanks! I would like to see a video on the contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and self determination and how military powers often choose one or the other to legitimize their imperialist campaigns. Maybe international law will never find a solution for this contradiction, just because it gives powerful countries opportunities to intervene and these countries do not want to be restricted in doing so.
Sir I have one question. if four people wants secession or one family wants secession of any particular region of any country. So they secede only their home area? because they want secession from that country so in these case we can conclude their self-determination ? what about others those who not want to secede .if u agree for four people then what 1000 people rights of not secede and if u agree for 1000 then what about 4 people rights? Also Please Make video on North-Thailand Insurgency and Mindanao region of the Philippines. Also make on Autonomy and Independence?
How does your assertion square with the emergence of Pakistan and Bangladesh from India after Indian independence from colonial occupation? I am very keen to understand this. Thanks in advance.
Thanks. Great question. Pakistan is an unusual example as it was created at the same time as India. They became independent separately. Pakistan did not split from India. Bangladesh is far more complex. I actually made a video on it. ua-cam.com/video/Xp2ljnaoaqs/v-deo.html
Although it's unlikely they would desire it, do Palestinians have the right to external self-determination since they live under military occupation and colonial practices by Israel?
That right has already (and always) been accepted. The UN voted to partition Palestine and give the Palestinian Arabs their own state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. This right is also why the internationally accepted basis for a settlement is a two-state solution.
@@JamesKerLindsay Oh I know that, but I was actually thinking of something else. Is it possible for Palestinians to choose somewhere else in the world to build their own state just like the Jews when considered Argentina and Uganda before settling in Palestine? I hope my question is clearer now.
It seems that self-determination, like international law as it now exists is a Western concept that is coerced upon the rest of the wprld disregarding such basic matters as the social, economic and political development of communities.
Not at all. The rules were set down during the Cold War. Nothing has really changed, except for Kosovo and Russia’s attempts to annexe parts of Ukraine. By and large, the rules remain the same and accepted by the wider international community. Ultimately, the international system is made up of states, and they want to protect themselves. African states are in fact rather steadfast supporters of the rules. The enemy for self-determination movements is not the West. It is the system itself.
I have a question sir . Has autonomy (Statistically) been the most successful way for territories seeking full independence to obtain it and has the experience in self-rule been generally advantageous to formerly autonomous territories in their management of said territory after independence ?
Is it just me or is the idea of people having the right to self-determination in direct contrast and tension with the idea of state sovereignty and monopoly of power? Doesn't the idea of the centralized state imply the domination of those who live under it? Of course one could argue that a state is legitimate if they truly represent the general will of the people, but when does that ever happen? And if they did represent the general will, then they wouldn't need a monopoly of power.
Thank you! I’m really glad you found it useful. Perhaps take a look at some of my other videos to see how it has come up in other cases, such as in Africa. There are a lot of practical debates about this.
According to the points made in your video, one could conclude that if the secession of Crimea is a violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, then the same applies to Kosovo. These situations are, however, very far from being in accordance to any international understandings. They are fueled by brutal economic and military interests, devoid of any principle, morals, or any kind of general love for humanity. The very reason international institutions are losing reputation is that economic and military interests always trump the voice of the people. Just look at the US, and subsequent majority of western countries' position on international hotspots: Crimea: against self-determination of Crimean Russians, supports territorial integrity of Ukraine Kosovo: against territorial integrity of Serbia, supports self-determination of Albaninan Kosovars Syria : against territorial integrity of Syria, supports self-determination of Kurds (not in Turkey, however!) Israel/Palestine: against self-determination of Palestinians, supports NOT ONLY the territorial integrity of Israel, but supports Israeli occupation and annexation of the West Bank and Golan Heights. And I will not dive in to the abyss of what is American meddling in Latin America. I would be completely ok with all of the above, if it were in the interest of the people living there, if it guaranteed the least amount of violence. But it's obvious it isn't so. Other powers, especially the former USSR, the Russian Federation, China, South Africa, the UK, France, are all guilty of the same amount of hypocrisy. That is why the only thing that should matter to the UN is the decision of an unquestionable majority in a referendum, where the turnout is at least 80% (or another high agreed-upon percentage)
Thanks. Yes, I realise that there isn’t always a lot of apparent consistency in international relations. However, as critical as I was about the way Kosovo was handled, and the obvious links that can be made to Crimea, I do think that the underlying intentions of the relevant actors were different in the two cases. The US and others (UK, France, Germany and Italy) had no intention of annexing Kosovo. In fact, I don’t think they even planned to create an independent Kosovo. Events led them in that direction. However, Russia clearly did stage a deliberate invasion and annexation of Crimea.
I must admit I have not seen your Kosovo video, and will do so as soon as possible. But when you say invaded and annexed, is that not just a matter of perspective? You know, the old worn phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? I believe this issue of perspective should be debated way more than it has been. Because, again, the only legitimate power in Crimea is and will be the one with the approval of its people. And again, the Kiev government lost that legitimacy because it acted against the interests of Ukrainan Russians. Under a government passing legislation hostile towards your language, your history, your culture, you have a right to self-defence, which is what self determination is under such circumstances. You don't have to be a former colony to have that right. That was the point of Wilson's ideas. This is so very similar to what my people suffered under fascist Italy. And if we let all things aside, how is the UN going to be percieved in Crimea in the future? As a hostile institution that does not represent their interests. Because it blatantly refused to acknowledge everything Kiev was doing. Have you seen what they put in ther elementary school history textbooks? I'm just worried that the UN has fallen from a position of a well-respected intermediary for humanity as a whole to a lackey of the West.
@@JamesKerLindsay But can intent be introduced as a consideration? I don't want to stick my oar in the water here because feelings are so strong about Kosovo and Crimea. But if intent matters, then just about any action from the US and probably the UK might be criticized because it might be to benefit some big business, or some lobby, or even just to distract from a domestic scandal. Let me emphasize that i know very little about international relations, so maybe intent can be used in reasoning about them, but it sure seems like it would open a can of worms.
Gregor, The Ukrainian constitution had a provision that the citizens of the semi autonomous region of Crimea could choose at any time to rejoin Russia. WHY. The Soviet Union in 1954 gave Crimea to Ukraine with the caveat that it would be semi autonomous and could rejoin mother Russia at any time. That is what the people did in 2014. They voted to rejoin Russia as it was in the Ukrainian constitution.
In Spain, Catalonia does not have the right to self-determination because we are not a colony and at the same time Gibraltar does not have the right to self-determination because according to the Spanish government they are settlers of a colony . It is funny
Great question. I plan to do a video on the Falkland Islands. It’s complicated. But in general I tend to believe that countries don’t have an inherent right to territory. The people living there should decide. But this is an interesting and complex case.
@@JamesKerLindsay I can’t wait to see it. I hope it’s soon. There’s a historical researcher called Roger Lorton who has uncovered much historical evidence to the extent that the Argentinian state are now tweaking their official narrative to try and fit the evidence that’s now in the public realm. The myth that is the Antonio Rivero story for example.
Roger Lorton has a very flimsy academic background, he´s not a profesional historian, and his interpretation of Intl Law is quite inconsistent. We know him and others in Argentina because they are constantly plaguing every social media peddling their "academic work", and harrassing Argentine academics, even some British. The Argentinian State hasn´t changed anything in it´s "narrative", much less for an amateur´s work. But two Argentine intl lawyers took the chance to explain where and why Lorton and the rest of the amateur bloggers (Pascoe, Pepper, Potts, Kuntz et al) are wrong: Marcelo Kohen, PhD, professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. He is a Titular Member of the Institut de Droit international. Author of more than hundred publications in the field of International Law, in English, French and Spanish. Facundo Rodríguez, Advocate in International Law, graduated from the University of Buenos Aires. Member of the Committee on the Question of the Malvinas, Georgias and South Sandwich Islands of the Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI) and member of several research programmes related to the Question of the Malvinas Islands. Their work is available here: www.malvinas-falklands.net/table-of-contents/
I am interested where you think indigenous-led movements in Central and South America (such as in Guatemala or Colombia) for "plurinational states" would fall in these two definitions of self-determination. I know a lot of these groups cite the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as granting them a right to self-determination; this is where I had first heard this term. But it seems difficult to see this as a case of internal self-determination, as these countries (and the US and Canada and others) are essentially the fallout of the "saltwater-colonialism" you mentioned as being a criteria for external self-determination. It seems like drawing the line at "saltwater borders" is a bit of a cop-out for colonial regimes that morphed and then stayed, especially when the definition was first articulated by a US president. I don't know if I've seen you do a video about the Americas so I get if it's not your area of expertise, but I'd love to hear your thoughts about how ideas of self-determination translate to the western hemisphere!
3:06 Excuse me? That exact idea lead to forming Czechoslovakia in 1918 and a peaceful spit into Czech Republic and Slovanika in 1993, my country is a proof that this works we are better for it. If it worked here, twice, why couldn't it work elsewhere under simial circumstances?
self-determination letter to UK government by sovereign ,I am traveler I dont have permament country I step out of system ...do you think govs will accept that ? or I will be outcast?
In practice, with few exceptions, for nations which are US geopolitical rivals or allies of geopolitical rivals, territorial integrity is second to people's self-determination. Thus all the nations of the former Yugoslavia, are widely recognized. Were they colonies of Serbia? For USA, and allies, territorial integrity is the most important factor, over people's self-determination - thus Catalonia, Kurdistan and Palestine are not widely recognized, nor do they receive support or protection from "subjugation, domination and exploitation". In the end, might makes right. The difference between a separatist and a freedom fighter, between insurrection and independence war, is its success. All this talk about "rule-based international order" would only hold if all the rules were applied equally among nations. It could still happen, some time in the future.
A very good, and a very interesting, question. I certainly plan to do a video on Kashmir. It is one of the really big disputes that I haven’t tackled yet.
DJCoopes The Criteria for External Self-Determination as established: Must be under Alien (Foreign) Military Occupation or Alien (Foreign) Colonialist Subjugation, Domination, or Exploitation. Under this Australia would fall under the second category due to colonialist (British) subjugation through the crown exercising power through the queen as head of state and the various governor-general
External Self-determination is applied on a one-off basis? Says who? What do you do in the case of Internal Colonization engendered by a fraudulent independence arrangement? The fear of micro-countries should not be your or anyone’s problem. Your argument is absolutely untenable. We need equity, fairness and justice in this world.
Says international law. You do realise that these aren’t my rules? I didn’t make them up. As someone who has written extensively on these issues, I am trying to explain how the international community - through a number of past acts and resolutions - has come to understand the concept of self-determination. So, it’s not my argument that’s untenable, as you suggest, it’s the argument of the 193 members of the UN. You need to take it up with them!
By winning independence war, the right of self-determine will apply to them, and they will have independent state!!! They have many population, the other parties can't stop them being independent!!! They are numbered!
Could one be ones own state? A state within a state persay. A state of individual states within the country. A country of United States of individual states in the world.
When ethnic russians voted to leave ukraine and become a part of russia, they did it democratically. But why didn't Peoples right to self determination apply in this case?
Thanks, Andre. As I said in the video, the right of self-determination leading to secession only applies in cases of colonisation and occupation. Crimea did not meet these conditions. Minorities within states don’t have a right to call a referendum at will and to break away. Countries around the world would quickly disintegrate if this was the case. More to the point, would Russia simply let the any group leave if they wanted? Would it let the Chechens leave if they organised a referendum without permission tomorrow and votes to secede. I think we both know the answer.
Not sure how reach that conclusion?(Seriously, I’d be keen to hear your reasoning.) Ukraine is an independent sovereign state. Its status under international law is absolutely settled.
Independence must be the will of the people . Especially like in south africa where we all got forced under a nationlist government that enforce racebased laws against the minorities even agasint minorities of colour, greater autonomy is not the answer complete Independence is needed as its what we want, no amount of legal gymnastics should be able deprive a nation of its right to want to be independent.
National Liberation Armies and non-cooperation movements will continue to expand the definition of self-determination and achieve independence in defiance of domestic law and in full compliance with international law - which is unable to protect territorial integrity of states against non-states. No criteria necessary for independence other than the will of the people and supportive public sentiment. The voluntary weaponization of human life will prove this to be true.
@@sababugs1125 you are absolutely right. In principle, self determination trumps territorial integrity because pre-state liberation movements are not constrained by the obligation of States to respect territorial integrity, and thus States weaponize the self determination of Peoples against the territorial integrity of other States. It's quite fascinating because it allows ambitious States to legitimately consolidate power while resolving more self-determination conflicts over time. Naturally States will always tend to suppress self determination movements in their own territory while supporting self determination movements in foreign territory. However, States should pay more attention to peacefully resolving domestic movements because the State remains vulnerable to foreign support of such movements for as long as there is still domestic unrest.
So If my state and city occupted by another state 100 years ago, i cant get rid them peacefully now?? Why we dont have a right to select what country we live in. Its absurd. All peoples must has rights to get indiepence pracefully we live in a democracy. I dont want seperate my country personally but i support rights of Kosovo, Kashmir, Palestine, Honk Kong, Tibet or Uygurs.
Just as a question, would that right to independence also apply to the Kurds who want independence from Turkey? They would argue that they were denied the right to independence. In truth, no countries like to give up territory - and for a variety of reasons. I have a video on this. ua-cam.com/video/M5-8Vtogy3M/v-deo.html
You are wrong in explaining external self-determination. Stateless nations also have the right to external self-determination. Example: Tamilnadu, a nation which is a part of India, which is culturally politically, ethnically different from India, should have the right to external self-determination.
@@JamesKerLindsay you explained that a colony have the right to external self-determination. Will you put Tamilnadu as a colony of the Indian Union(rather than as a stateless nation) or is it just a matter of internal self-determination (iyo)?
There is an exception where the people seeking self determination are said to be suffering / experiencing hardship as a result of either conflict or an inability of the parent state to provide protection for them.
When you lost war, it is not yours. Just when ottoman lost war 100 years ago, ottoman lost Balkans region! I can't understand since Serbia can defeat Ottoman and won independence in 1912, Serbia can re-took Kosovo in 1912 by winning war; why Serbia can't lose it in 1999 when it got defeated by NATO? Of course, when Russia defeated Ukraine and west watch dogs, Donbass will be independent! Only the results of the war, can determine the land belongings; and it is higher than any law, including UN Charter! Because the UN Charter is written by winners of WW2! Yes, the winners of WW2! 13 colonies defeated Britain and won independence! Poland won Russia in 1917 and won independence!
@@allianceofunitedcommunitie5541 Because by your logic we only go from war to war and it all goes down to what one can grab from another by force. That same logic brought us where we are today. Last days of humanity and planet Earth. But so be it when you guys love it. We will wait for next war to take Kosovo again.
@@Nista357 But it is what it always is. If you can take it 100 years later, when Russia becomes powerful and back to Balkans, yes you can. Why we have peace? It is because we love peace? NO. It is because big fives (UN P5) make the peace and destroy everyone who is against it. After Napoleon war, Vienna system: Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia (Germany) are the big powers; under their willing, it maintains political order; After ww1, winners Britain France USA Russia Italy Japan make rules, and League of Nations (USA left, Russia never joined) has no veto, no one can agree to another one, WW2 starts. After ww2, the winners as big five (UN P5) make rules and have veto. If the big fives don't fight to each others, it is peace; if big fives against each other, it is ww3, nuclear war. Why USA didn't do anything, when USSR interfere Czech and Hungary in cold war? Why USSR didn't do anything, when USA overthrow governments in Latin America in cold war? Because it is their sphere of influence. For Ukraine crisis, USA and west keep saying sanctions and sanctions, but did they say anything about military action against Russia in Ukraine??? No!!!!! Because it is the big fives who make rules!
SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE KABYLIAN PEOPLE kabylia also requests self-determination ,seen its territory its culture its language which is different from algerian arab. the kabyles pay their blood heavily through history, the romqins the vandals and turks and arabs and french ... in 1963 a geurrus breaks out between the ALN the frontier army against the kabyles. The Berber spring of April 80 triggered events against the conference taking of the ethnologist, linguist and linguist mammeri .... in 1994, the school boycott for a year just in Kabylia, about the Amazigh language. in 1998 assassination of popular singer Kabyle Matoub Lounes. In April 2001 the Algerian army fired on a civilian high school student in Massinissa, the interior minister qualifies him as a thug, 126 dead and 5 5000 wounded. After this event, the Kabylians seek to find a solution to the divorce between Algiers and Kabylia, either autonomy or self-determination. The Kabyle question is on the agenda at the UN.
I think based on your vocabularies that you are on the side of the powerful , self determination? Where is this joke according to 300mil arabs with enforced and nonsensical borders
I really have no idea what you mean? I explained the concept as it has come to be understood. People want to understand why the world map looks like it does.
Thanks for watching. I felt it was probably time to tackle the question of self-determination as there is a lot of confusion about the subject. As I try to show, the way in which the concept of self-determination is defined in the modern world tends to set an insurmountable obstacle for most independence movements. This goes a long way towards showing why most find it so hard to get anywhere. Obviously, I'd be keen to hear what others think about the way in which the idea of self-determination is defined. But can, and should, it be changed?
The history of the United States shows that internal self determination becomes useless when the ruling class of a state finds subjugation irresistible. The US Constitution recognizes very significant sovereignty of each member state of the USA. Yet, the ruling class today, as in 1861, feels morally obligated to ignore this sovereignty. For example, abortion policy in 1973 was decided at the level of the Union and was stolen away from the sovereignty of the member states.
Personally I'm a northerner but I'm desperate to find a way to create external self determination for some conservative state in North America. Do you have any advice for us?
I just found your channel and am impressed. Thank you for the great content. I know this is only tangentially related, but I was just remembering an amecdote told by Dinesh D'Souza wherein a native American was talking about again acquiring the land taken from his people by American settlers. The native American man was then asked if he would turn and give the land back to the tribe which had been driven off by his own, were it returned. The native American man replied in the negative. All of history has been conquest. To tell you the truth, I don't much care for international law. I'm drowning in a sea of language all making up demands for past wrongs I didn't commit in a time where wrong meant another thing altogether. I simply wanna see my son grow up well. Any unpacking you could do regarding the chaos the world is enduring would be appreciated. We're all certainly looking for it. Best regards.
And to answer your question, I ain't trying to cop an attitude, and I don't know about the term (I'm not that smart) -- but I'm of the opinion the UN should be obliterated altogether. Any organization that puts the worst offenders of human rights on the human rights council, has the US overpaying for a crop of freeloaders, and takes every opportunity it can to attack the only true democracy in the middle east on account of its own bitter antisemitism deserves nothing less than to be razed to the ground. Sorry, I don't care for the UN. Maybe the answer to the question about self-determination is just a simple secondary question: "who has the bigger guns." Wanna take on another nation? Better be able to back it up. Want autonomy from your own nation? Better have some firepower or shut your yap. Can't everything just be settled Bosnia-style? Wanna ethnically cleanse with barbarity? Uh oh! USA's comin' to blast you back a couple of decades. Why do we even need international organizations who attract nothing but the worst of the worst from most seedy locales, while all of the relatively modern and wealthy Western nations sit spineless, impotent, and silent. Just bang it out.
so how could self determination affect the political aspects of an affected area
Very sad that few countries decides whom to give freedom or independence, because the case of Biafra and Nigeria is an example, Because everyone knows that Biafra is due for Referendum but UK refused to call for Referendum for Biafrans despite the death of more than 5 million Biafrans.
Hey! This is a great video. I am doing an online course involving international relations and rights, and the term of national self-determination is popping up quite a lot with no explanation.
This video was super! It was straight to the point, not too long, and explained the topic in a very understandable manner. I will definitely be coming back to this channel! xxx
Hi Dorota, thanks so much. So glad it was helpful. It is quite a complex topic. Far more complicated than many people realise. Anyway, I’m so glad you discovered the channel. A very warm welcome! :-)
Thank you for providing a clear and concise explanation of self-determination!
Thanks. It is amazing how misunderstood the concept is. So many people talk about it, but relatively few really know what it means.
Can't help but wonder if it was really just a stick one lot of powerful people (governments of America, USSR) used to beat others (governments of Britain and France). The distinction between 'overseas' colonies and those connected to your state by land is totally spurious
as a self-proclaimed proponent of "self-determination" in Scotland, this gave me food for thought. Personally, I see self-determination as more of a philosophy on life but I really do agree that there are many nuances, subjectivity, and criticisms of the concept in the real world. This explanation has given me much to think about before using "self-determination" as a justification for my constitutional position. As you made clear in your video, the question of applicability is certainly up for debate. It's hard not to end up in the realm of philosophy with this topic, but I would love if you could give a short reply to my comment with your views or analysis of how "self-determination" can square with the concept of sovereignty?
Thanks Myles. This is exactly the problem isn’t it? We’ve got used to talking about self-determination, especially in independence disputes, but few are aware of the complex political and legal dimensions that have grown up around it. Ultimately, states still remain the core actors if the international system and set the rules. While they might talk about the right of self-determination, the principal of territorial integrity ranks far, far higher. This is why they squared the circles by defining the two forks of self-determination I discussed. I’ve long thought that the international community needs to rethink how it deals with self-determination. Are there ways groups seeking independence can achieve it in a defined and orderly manner. But it is hard to see any practical changes. States will just want to protect their borders from interval and external challenges. It is such an interesting and complex area. And I have to say that I often find myself torn when looking at various cases. I can see a logic of statehood, but I also understand that it isn’t always the most beneficial outcome (even for those concerned), and I also worry about the effects of an unfettered right to self-determination. Just imagine a world of warring micro-states.
@@JamesKerLindsay warring microstates or the situation where established nations that are pillars of the international free world get picked to pieces ... are weakened by large authoritarian states who exploit their democratic nature and then take over the world, thus.
@@joecater894 balkanize the large authoritarian states then
@@JamesKerLindsay Ironically the forced combination of various pre-exisiting microstates around the 19th and 20th century is what led to the need for self determination
Self Determination
ZIONISM
Snp Scottish party
Self Determination
So the Distraction
From Apartheid in the middle east ,
QUACKERY YUP
SO IN SHORT
THE PYSOPTHS have taken over the nut house
President Wilson's views on self determination, especially for descrete ethnic groups, should be read with the understanding that historical evidence indicates that he was an unapologetic racist (to a scandalous degree even for the times) and a leader who frequently violated the sovereignty of other nations (Haiti, Vera Cruz, Vladivostok, Panama, Cuba, etc)
Yes! and he hated Germans too!
Interesting to hear that the definition of self determination is written down differently in UN documents to what I or perhaps many would expect. The term itself would make you think it is about people having the right to determine their own future. Likely the reluctance for nations to support succession has contributed to this limited definition of self determination. Perhaps what the definition should be, is what most people think it means.
This episode is beautiful. I think the Western Togoland case is a straight forward "EXTERNAL SELF DETERMINATION"
what about the when the right of self determination is refused by the own inhabitants? and i mean cases like French Guyana, French Polinesia or similar. should they keep continued to be refered as colonies or as mere territories that are far from mainland?
Very good question! Hadn’t really thought about it in those terms. :-) But I guess there’s a clear case to say that they have been allowed to determine their own future and so the relationship needs to be understood accordingly. France’s relationships with its territories has always been rather interesting. Something to add to my growing list of topics to cover!
They don't refuse the right to self determination. They use the right and they decide they want to continue in France. When you use the right you can choose to leave or to stay
Thank You for this informative video.
Could you also plausibly to a video explaining the elements of self-determination? Like what exactly justifies a state to claim for self-justification and what is the threshold of each element?
Self-Determination: The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Self-determination is an individual right to human rights.
With that video, I think I understood, why a legal text may contradict with itself without this being a problem. How else can you balance between two extremes if not by softly tone down two opposite desires? Thanks, great video as always!
I am from Somaliland and I loved this video.
Thank you so much. It was one of my early ones. But hopefully it was useful.
Self-Determination
"stares at Balkan Peninsula".
Also stares at countries that have a chance of getting balkanized like Indonesia and my country the Philippines.
Hello James, I was wondering if you are going to discuss Taiwan and Hong Kong's ambitions of independence?
truth seeker Thanks. I’m certainly planning to do something on Taiwan. It is a fascinating case, and another situation that is widely misunderstood. I must admit that I hadn’t thought of doing anything on Hong Kong. However, it could be interesting to examine its position too. I very clearly remember watching the handover over 20 years ago.
Taiwan independence, so-called is not about independence. It is about dependence. Dependence upon the US Empire, to aid and abet Quislings to collude with foreign neocolonialists whose goal is to Balkanize designated enemies through color revolutions and regime change.
The result, if successful, is not "local self-government", but the addition of another vassal state to the many already under the boot of the American Hegemon.
@@thechinadesk Sure, China is better.
@@eltacmansur Yeah cause Murica can't deliver now because its on decline.
@@eltacmansur British Empire started this s*it by colonizing India and stealing trillions of dollars from it to make the Industrial Revolution more possible and cost human lives. US and Britain and other Western powers killed more than communism according to dissident libertarian leftist Chomsky but whatever. Industrial Capitalism emerged only in 17th century so its not mainly communist's only fault.
what if a people are denied internal self-d and are continuously oppressed as people? would you argue that this gives them a right to external self-d?
This is a fantastic question! Up until recently, the idea was that very little could happen in such cases. Other countries we’re duty bound to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. However, in certain quarters attention has turned to the idea of something called ‘remedial secession’. This is a really interesting idea that is meant to address just this very point. What should happen if a community is denied internal self-determination and also suffers serious human rights abuses? However, it is very problematic in some ways, and also very hard to put into practice. It is so interesting that you raised this issue as I have actually been thinking of doing a video on just this very subject in the next few weeks. Keep a watch out for it!
@@JamesKerLindsay that would be great! i am currently doing my dissertation on self-determination and the kurds, despite being a huge population in turkey there is suppression and lack of political representation. therefore i am arguing that they have a right to external self-determination (secession) as a remedy.
thank u so much sir!!! u helped me in our political geo/geopolitics presentation!!
Thank you for watching and for letting me know. That’s great! I am really glad it was useful. Good luck with the studies! And if you know anyone else who might find the videos useful, do pass the details of the channel on to them.
Thank you so much! I am revising for my Public Internation Law exams and landing on this video is a blessing. I wonder if you could comment on the Chagos Archipelagos Case and the position of UK and USA? Again many thanks!
Thanks. So glad it was useful. As it happens I have a video on the Chagos Islands: ua-cam.com/video/3mK6XJOqe9E/v-deo.html Good luck with the exam. (And do pass the channel on if there’s anyone else who might also find it useful!)
@@JamesKerLindsay I will surely do!
The quote from President Wilson is quite interesting. It seems like the conceptual basis of self determination (and thus international relations) changed radically after WW1. Was this the result on an international consensus or something imposed by the victors of WW1? Does the UN essentially enforce consensus today? Are there schisms in the world community around difficult topics like self determination?
AFAIK: In fact it was imposed by the victors after WWI. Countries like France or UK did not apply these principles within their own borders.
Hi, great video! Thank you for taking the time to make it, it was a really engaging and entertaining video to watch.
My understanding is limited so please forgive my ignorance. The topics discussed seem to cover the two avenues for legitimised claims for self determination. Assuming the external criteria is met are there any governing principles in place to ascertain if a group of people can be successful should they be given independence. I suppose I am imagining a situation where the criteria is met for self determination but the once independence is achieved the state immediately fails and one problem has been swapped for another. Should there be any governing principles in place are they enough to legitimately deny the states assertion of independence?
Thanks so much! You raise an incredibly interesting and important question. In recent years there has been a growing realisation that it shouldn’t just be about if a territory should have independence, but whether it is really able to exist as a sovereign and independent state if it is is recognised as such. The experience of South Sudan is important in this regard (I hope to cover this in a video soon). I think this will also shape questions regarding Bougainville (this I gave covered in a couple of videos already). However, it is a tough balance. While there’s the risk of creating failed states by hastily accepting independence, denying a people independence can perpetuate conflict. Not easy! Thanks so much again for the great comment! Really appreciated. I should try to do something on this point.
@@JamesKerLindsay So should it be judged then by pre-established political + physical infrastructure? because then some states have that infrastructure destroyed or heavily repressed by the state that they are attempting to become independent from
Could you please look into the situation in Nigeria (the Yoruba agitation for self-determination and secession) and give an analysis? 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Thank you.
Very good video very good channel I love it keep up the good work James.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Do let me know if you have any ideas for topics that you would like to see me cover.
Thank you professor James, excellent video with clear explanations. You have earned a subscriber from me!
My only outstanding question would be that, if the historical context to a prior 'unification' of people was indeed colonial and was followed by military subjugation by the eminent party within the union, to what extent would this be relevant at a later stage, especially if those aspects of military occupation/colonialism no longer presently apply? Does the law only concern the present day situation as relevant?
Thanks so much Markus. Really appreciated. Great question. The general principles is that once the act of self-determination has been exercised by a territory or people and led to the creation of an independent state, the territorial integrity of that state should be respected - from external and internal challenges. Hence minority communities don’t have a right to break away. Perhaps take a look at my video on the Biafran War. This was a good example of this in action. ua-cam.com/video/meAmQf31Te8/v-deo.html There are also rather interesting elements at play in neighbouring Cameroon as well, where the Anglophones argue that the Francophones have steadily downgraded their status:
ua-cam.com/video/6cXXw2tPFcU/v-deo.html
Do you think your category, external and internal self-determination, can explain the case of Taiwan and Kurdistan Region of Iraq or almost all de facto states? Almost all de facto states consider the military of their parent states as a form of foreign military occupation. If not, it is hard to apply the concept of external self-determination. Thank you.
Very good point! I also hear this a lot in the case of Kosovo. The argument is that it should have been regarded as a colony of Serbia, or under occupation. While I can understand where they are coming from, and why they want to press this point, this isn't obviously how their situations are read by the outside world. In all this, I think it is always bearing in mind that the rules are written by states. They want to close off options for independence for parts of their territory, and so the definition of colonies and military occupations was strictly limited to overseas imperial holdings and areas that have clearly been forcefully denied an accepted right of external self-determination - most usually again in colonial settings (such as East Timor, Palestine, Western Sahara). So, while they may regard themselves as being under military occupation, this isn't the way it is seen by those who matter.
@@JamesKerLindsay I think this is a crucial (if not the most salient) part of the argument and can't understand why it's not included on the original explanation. Concepts such as "military occupation" and "alien subjugation" completely lose their operational capability as they are portrayed uniquely by one of the parties (the strong one). Thank you.
@@JamesKerLindsay I hope with regard to palestine you mean the turkish occupation?
@@oliverduke1173at least they didn't delete the ppl , you are a joke
This was wonderful! Thank you
Thanks so much. It was one of my earlier videos so the production values and presentation was rather less developed. But I hope the essential information was all there.
I m from India. ..
Thank u
This help me alot
What are your thoughts on one of the British Overseas Territory, known as British Indian Ocean Territory, also commonly known as Chagos Archipelago. Do the native born and descendants of Chagos Archipelago have the right to claim self determination?
Thanks Rosy. I noticed that you saw my video on the Chagos Islands. I just replied to your comment there.
Thankyou for this informative and simplified video :)
I have a query about this concept in association with your video on the importance of UN membership. As you mentioned, UN can't formally recognize States, then why does its criteria of external self- determination becomes integral for a territory to attain international recognition as a state.
thanks for the video! very didactic
Thanks so much! I hope people find it interesting. I’m trying to do videos on the concepts to support the case studies. Hopefully it all fits together and explains why things happen the way they do.
Thanks a lot for the video.
Could you also explain, please, the relation between sovereign equality of states and self-determination of nations? Which is supreme? Or, should they be treated equally?
Thank you in advance.
Thanks. The sovereignty of states is supreme - if only because states are the ones that write the rules! Self-determination is certainly an important and accepted principle in international politics. However, as I try to show, it doesn't extend to challenging the boundaries of established countries. In most cases, the idea of self-determination extends to a degree of autonomy for communities living within a state.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you very much.
@@JamesKerLindsay No!
It is the winners who is higher! 13 colonies never respect British sovereignty!
Did Ireland rebelled in 1900s respect UK sovereignty!!
Did Greece, Balkans independent in 1800s and 1900s respect Ottoman sovereignty!!
Did Kosovo Independence respect Serbian sovereignty???
No!
The inalienable right of self determine is inalienable!!!
Thanks Professor , the video was very informative on the topic .
I have one question , who exactly is qualified for autonomy and self-governence ?
What are are the criteria , the steps and to what extent autonomy can be pushed ?
If the population involved wanted extensive autonomy , how could they obtain it?
Can a country like Nigeria for example , give autonomy to its igbo population ?
Can they have their own currency , can they have their own passports?
Thanks. A great set of questions, which, sadly, I can’t really answer in considerable detail here. In essence, a lot depends on the country and the group in question. Self-determination applies to all group, but varies enormously from country to country and situation to situation. In the case of the Igbo in Nigeria, one would certainly see an argument for significant internal self determination, including autonomy. But there’s nothing that outside powers can do to insist on this except call on the Nigerian government to put in place measures to bring it about.
Another very interesting and comprehensive video. Thanks!
I would like to see a video on the contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and self determination and how military powers often choose one or the other to legitimize their imperialist campaigns.
Maybe international law will never find a solution for this contradiction, just because it gives powerful countries opportunities to intervene and these countries do not want to be restricted in doing so.
Sir I have one question. if four people wants secession or one family wants secession of any particular region of any country. So they secede only their home area? because they want secession from that country so in these case we can conclude their self-determination ? what about others those who not want to secede .if u agree for four people then what 1000 people rights of not secede and if u agree for 1000 then what about 4 people rights?
Also Please Make video on North-Thailand Insurgency and Mindanao region of the Philippines.
Also make on Autonomy and Independence?
How does your assertion square with the emergence of Pakistan and Bangladesh from India after Indian independence from colonial occupation? I am very keen to understand this. Thanks in advance.
Thanks. Great question. Pakistan is an unusual example as it was created at the same time as India. They became independent separately. Pakistan did not split from India. Bangladesh is far more complex. I actually made a video on it. ua-cam.com/video/Xp2ljnaoaqs/v-deo.html
@@JamesKerLindsay or the countries that emerged from the former Yugoslavia or Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan?
Great and informative
Thank you.
Although it's unlikely they would desire it, do Palestinians have the right to external self-determination since they live under military occupation and colonial practices by Israel?
That right has already (and always) been accepted. The UN voted to partition Palestine and give the Palestinian Arabs their own state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. This right is also why the internationally accepted basis for a settlement is a two-state solution.
@@JamesKerLindsay Oh I know that, but I was actually thinking of something else. Is it possible for Palestinians to choose somewhere else in the world to build their own state just like the Jews when considered Argentina and Uganda before settling in Palestine? I hope my question is clearer now.
Good job, well explained topic!
It seems that self-determination, like international law as it now exists is a Western concept that is coerced upon the rest of the wprld disregarding such basic matters as the social, economic and political development of communities.
Not at all. The rules were set down during the Cold War. Nothing has really changed, except for Kosovo and Russia’s attempts to annexe parts of Ukraine. By and large, the rules remain the same and accepted by the wider international community. Ultimately, the international system is made up of states, and they want to protect themselves. African states are in fact rather steadfast supporters of the rules. The enemy for self-determination movements is not the West. It is the system itself.
Brilliant presentation!
Thank you so much! (Especially as it was one of my earlier videos.)
I have a question sir .
Has autonomy (Statistically) been the most successful way for territories seeking full independence to obtain it and has the experience in self-rule been generally advantageous to formerly autonomous territories in their management of said territory after independence ?
Is it just me or is the idea of people having the right to self-determination in direct contrast and tension with the idea of state sovereignty and monopoly of power? Doesn't the idea of the centralized state imply the domination of those who live under it? Of course one could argue that a state is legitimate if they truly represent the general will of the people, but when does that ever happen? And if they did represent the general will, then they wouldn't need a monopoly of power.
thanks alot for the elaboration. kindly can you enlighten us that "The Right to self determination can be fall or interlinked in any theory of IR ?
Imo the right to self determination doesn't necessarily create more democratic states
very helpful!
Thank you! I’m really glad you found it useful. Perhaps take a look at some of my other videos to see how it has come up in other cases, such as in Africa. There are a lot of practical debates about this.
According to the points made in your video, one could conclude that if the secession of Crimea is a violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, then the same applies to Kosovo. These situations are, however, very far from being in accordance to any international understandings. They are fueled by brutal economic and military interests, devoid of any principle, morals, or any kind of general love for humanity.
The very reason international institutions are losing reputation is that economic and military interests always trump the voice of the people.
Just look at the US, and subsequent majority of western countries' position on international hotspots:
Crimea: against self-determination of Crimean Russians, supports territorial integrity of Ukraine
Kosovo: against territorial integrity of Serbia, supports self-determination of Albaninan Kosovars
Syria : against territorial integrity of Syria, supports self-determination of Kurds (not in Turkey, however!)
Israel/Palestine: against self-determination of Palestinians, supports NOT ONLY the territorial integrity of Israel, but supports Israeli occupation and annexation of the West Bank and Golan Heights.
And I will not dive in to the abyss of what is American meddling in Latin America.
I would be completely ok with all of the above, if it were in the interest of the people living there, if it guaranteed the least amount of violence. But it's obvious it isn't so.
Other powers, especially the former USSR, the Russian Federation, China, South Africa, the UK, France, are all guilty of the same amount of hypocrisy. That is why the only thing that should matter to the UN is the decision of an unquestionable majority in a referendum, where the turnout is at least 80% (or another high agreed-upon percentage)
Thanks. Yes, I realise that there isn’t always a lot of apparent consistency in international relations. However, as critical as I was about the way Kosovo was handled, and the obvious links that can be made to Crimea, I do think that the underlying intentions of the relevant actors were different in the two cases. The US and others (UK, France, Germany and Italy) had no intention of annexing Kosovo. In fact, I don’t think they even planned to create an independent Kosovo. Events led them in that direction. However, Russia clearly did stage a deliberate invasion and annexation of Crimea.
I must admit I have not seen your Kosovo video, and will do so as soon as possible. But when you say invaded and annexed, is that not just a matter of perspective? You know, the old worn phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? I believe this issue of perspective should be debated way more than it has been. Because, again, the only legitimate power in Crimea is and will be the one with the approval of its people. And again, the Kiev government lost that legitimacy because it acted against the interests of Ukrainan Russians. Under a government passing legislation hostile towards your language, your history, your culture, you have a right to self-defence, which is what self determination is under such circumstances. You don't have to be a former colony to have that right. That was the point of Wilson's ideas. This is so very similar to what my people suffered under fascist Italy. And if we let all things aside, how is the UN going to be percieved in Crimea in the future? As a hostile institution that does not represent their interests. Because it blatantly refused to acknowledge everything Kiev was doing. Have you seen what they put in ther elementary school history textbooks?
I'm just worried that the UN has fallen from a position of a well-respected intermediary for humanity as a whole to a lackey of the West.
@@JamesKerLindsay But can intent be introduced as a consideration? I don't want to stick my oar in the water here because feelings are so strong about Kosovo and Crimea. But if intent matters, then just about any action from the US and probably the UK might be criticized because it might be to benefit some big business, or some lobby, or even just to distract from a domestic scandal. Let me emphasize that i know very little about international relations, so maybe intent can be used in reasoning about them, but it sure seems like it would open a can of worms.
Gregor, The Ukrainian constitution had a provision that the citizens of the semi autonomous region of Crimea could choose at any time to rejoin Russia. WHY. The Soviet Union in 1954 gave Crimea to Ukraine with the caveat that it would be semi autonomous and could rejoin mother Russia at any time. That is what the people did in 2014. They voted to rejoin Russia as it was in the Ukrainian constitution.
@@scottieschmitz71 First time I hear of this, thanks, will look it up!
In Spain, Catalonia does not have the right to self-determination because we are not a colony and at the same time Gibraltar does not have the right to self-determination because according to the Spanish government they are settlers of a colony . It is funny
Thanks sir
watch from PAKISTAN🇵🇰
What’s your views on the Falklands and the application of SD in that dispute?
Great question. I plan to do a video on the Falkland Islands. It’s complicated. But in general I tend to believe that countries don’t have an inherent right to territory. The people living there should decide. But this is an interesting and complex case.
@@JamesKerLindsay I can’t wait to see it. I hope it’s soon. There’s a historical researcher called Roger Lorton who has uncovered much historical evidence to the extent that the Argentinian state are now tweaking their official narrative to try and fit the evidence that’s now in the public realm. The myth that is the Antonio Rivero story for example.
@@likeitout Thanks so much for the tip!
Roger Lorton has a very flimsy academic background, he´s not a profesional historian, and his interpretation of Intl Law is quite inconsistent. We know him and others in Argentina because they are constantly plaguing every social media peddling their "academic work", and harrassing Argentine academics, even some British. The Argentinian State hasn´t changed anything in it´s "narrative", much less for an amateur´s work. But two Argentine intl lawyers took the chance to explain where and why Lorton and the rest of the amateur bloggers (Pascoe, Pepper, Potts, Kuntz et al) are wrong:
Marcelo Kohen, PhD, professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. He is a Titular Member of the Institut de Droit international. Author of more than hundred publications in the field of International Law, in English, French and Spanish.
Facundo Rodríguez, Advocate in International Law, graduated from the University of Buenos Aires. Member of the Committee on the Question of the Malvinas, Georgias and South Sandwich Islands of the Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI) and member of several research programmes related to the Question of the Malvinas Islands.
Their work is available here: www.malvinas-falklands.net/table-of-contents/
What is a contradicting theory to SDT
I am interested where you think indigenous-led movements in Central and South America (such as in Guatemala or Colombia) for "plurinational states" would fall in these two definitions of self-determination. I know a lot of these groups cite the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as granting them a right to self-determination; this is where I had first heard this term. But it seems difficult to see this as a case of internal self-determination, as these countries (and the US and Canada and others) are essentially the fallout of the "saltwater-colonialism" you mentioned as being a criteria for external self-determination. It seems like drawing the line at "saltwater borders" is a bit of a cop-out for colonial regimes that morphed and then stayed, especially when the definition was first articulated by a US president. I don't know if I've seen you do a video about the Americas so I get if it's not your area of expertise, but I'd love to hear your thoughts about how ideas of self-determination translate to the western hemisphere!
3:06 Excuse me? That exact idea lead to forming Czechoslovakia in 1918 and a peaceful spit into Czech Republic and Slovanika in 1993, my country is a proof that this works we are better for it. If it worked here, twice, why couldn't it work elsewhere under simial circumstances?
Because not all countries are as reasonable as Czechoslovakia.
Great video ✔
Siera (The Chosen One) Thank you so much. Really appreciated! Always keen to hear ideas for other topics.
Anytime! :)
self-determination letter to UK government by sovereign ,I am traveler I dont have permament country I step out of system ...do you think govs will accept that ? or I will be outcast?
Wah wah vip
In practice, with few exceptions, for nations which are US geopolitical rivals or allies of geopolitical rivals, territorial integrity is second to people's self-determination. Thus all the nations of the former Yugoslavia, are widely recognized. Were they colonies of Serbia?
For USA, and allies, territorial integrity is the most important factor, over people's self-determination - thus Catalonia, Kurdistan and Palestine are not widely recognized, nor do they receive support or protection from "subjugation, domination and exploitation".
In the end, might makes right. The difference between a separatist and a freedom fighter, between insurrection and independence war, is its success. All this talk about "rule-based international order" would only hold if all the rules were applied equally among nations. It could still happen, some time in the future.
How about self determination to Kashmir?
A very good, and a very interesting, question. I certainly plan to do a video on Kashmir. It is one of the really big disputes that I haven’t tackled yet.
DJCoopes
The Criteria for External Self-Determination as established:
Must be under Alien (Foreign) Military Occupation
or Alien (Foreign) Colonialist Subjugation, Domination, or Exploitation.
Under this Australia would fall under the second category due to colonialist (British) subjugation through the crown exercising power through the queen as head of state and the various governor-general
External Self-determination is applied on a one-off basis? Says who? What do you do in the case of Internal Colonization engendered by a fraudulent independence arrangement? The fear of micro-countries should not be your or anyone’s problem. Your argument is absolutely untenable. We need equity, fairness and justice in this world.
Says international law. You do realise that these aren’t my rules? I didn’t make them up. As someone who has written extensively on these issues, I am trying to explain how the international community - through a number of past acts and resolutions - has come to understand the concept of self-determination. So, it’s not my argument that’s untenable, as you suggest, it’s the argument of the 193 members of the UN. You need to take it up with them!
In Kurdish case, what form of self determination apply to them? Thank you
By winning independence war, the right of self-determine will apply to them, and they will have independent state!!!
They have many population, the other parties can't stop them being independent!!!
They are numbered!
@@allianceofunitedcommunitie5541 they also aren't a majority in most of the land they claim in Iraq
1:54
Wait, didn't that happen before WW2, Chamberlain - Hitler?
Could one be ones own state? A state within a state persay. A state of individual states within the country. A country of United States of individual states in the world.
When ethnic russians voted to leave ukraine and become a part of russia, they did it democratically. But why didn't Peoples right to self determination apply in this case?
Thanks, Andre. As I said in the video, the right of self-determination leading to secession only applies in cases of colonisation and occupation. Crimea did not meet these conditions. Minorities within states don’t have a right to call a referendum at will and to break away. Countries around the world would quickly disintegrate if this was the case. More to the point, would Russia simply let the any group leave if they wanted? Would it let the Chechens leave if they organised a referendum without permission tomorrow and votes to secede. I think we both know the answer.
@@JamesKerLindsay So Kosovo really was stolen from Serbia...
@@Nista357 Kosovo was case oppression .
@@sababugs1125 What?
@@JamesKerLindsay this is simply ridiculous. That referendum in Crimea was after a coup d'État...
What of Yugoslavia then?
What of it? I’m not sure what your point is? You need to explain your question.
Yes, everyone has an opinion.... It is easy for you to talk when the state has it's boot on our neck!
So what you are saying is ukraine is part of Russia?
Not sure how reach that conclusion?(Seriously, I’d be keen to hear your reasoning.) Ukraine is an independent sovereign state. Its status under international law is absolutely settled.
Independence must be the will of the people . Especially like in south africa where we all got forced under a nationlist government that enforce racebased laws against the minorities even agasint minorities of colour, greater autonomy is not the answer complete Independence is needed as its what we want, no amount of legal gymnastics should be able deprive a nation of its right to want to be independent.
National Liberation Armies and non-cooperation movements will continue to expand the definition of self-determination and achieve independence in defiance of domestic law and in full compliance with international law - which is unable to protect territorial integrity of states against non-states. No criteria necessary for independence other than the will of the people and supportive public sentiment. The voluntary weaponization of human life will prove this to be true.
It's actually quite hard to defeat a state without foreign support so imo self determination will become a weapon
@@sababugs1125 you are absolutely right. In principle, self determination trumps territorial integrity because pre-state liberation movements are not constrained by the obligation of States to respect territorial integrity, and thus States weaponize the self determination of Peoples against the territorial integrity of other States. It's quite fascinating because it allows ambitious States to legitimately consolidate power while resolving more self-determination conflicts over time. Naturally States will always tend to suppress self determination movements in their own territory while supporting self determination movements in foreign territory. However, States should pay more attention to peacefully resolving domestic movements because the State remains vulnerable to foreign support of such movements for as long as there is still domestic unrest.
isnt this the same problem as apartheid?
Berno Conradie Thanks. Not sure I follow. Perhaps you could explain a bit further.
🦉
So If my state and city occupted by another state 100 years ago, i cant get rid them peacefully now?? Why we dont have a right to select what country we live in. Its absurd. All peoples must has rights to get indiepence pracefully we live in a democracy.
I dont want seperate my country personally but i support rights of Kosovo, Kashmir, Palestine, Honk Kong, Tibet or Uygurs.
Just as a question, would that right to independence also apply to the Kurds who want independence from Turkey? They would argue that they were denied the right to independence. In truth, no countries like to give up territory - and for a variety of reasons. I have a video on this. ua-cam.com/video/M5-8Vtogy3M/v-deo.html
You are wrong in explaining external self-determination. Stateless nations also have the right to external self-determination. Example: Tamilnadu, a nation which is a part of India, which is culturally politically, ethnically different from India, should have the right to external self-determination.
In pretty sure I’m not. I have written extensively on this.
@@JamesKerLindsay you explained that a colony have the right to external self-determination. Will you put Tamilnadu as a colony of the Indian Union(rather than as a stateless nation) or is it just a matter of internal self-determination (iyo)?
So Kosovo is a part of Serbia.
There is an exception where the people seeking self determination are said to be suffering / experiencing hardship as a result of either conflict or an inability of the parent state to provide protection for them.
@@joecater894 So when is RNA getting its freedom?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika
When you lost war, it is not yours.
Just when ottoman lost war 100 years ago, ottoman lost Balkans region!
I can't understand since Serbia can defeat Ottoman and won independence in 1912, Serbia can re-took Kosovo in 1912 by winning war;
why Serbia can't lose it in 1999 when it got defeated by NATO?
Of course, when Russia defeated Ukraine and west watch dogs, Donbass will be independent!
Only the results of the war, can determine the land belongings; and it is higher than any law, including UN Charter!
Because the UN Charter is written by winners of WW2! Yes, the winners of WW2!
13 colonies defeated Britain and won independence! Poland won Russia in 1917 and won independence!
@@allianceofunitedcommunitie5541 Because by your logic we only go from war to war and it all goes down to what one can grab from another by force. That same logic brought us where we are today. Last days of humanity and planet Earth. But so be it when you guys love it. We will wait for next war to take Kosovo again.
@@Nista357 But it is what it always is.
If you can take it 100 years later, when Russia becomes powerful and back to Balkans, yes you can.
Why we have peace? It is because we love peace? NO. It is because big fives (UN P5) make the peace and destroy everyone who is against it.
After Napoleon war, Vienna system: Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia (Germany) are the big powers; under their willing, it maintains political order; After ww1, winners Britain France USA Russia Italy Japan make rules, and League of Nations (USA left, Russia never joined) has no veto, no one can agree to another one, WW2 starts. After ww2, the winners as big five (UN P5) make rules and have veto. If the big fives don't fight to each others, it is peace; if big fives against each other, it is ww3, nuclear war.
Why USA didn't do anything, when USSR interfere Czech and Hungary in cold war?
Why USSR didn't do anything, when USA overthrow governments in Latin America in cold war?
Because it is their sphere of influence.
For Ukraine crisis, USA and west keep saying sanctions and sanctions, but did they say anything about military action against Russia in Ukraine??? No!!!!!
Because it is the big fives who make rules!
SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE KABYLIAN PEOPLE
kabylia also requests self-determination ,seen its territory its culture its language which is different from algerian arab.
the kabyles pay their blood heavily through history, the romqins the vandals and turks and arabs and french ... in 1963 a geurrus breaks out between the ALN the frontier army against the kabyles.
The Berber spring of April 80 triggered events against the conference taking of the ethnologist, linguist and linguist mammeri .... in 1994, the school boycott for a year just in Kabylia, about the Amazigh language.
in 1998 assassination of popular singer Kabyle Matoub Lounes.
In April 2001 the Algerian army fired on a civilian high school student in Massinissa, the interior minister qualifies him as a thug, 126 dead and 5 5000 wounded.
After this event, the Kabylians seek to find a solution to the divorce between Algiers and Kabylia, either autonomy or self-determination.
The Kabyle question is on the agenda at the UN.
You should learn to be peaceful within Algeria . Incensant separatism creates distrust
Oduduwa nation
I think 'you' have no right to determine what is good for the 'People'.
so encouraging tjank you new Friend here wish you listen to my songs
Kosovo is Serbia!!!!!!!
I think based on your vocabularies that you are on the side of the powerful , self determination? Where is this joke according to 300mil arabs with enforced and nonsensical borders
I really have no idea what you mean? I explained the concept as it has come to be understood. People want to understand why the world map looks like it does.
Great video sir