Popular demand is the typical standard for evaluating the emergence of the right to self- determination, there cannot be a tangible and moral force for this right, without the presence of popular demand.156 The claim of political self-determination is based on freedom from dictatorship and the assurance that all people will be able to participate in decision-making and uphold the rule of law, and that a nation’s people are the source of the State’s authority. These measures ensure access to good governance.157 Current trends in international law
clearly support popular demand for the right of political self-determination, as evidenced by many, varied international conventions and international practices. For example, Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights states that: “Every people have the right to self-determination and they shall freely determine their political status”.158 In addition, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right
153Harare Declaration (1991) para 4
<http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=141095> accessed 20 June 2011.
154Copenhagen Declaration (1990) Para 4 <http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304> accessed 16 June
2011.
155The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (2007) <http://www.africa-
union.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/text/Charter%20on%20Democracy.pdf> accessed 20 June 2011.
156Steven Wheatley, Democracy, Minorities and International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 124-
126. See also Kristina Roepstorff, The Politics of Self-determination: Beyond the Decolonisation Process, Routledge, 2012, pp. 97-105. See also Luke Glanville, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New
History, University of Chicago Press, 2013, p. 87
157Christian Tomuschat, Modern Law and Self-Determination, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, p. 51. 158African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986)
(1982) 21 ILM 58 (African Charter) art 30<http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm> accessed 08 March 2012.
to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives".159
Claims to political self-determination differ in essence from popular demands for independence from colonial rule and secession from the parent state. The latter aim to change the external structure but not necessarily the internal workings of how the state governs its people. In contrast, popular demand for the right of political self-determination specifically targets the internal form of governance used by the state, and external influence is limited to accepting procedural changes in internal form of the state by the international community.
Popular demands for self-determination differ not only in the need for external or internal change to the state but also in the factors behind the emergence of these demands in the first place.160 For example, popular demand for independence might be motivated by the aim to eliminate colonial rule and establish the state’s right to govern itself independently as a sovereign territory.161In contrast, demands for political self-determination can be driven by the desire to end dictatorship, uphold the rule of law or achieve good governance through public participation in decision-making. In addition, the ruling entity of a state and its members belong to the same wider community of citizens and should work to establish ethnic, cultural and social unity. Whereas , in the case of secession, the demands made by individual communities within a state contradict the views of other communities within that state, whether those demands reflect an individual community’s sense of nationalism, ethnic origins, language or religious beliefs.162
Thus, the popular demand for the right of political self-determination differs in both substance and content from other claims for traditional forms of self-determination. These differences extend to the causes of and motivations for these claims: Consistently, rule by an authoritarian, dictatorial regime is the reason such claims are advanced.163 A dictatorial regime is based on the concept of a police state and, accordingly, does not accept the idea of
159Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) .
160Igor Primoratz, Aleksandar Pavkovic, Identity, Self-determination and Secession, Ashgate Publishing, 2006,
p.8.
161Helen Quane, The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1998) Vol. 47, pp. 537-572.
162Gentian Zyberi, Self-Determination Through the Lens of the International Court of Justice, Netherlands International Law Review (2009) Vol. 56, pp. 429-453,
163Roland Burke, Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights, University of Pennsylvania
giving people opportunities to participate in the management of the state or to enjoy partisan and intellectual. There is no doubt that this type of government inconsistent with contemporary human thought and with the rules of international law. Therefore, popular demands for political self-determination seek to end dictatorial regimes and enable the people of a nation to determine the type and style of government that is used to run that nation.164
If popular demand for the right to political self-determination arises under a dictatorial regime, how does such a regime address those claims? Almost without fail, the regime will apply repression in an attempt to abort and extinguish those claims. This pattern can been seen, for example, in the events in Libya in 2011 and in the Syrian people’s efforts to exercise their right to political self-determination.165 As mentioned, popular demand for this right is based on many rules of international law.166 In addition, the repressive measures dictatorial governments adopt in response generally are contrary to international law, in particular, to the international law of human rights, as they lead to the commission of international crimes. For example, the Syrian regime’s military forces used chemical weapons in an attempt to silence citizens’ popular demands for an end to the regime.167
Under modern legal concepts, including the principle of responsibility to protect,168 which adopted in UN Security Council Resolution No. 1647,169 the international community can take measures to protect claims to political self-determination and to prevent rights violations and crimes against all those who demand this right. For example, in the 2011 Libyan revolution, Muammar Gaddafi’s regime violated international human rights law in order to deny the people’s claims and to silence demonstrations calling for an end to his dictatorship.170 These violations pushed the international community to engage in economic
164 Simone van den Driest, 'Pro-Democratic' Intervention and the Right to Political Self-Determination: The
Case of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Netherlands International Law Review (2010) Vol. 57, pp. 29–72.
165Sandesh Sivakumaran, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict,Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 138-
143.
166For example see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (1966), African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (1981) and the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (1990).
167Human Rights Watch Report , Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack, 10/09/2013, available at
(http://www.hrw.org/node/118725/) accessed 29 June 2014.
168Alex J. Bellamy, Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World
Summit, Ethics & International Affairs (2006) Vol. 20, pp 143–169.
169UN, Security Council, Resolution 1674 (April 2006).
and military interventions to protect the Libyan people and help them achieve the right of political self-determination.171
However, legal arguments against such measures can be made based on the principle of non- interference. We can see such opposition in Russia’s and China’s veto of UN Security Council resolutions intended to protect the Syrian people from serious rights violations and to promote their right to political self-determination.172 These legal arguments based on the principle of non-interference are derived, in particular, from Article 2/7 of the UN Charter, which is the primary expression of this principle in international law.173
The above analysis led to the conclusion that the popular demand for the right to political self-determination is based on international law. However, such claims are established permanently by the people who live under a repressive regime or dictatorship. The objectives of these claims are to end authoritarian regimes and to ensure the participation of all peoples in national decision-making and selection of the economic and political systems that best conform to their aspirations. However, authoritarian regimes do not accept this point of view or value the desires of the people. Contemporary legal thought does not adequately consider or address the reality that making such claims exposes people to serious violations of their rights in international law. Consequently, the international community acts by itself to protect these claims and support the people’s right to self-determination, which has contributed to the creation of a substantive relationship between the claim to political self-determination and the international promotion and support of that claim.
It is true that there is a link between repression and popular demands for secession or independence from colonial rule as the colonial or parent state might refuse to address those claims or respond with violence, as happened in Kosovo.174However, in Kosovo, the demand
for independence or separation was not due to the existence of a dictatorial regime but, rather,
171Spencer Zifcak, The Responsibility to Protect after Libya and Syria, Melbourne Journal of International Law,
(2012) Vol. 13, No. 1.
172United Nations News, Russia and China veto draft Security Council resolution on Syria
(http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39935&Cr=syria&Cr1 at 15/10/2011.
173UN Charter (1945).
174Duncan French, statehood and Self-Determination: Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International
to the ethnic and nationalist divisions of that particular region.175 These motivations reflect the different types of claims that fall within the scope of self-determination, as explained earlier. In another case, the parent state might pursue a democratic approach and provide the people with the opportunity to vote. However, the people might remain deeply committed to their claim to the right of political self-determination because the government was originally a dictatorship and did not allow democracy.
The correlation between the popular demand for the right of political self-determination and international intervention conflicts with the principle of non-interference, posing a fundamental question: Does the principle of non-interference have an effective impact upon the promotion of the right to political self-determination? Moreover, what are the results of the confrontation between the principle of non-interference and the right to political self- determination?