The United Nations and Decolonization: the Case of Southern Yemen

1972 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
King-yuh Chang

Since 1962 the United Nations, mainly through the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Special Committee of 24), has attempted to effect political change in dependent territories in accordance with the principle of self-determination of peoples. While the organization usually demands that the inhabitants be given a chance to determine their political future and to choose their government, its primary objective has been somewhat more specific. Spurred on by the influx of new members that occurred around the start of the decade, most of them former colonies, the UN has pressured for the complete displacement of alien rule in dependent territories and has tended to accept whatever type of government emerges as long as it is indigenous, that is, not controlled by a colonial power or European settlers.

1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 838-840

The Security Council,Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nicaragua,Having also heard the statements of various States Members of the United Nations in the course of the debate,Deeply concerned, on the one hand, at the situation prevailing on and insid the northern border of Nicaragua and, on the other hand, at the consequent dange of a military confrontation between Honduras and Nicaragua, which could further aggravate the existing crisis.situation in Central America,Recalling all the relevant principles of the Charter of the United Nations,, particularly the obligation of States to settle their disputes exclusively by peaceful means, not to resort to the threat or use of force and to respect the self-determination of peoples and the sovereign independence of all States,Noting the widespread desire expressed by the States concerned to achieve solutions to the differences between them,


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
HAKEEM O YUSUF ◽  
TANZIL CHOWDHURY

Abstract:This article argues that despite the UK Government’s exaltations of self-determination of its Overseas Territories, provisions of colonial governance persist in their constitutions. Further, it posits that such illustrations begin to answer the broader question of whether British Overseas Territories (BOTs) are modern day colonies. Such claims are not without merit given that 10 out of the 14 BOTS are still considered Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Nations and have remained the target of decolonisation efforts. Drawing insights from post-colonial legal theory, this article develops the idea of the persistence of colonial constitutionalism to interrogate whether structural continuities exist in the governance of the UK’s British Overseas Territories. The analysis begins to unravel the fraught tensions between constitutional provisions that advance greater self-determination and constitutional provisions that maintain the persistence of colonial governance. Ultimately, the post-colonial approach foregrounds a thoroughgoing analysis on whether BOTs are colonies and how such an exegesis would require particular nuance that is largely missing in current institutional and non-institutional articulations of, as well as representations on, the issue.


1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rupert Emerson

The tangled affairs of Indonesia, twice thrust upon the Security Council, have served as an admirable touchstone of the principles, purposes, and effectiveness of the United Nations as well as of the policies of some of its leading members. Fundamental principles of the new postwar order were at stake. The Atlantic Charter had affirmed the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they would live, and the collapse of empires before the Japanese onslaught led to the widespread conclusion that the old colonial system was dead. These doctrines found sober and modified expression not only in Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, but also in the more general assertion of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and of the universal application of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The rights of dependent peoples, the validity of the doctrine of self-determination, and the possibilities for peaceful change all hovered about the Security Council chamber in the course of the debates on the two Indonesian cases.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 384-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad R. Roth

AbstractThe United Nations Charter-based international order sought to reconcile the self-determination of peoples with the inviolability of state boundaries by presuming sovereign states to be manifestations of the self-determination of the entirety of their territorial populations. This presumption, albeit nationally rebuttable, traditionally prevailed even where states could only by a feat of ideological imagination be characterized as “possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction.” But the international reaction to fragmentation in the former Yugoslavia—regarding both the initial “dissolution” and the subsequent struggle over Kosovo—called into question the rigid doctrines of the past and opened the door to secessionist claims theretofore dismissible as beyond the pale. Although no vindication of Russian intervention in Ukraine can properly be drawn from the Yugoslav cases, the Ukrainian crises help to surface the hidden dangers of an emerging jurisprudence that would allow previously inadmissible considerations—whether ethnic, historical, constitutional, or “democratic”—to compromise the territorial inviolability norm.


1967 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. J. Hudson

Relations between Australia and Indonesia became strained within months of Indonesia's attainment of independence, deteriorating as conflict developed first on the question of West Irian and then as a result of Indonesia's hostility towards Malaysia. For many years, it seemed ironical that Australia should have played a major part in the emergence of a neighbour whose external policies and internal trends endangered rather than safeguarded Australian interests. But there is more involved here than historical irony in the context of Australian-Indonesian relations. Sufficient time has now elapsed for Australian policy on the Indonesian independence question to be seen in the wider context of the whole postwar phenomenon of decolonisation. For it is not merely of interest that Australia should have assisted neighbouring Asian rebels against a European colonial Power (remembering that Australia herself was, and is, a European colonial Power) and should then have been embarrassed by the activities of the rebels coming to office. It is of greater interest that, of the immense number of colonial issues anxiously engaging the attention of international society in the 1940s and 1950s, the years which saw the virtual demise of western colonialism, this was the one issue on which Australia took up the rebel cause. Throughout this period and irrespective of the complexion of the parties in power in Canberra, Australia persistently jeopardised her regional objective of friendly relations with anti-colonial Asia by opposing strongly and, at times, bitterly the anti-colonial cause in the United Nations. If nothing else, the United Nations has provided a forum in which each year Australia and other members have been forced to declare themselves on colonial questions. And, until the 1960s when Australia switched policy, Australia fought against all the anti-colonial Powers' largely successful attempts to have developed a system of international control over colonies under the authority of Chapter XI (“Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”) of the United Nations charter, to tighten the trusteeship system of supervision erected under Chapters XII and XIII of the charter, and to involve the United Nations in particular disputes so as to meet alleged threats to peace — all of them being attempts, however indirectly, to hasten the attainment of independence by dependent territories. Thus, Australia supported South Africa on South-West Africa, the Netherlands on West New Guinea, the British on Southern Rhodesia and Oman, the Portuguese on their African territories, the French on Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. But Australia opposed the Netherlands on the Indonesian question.


1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-20
Author(s):  
Philip E. Chartrand

In December 1974, Ian Smith, the leader of the white minority regime in Rhodesia, announced for the first time since declaring his country’s independence from Britain in 1965 that his government was willing to begin direct negotiations with the African liberation movements seeking to achieve majority rule in Rhodesia. The prospect of such talks leading to an end to guerrilla fighting in Rhodesia and a termination of the United Nations authorized sanctions against the illegal Smith regime is dimmed by the fact that the Africans demand African rule for Rhodesia in the near future if not immediately, while Smith and his supporters have refused to consider such a development “in his lifetime.” Still the announcement constituted a step forward which few informed observers would have deemed likely even a few weeks before.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document