Self-Determination as a Human Right - Essay Example

Self-determination as a human right Human rights ‘Human rights’ is a term used to symbolize the protection of the individual and can be associated with ‘humanitarian’, although both are applicable under slightly different circumstances. While humanitarian law applies in the context of any armed conflict, human rights work towards the protection of the individual both in times of war and during peace. As such, the former is a way to restrict the suffering and damage caused by war and achieves this by monitoring and regulating the way in which military operations and objectives are achieved by the warring parties. Humanitarian law is therefore the law of war and its aftereffects whereby its goal is to limit the damage of war on people, poverty and the protection of the vulnerable elements in the event of a conflict. Modern states have largely been committed to human rights, and this is more prevalent in states under democratic rule. Democratic governments are bound by the pressure from the people to adhere to national laws and observe customary rules that are components of bilateral treaties. However, such limitations in scenarios of warfare have varied immensely throughout history and the only aspects that can be interpolated among all such conflicts are the place, time and the parties involved in it (Stephen Shute, 2006). The first recognizable humanitarian laws were created only in the 19th century that could be considered as internationally recognized. These laws initially looked to oversee the conduct of people involved in warfare and their treatment. During the middle of the 19th century, the founder of the Red Cross, Henri Durant, championed the first universal codification of humanitarian law, which is today known as the first of the four Geneva Conventions. During the course of a 100 odd years, humanitarian laws have evolved and come to encompass the proper treatment of an individual even during peace times or in isolated cases. It must also be understood that humanitarian laws were subject to constant review as the methods of warfare kept improvising and became much more deadly over time. The First World War was famous for the use of poisonous gases and prisoners of war. The Second World War witnessed the killing of both military personnel and civilians in similar numbers (Jack Donnelly, 2003). In 1945, the United Nations came into existence. Its charter clearly stipulates that threatening or using force against other states is illegal except in situations where there is an absolute need for self defense. The Geneva conventions of 1949 added further to the restrictions over the use of methods of warfare and catered to the protection of non combatants as well as prisoners of war. Humanitarian laws clearly outlaw any acts of ethnic cleansing, which is done with a view to eliminating a particular group (Hurst Hannum, 1996). This was necessary especially after the world had witnessed the horrors of the holocaust and the recent events in the Balkan republics. Self-Determination and Human rights Self determination encompasses every right of all peoples and is aimed at their development across the economic, social and cultural perspectives. The right to self determination is therefore a fundamental right of the people as well as international law. It is an integral part of the charter of the United Nations and several other conventions that focuses essentially on human rights. The inter-relation between individual rights and the rights applied collectively to people towards self determination are evident to those involved in such struggles towards achieving self-determination. In many of these cases, such abuses of human rights at an individual level are a symptom of a larger fundamental problem, which is most often the result of a conflict of interest over the adherence to self-determination. As such, such abuses cannot be ended unless the underlying cause is effectively dealt with (Robert Friedlander, 2005). Consider the case of the apartheid regime in South Africa, where human rights abuses were clearly based on the system in place that denied the majority black population of the country, a right to self determination. In the case of Tibet, the law enforcing authorities have been arresting, torturing and intimidating the local population due to their struggle for independence and their denouncing of occupation and oppressing at the hands of the governing powers. Although this interdependence may be evident in most of these cases, it is never always recognized, and the only voices that rise against any violation of human rights come from the affected and oppressed people. The United Nations professes the right to Self determination as a prerequisite for individuals to enjoy any other human rights. As such, differentiating between these two is highly artificial and does not serve any purpose. This interrelation is also clear from the practice of population transfer that has been going in places such as Tibet and Xinjiang, thereby violating human rights not only of the people transferred, but also of the people who have to clear out space to accommodate these newcomers (Malcolm Shaw, 2003). Such population transfers undermine the fundamental human right to self determination by manipulating the demographic balance of a territory as it dilutes the opportunities to the indigenous people and leads to conflicts as the one recently witnessed in Xinjiang. The rights of individuals and minorities are linked to the right to self determination in a number of ways. People highlighting the importance of the right to self determination must also recognize the same to other people even if they have to share the same set of opportunities and resources. this principle of equality in self determination for all people is necessary to protect the rights of minorities and is enshrined in the preamble of the United Nations. Similarly, the right of people to function as a separate entity required such an entity to respect the universality of human rights as also those of the individuals under their authority (Jack Donnelly, 2003). Territorial Integrity and State Sovereignty The recent years have witnessed several incidents and issues that have involved the conflict over certain regions or states. Consider the case of the conflict between China and the Tibetan government-in-exile. Both have been at loggerheads for over5 decades now and there is no end in sight to the conflict. Similarly, the recent war between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia involved a high involvement of the Americans. The declaration of Kosovo’s independence led it to be recognized by the United States and the EU countries, which was primarily a way to oppose the stand taken by Russia against such a move. Supporting Kosovo by the US has aggravated nationalist sentiments, which provided further ground to Russia to justify its ground assault against the Georgian government. All such incidents have constantly raised the issue of State Sovereignty and Territorial integrity, which are principles under international law that forbid sovereign nations from encouraging separatist movements of any form. Further state sovereignty requires countries to recognize the existence of other states and to prevent any move towards influencing any border changes in other states (Shutaro Tomimas, 2007). Territorial integrity and state sovereignty combined not only help towards attaining self governance, but also pave the way for due consideration of the political aspirations of every group within the population and to aid in the progressive development of state institutions. One of the problems in this case has been the lack of adjusting such governance to the local circumstances of the regions and their populations thus aggravating their right to self determination (Malcolm Shaw, 2003). A classic example of a situation where territorial integrity and state sovereignty collided can be witnessed from the Kosovo war. References 1. Stephen Shute (2006), On human rights. New York: Basic Books. 2. Jack Donnelly (2003), Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. 3. Hurst Hannum (1996), Autonomy, sovereignty, and self-determination: the accommodation of conflicting rights. University of Pennsylvania Press. 4. Robert Friedlander (2005), Self-determination: national, regional, and global dimensions. University of Virginia. 5. Malcolm Shaw (2003), International law. Cambridge University Press. 6. Shutaro Tomimas (2007), The open-door policy and the territorial integrity of China: with verses in Japanese. University of Michigan. Read More