CHAPTER – I: INTRODUCTION
"All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
The right to self determination in international law is an important principle. It states that nations have a right to choose their sovereignty and international status with freedom with no external interference or compulsion.
1. RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS (UN)
The United Nations and National Self determination
National self-determination and the United Nations are modern concepts of political thought in International law. Of the two the first is older and has struck much stronger roots. Its origin can
…show more content…
State practice has commonly accepted the legal interpretation that the right to self-determination belongs primarily to peoples under colonial or alien rule. The principles applicability to classic colonial cases (e.g., India, Nigeria, Mozambique and Algeria) was largely unquestioned in the post-World War II period and indeed close to a billion people were liberated from colonial rule through its implementation during this period. The controversy arises particularly when applying to peoples other than those in classical colonial situations. Under state practice, the right to self- determination was not entirely limited to classical colonial situations, despite the reluctance of states to apply it beyond that …show more content…
In Vienna, in 1993, the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights affirmed in the final Declaration, adopted unanimously by all states, that the right to self- determination is part of international law and human rights.
4. NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS AND USE OF FORCE
As to whether wars of national liberation are international struggles to which international law applies, it is seen that while the Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions give some legal force to the practice, particularly of NLMs. of applying the laws of war and adhering to them, the majority of States have been reluctant to undertake obligations in wars of liberation. In addition, there are significant cases where the laws have not been applied.
It is recognised as a right of self-determination of colonised people to use of force and armed attack for national liberation movements subject to international custom of UN Charter in Art. 51. Since use of force in self-defence is a valid exception to international use of force so use of force in national liberation movements like those against colonial masters can fall within this category and thus it is legitimate to use force in national liberation
The Declaration of Independence states three unalienable rights and those are the only three rights that should be stated in it. Many will disagree with that opinion but this paper will soon prove why the three unalienable rights stated in the constitution are the only rights that should be stated. The three main points as to why those three rights are the only rights that should be stated are 1) They only needed to state three rights so as to show why they were a free country. 2)
“[The British declare] that parliament can ‘of right make laws to bind us all in cases whatsoever’” (Dickinson and Jefferson, Document 5). Another reason why American colonists were justified in waging war on the British is because of the growing acts of British violence against the colonists. “Order quickly broke down, and the frightened soldiers fired into the crowd.
Throughout the annals of history, the advocation for a democratic government has been at the forefront of many prosperous, well known societies. From Ancient Greece, to countries that have based their prosperity on democracy, like the United States for instance, popular sovereignty has been the contributing factor that integrates the common man into the government in which they are encapsulated. In the context of the American Independence movement, the need for American people to rule by their own terms meant the difference between being the slaves of a tyrannical leader, or the people belonging to a free society. The recalcitrant Americans fought against the unruly British in order to gain this independence. The document that initially gave
Rules: With regard to international armed conflicts, the four Geneva Conventions (GC I to IV) and Additional Protocol I and II contain various provisions specifically dealing with both of Prisoners of War, Civilians protection to prevent any kind of violations that may happen toward them. The Forth Geneva convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War has set rules governing the issue of civilians who found themselves under enemy’s possession. Article 5 of the 4th GC has identified who are protected persons with putting conditions to be considered as protected with the privileges of having the statue of protected persons at article 27 of the same convention. Third Geneva Convention in particular has recognized group of rights with regarded to POWs such as the right to be humanely treated at article 13, correspondence at article 71, the right to gain a sufficient food in quantity and quality at article 26 and the right to not be subjected to torture and question at article 17 where every prisoner of war “when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information” Moreover, the use of weapons and means that have indiscriminate effects such as poisonous gas and bombs which also would aggravate the suffering recognized as prohibited to use due to the amount of damage it causes upon civilians as well as the environment
D). In Document A “study the problem of genocide and to prepare a report on the possibilities of declaring genocide an international crime.” Although this would have been a great action to protect civilians value during the Nazi crimes, which were inhumane. However, due to the “lack of adequate provisions and previous formulation of international law, the Nuremberg Tribunal had to dismiss the Nazi crimes,” (Doc. A). The international government have not payed attention to serious issues concerning their people.
The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are a summarization of how the United States is to be represented and the liberties it gives to all its citizens of its freedoms. Nowadays, the Government doesn’t withhold or handle its citizens as The Constitution and Declaration of Independence state it to nor do the citizens comprehend their legal rights. The Declaration of Independence states that the rights to the people is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that right is not to be violated. The Constitution states, all citizens have the right to bear arms. This amendment of The Constitution and rights of the people from The Declaration of Independence seem to have become the most violated and misunderstood
Systemic Racism The United Nations on December 10, 1948, created the International Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are synonymous to that of the rights listed in the United States Bill of Rights. The human rights concept is a broad spectrum in which we all take a part of and enjoy, but the more obscure issue is the systemic racism implanted in our fellow citizens.
Even though “sovereignty” may be a concept that has originated in ancient times, it is still very relevant today. The concept of sovereignty could still be seen in modern events, whether at global, national, or domestic level. Sometimes, it is seen as a positive concept, sometimes it is seen as negative. As with everything, sovereignty can have both its benefits and downsides. Last September, Guatemala faced problems when their government wrestled with the United Nations for control on their own national affairs.
In the UNSC’s article 51, individual and collective self-defense can be authorized by the UNSC under the framework of collective security. However, genocide is never justifiable in the eyes of the UN. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature between war and genocide is the disproportionally ability of those involved to fight back. Within war there is a certain level of understanding that those engaging in the conflict will have an ability to engage in battle. However, historically in genocides the effected groups have had little to no ability to proportionately fight against their attackers.
Respect for Autonomy Living donor autonomy is a vital component of informed consent. Arguing that inmates are a vulnerable population who do not possess the capacity to give informed consent stigmatizes an entire group of individuals. By making broad assumptions, we are not respecting the autonomy of these inmates to make informed decisions. Concurrently, enabling living donor autonomy ensures that vulnerable populations such as Aboriginals and new immigrants are able to donate organs free of harsh restrictions. These populations can face similar barriers as inmates such as language, comprehension, and educational barriers.
Imposition on Human Rights The modern conception of civil liberties involves a long list of individual rights which include the right to liberty and security of person, rights to property and privacy, right to a fair trial and the rights to free speech. These civil and political rights are now framed as “human rights” and are protected by numerous international treaties. Freedom of movement is also broadly recognised in international law and bills of rights. Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of each state.
Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights, some acknowledge no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative right, where as human rights also comprise positive rights.
Correspondingly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights depend on dignity, equality and mutual respect – regardless of your nationality, your religion or your beliefs. Your rights are tied in with being dealt with reasonably and treating others decently, and being able to make on decisions about your own life. These fundamental human rights are: Universal; They have a place with every one of us; They can't be detracted from us, Indivisible and independent Governments should not have the capacity to choose
To govern oneself as one wished is an attribute of independence. A sovereign state may not be disturbed by another state unless it has given the right to intervene. When a state attaches legal consequences to conduct in another state, it exercises control over that conduct, and when such control affects essential interests in the foreign state, it may constitute an interference with the sovereign rights of that foreign
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that, "all member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, nor in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations” . It is therefore a unilateral agreement signed by member states against the use of force when dealing each other. World events however since the signing and ratification of the UN Charter have indicated that states who are signatories to the charter continue to use force against each other for various reasons. Some 25 years after the writing and ratification of the charter one cannot doubt that states have used force and sought to justify it through individual or collective self-defence claims, as well as humanitarian claims in furtherance of national agendas and to increase territory. This no doubt may have been what frustrated Franck into the stance that Article 2(4) was in its grave.