Self-determination and the “right” to resist occupation

The fundamental, collective human right to self-determination is arguably the cornerstone of the entire international legal order.

Self-determination is understood as the right of all national groups (in practice, groups recognized as such by themselves and by others) to be governed and represented (popularly or otherwise) by a sovereign state (or federation) functioning as the highest source of domestic legal authority. Affirmation of the right to self-determination is prominently featured in art. 1(1) of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is deemed to be an inherent right; that is, it does not derive from the international legal order but rather is presupposed by the latter: art. 1(2) of the United Nations Charter recognizes the principle of self-determination as a basis for the existence of the UN.

It is often assumed that the right to self-determination gives peoples living under foreign military occupation an absolute right to resist against the occupying power. It is interesting to note, therefore, that nowhere in international humanitarian law (IHL) – the primary body of law dealing with military occupation – can such a right be found or even inferred. Moreover, certain IHL provisions actually seem to preclude a general right to resist occupation. For example, IHL gives an occupying power not only the right, but the obligation to ensure…

Continue reading this entry ➔

The Symbolic Gesture of the ICJ Decision on Kosovo

Professor Daniel Turp, in his recent article to this blog dealt with the ICJ’s recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. He states that, “le droit […] l’est parfois pour les individus, un instrument au service de la liberté.” Considering Kosovo’s longstanding struggle for independence, it is likely that many Kosovars would agree. However, I believe that the ICJ judgment points to more limits in international law than liberties, and that the likelihood of this decision to enhance personal or collective [political] liberty is illusory.

Although the ICJ intentionally avoided the issue, it is clear that secession invariably invokes self-determination. This is probably the liberty Professor Turp speaks of. The principle of self-determination was first proposed to the League of Nations by Woodrow Wilson’s in his plans for post-World War I Europe. It was based on a “reinterpretation of the principle of self-determination”, which itself has its roots in American and French revolutions [1]. Some of the biggest limits of this principled notion are its definitional ambiguities and the difficulty in applying a concept built on the foundations of individual liberties to collective rights.

Self-determination can be found in the UN Charter articles 1(2), 55 and 73; The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Colonial Declaration) and the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Contribution spéciale: L’avis sur la déclaration d’indépendance du Kosovo et le Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec : le droit comme instrument au service de la liberté

            Depuis la formulation par la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) de son avis du 22 juillet 2010 sur la Conformité au droit international de la declaration unilatérale d’indépendance relative au Kosovo, plusieurs opinions ont été exprimées sur la portée de cet avis, et notamment sur les enseignements qui peuvent en être tirés pour le Québec. L’intérêt pour le Québec des dicta de l’organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies est notamment révélé par le fait que la Cour cite l’avis donnné par la Cour suprême  du Canada dans le cadre du Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec. La CIJ cite le Renvoi du tribunal canadien de dernière instance pour distinguer la question qui lui est posée de celle que le gouvernement du Canada avait formulée à l’intention de la Cour suprême du Canada et joue de prudence en ne commentant pas les réponses formulées par le tribunal. Le juge Koroma fait quant à lui référence au Renvoi dans son opinion dissidente pour appuyer l’argument selon lequel la CIJ aurait dû, selon lui, affirmer que le droit international n’accorde pas expressément aux parties constituantes d’un État souverain le droit de faire sécession de l’État « parent ».

            L’avis de la CIJ sur le Kosovo illustre le fait qu’une nette majorité des juges, soit 10 sur 14, ont refusé de faire dire au droit ce qu’un État, en l’occurrence la…

Continue reading this entry ➔

We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident

Today is a historic day. Beginning today, the notion of someone starting their own country will no longer be restricted to isolated kooks or wacky cartoon characters. Instead, I will be lending the idea my own considerable prestige and legitimacy by declaring my apartment to be the sovereign realm of New Worcestershire. In my realm, I’ll lift cumbersome exotic pet restrictions; download free movies and music with de jure, rather than merely de facto immunity; and in the words of another, “kill anyone who looks at me cock-eyed”. And if you don’t like it, then I’ll see you in court!

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) that is. In July, the ICJ gave an advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, reaching the sweeping conclusion that “international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence.” The subject of this opinion wasn’t a prominent nation like New Worcestershire, but an obscure place called Kosovo. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008, and the validity of this declaration has been hotly disputed ever since.

At Serbia’s prompting, the UN General Assembly, in October 2008, passed a resolution referring to the ICJ the straightforward question: “is the [Kosovan declaration] in accordance with international law?” The ICJ considered the question in two parts; whether the declaration was in violation of general international law, and whether it was in…

Continue reading this entry ➔