PAKISTAN-INDIA CONFLICT AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF KASHMIR

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-156
Author(s):  
Yordan Gunawan ◽  
Desi Nur Cahya Kusuma Putri ◽  
Ravenska Marchdiva Sienda ◽  
Sigit Rosidi ◽  
Ami Cintia Melinda

The dispute in Jammu and Kashmir has been tensed by the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution by the Indian government in the end of 2019. The existence of Kashmir has become one of matters as the main focus between India-Pakistan conflicts. People are under diverse senses of de facto and de jure martial law. Estimated from 1990, thereabouts 70,000 people have been killed, 8,000 people have been subjected to enforced disappearances, thousand of them also victims of repressive laws and Indian security forces humiliate the protestors and detainees frequently. The research is normative legal research by using statute approach and case approach through literature review. The research aims to discuss and analyze the implementation of the rights of self-determination pursuant to Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. The results of the study indicate all the disputes should be ended by giving the right to self-determination, which should be given to the people of Kashmir, thus the disputes between the two countries can be resolved properly and making a clarity of Kashmir status.

1967 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Fadl Hasan

About 70 years ago, the Mahdist or Ansār state, in many ways a traditional Muslim government, crumbled under the fire of the Anglotional Egyptian cannons. On the condominium government that followed fell the task of pacifying the country and introducing western concepts of administration. All Sudanese attempts to defy foreign domination had failed completely by 1924. The British, the stronger of the two partners, had the lion's share in shaping the destiny of the country. Towards the end of World War II, the influential and educated Sudanese, like other Africans and Asians, demanded the right of self-determination. In 1946, in preparation for this, a sample of western democracy was introduced in the form of an Advisory Council. This Council, which was restricted to the northern Sudan, was followed two years later by the Legislative Assembly, which had slightly more powers. Although these democratic innovations were quite alien to the country and were introduced at a relatively late date, they were in keeping with traditional institutions. Until recently, the Sudan consisted of a number of tribal units where no classes or social distinctions existed and the tribal chief was no more than the first among equals; the people were therefore not accustomed to autocratic rule.


Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Dmitriy A. Babichev ◽  
Natal'ya A. Babicheva

The article is devoted to the burning problem that arose in 2014 in the Ukraine, in the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk, and that concerns the right of the people of Donbass to self-determination. This problem is not only of a local territorial nature, but it is also one of the most complex debatable problems of international law. Since the right to self-determination contradicts the principle of territorial integrity of the state, the consideration and solution of this issue is the most burning for the whole population living on the territory of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. In the article, the authors analyse the concept of "self-determination of the people" and give a generalised characteristic of it, approving that it is the right of every nation to solve the issues of state structure, political status, economic, social and cultural development independently and at its own discretion. The author also examines the historical past of the people of Donbass, where, in terms of the Republic of Donetsk and Krivoy Rog and various documentary historical and legal materials, we come to the conclusion that the population of Donbass has the right to social, economic, cultural, spiritual and other development just as all the recognised countries of the world.


2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Elo Rytter

AbstractIn 1953 Greenland, having been a Danish colony for centuries, became an integral part of the Danish realm. The General Assembly in resolution 849 recognised this change of status as an exercise by the people of Greenland of their right of self-determination. Subsequently, however, some scholars have questioned the validity under international law of Greenland's change of status, referring to non-fulfilment of certain substantive and procedural requirements of the exercise of colonial self-determination. Addressing this criticism the article concludes that, based on the norms and standards applicable at the relevant time, there is not a sufficient basis for challenging the validity of Greenland's integration with Denmark in 1953 and the General Assembly's endorsement thereof. Consequently, in legal terms, Greenland cannot today claim a continued right of external self-determination, including independence from Denmark.


2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 289-313
Author(s):  
Roger Chaput

In spite of apparent acceptance by the Imperial government of Durham's recommendation for accelerating the inevitable assimilation of the French culture into its Anglo-Saxon environment, French Canadians nevertheless enjoyed a fair amount of de facto self-government during the years which preceded Confederation. A proof of this is their ability to consolidate during that period the ecclesiastical establishment which was to constitute the core of their social structure for the next century and their success in putting the French language more or less on the same footing as the English language by the repeal of article XLI of the Union Act. Quebeckers were even successful in effecting the codification of their civil laws. All of this however required the active cooperation of the English members of the provincial legislature. A real measure of self-determination was attained by the French as a result of Confederation which gave each province including Quebec exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters. In theory, this new freedom was to be exercised within fairly narrow limits, in view of the federal power to disallow provincial statutes, of the extensive list of federal powers which had priority over a smaller list of provincial powers, and of the federal residual power, not to mention the « general » authority of the federal Parliament. As it turned out, the provinces and therefore Quebeckers enjoyed much more freedom than had been anticipated, as a result of the Privy Council's interpretation of the constitution, a development which to some extent was predictable. The increase in provincial freedom was also due to the political pressure exercised by the provinces themselves. Surprisingly enough, Quebec did not join the « provincial league » at an early hour, Ontario being at first the main defender of provincial autonomy. Quebec's espousal of the provincial cause had to await the removal from power of the Conservatives in the province. The Liberals who took over had voted against Confederation which they regarded as unduly centralized. This in itself would have made them an ally of Ontario. But there was more than that to it. The Quebec Liberals had opposed the 1867 federation from the start (and refused to participate in the 1864 coalition) because they considered that Quebec's freedom might become unduly restrained in a system where she would be faced with numerous partners or provinces, all Anglo-Saxon, instead of having to face an English majority limited to Ontario. It so happened that the Liberals came to power on a wave of profound and widespread dissatisfaction among the French, precisely because of a perceived restriction of their freedoms during the Riel crisis. Hence, the eager look of the people of Quebec towards their own capital as a source of protection against federal encroachment to what they regarded as their legitimate rights. This feeling was reinforced regularly for a period of fifty years as a result first of the Manitoba school question, then the Alberta and Saskatchewan school question, the Keewatin school problem and last but by no means least the Ontario school crisis which this time concerned French schools only. On top of that, came the 1917 conscription to which can be traced the origin of the « modern » separatist movement. During most of that time, the Liberals were in power (1897-1936) and it is no wonder that Quebec gradually became the ever present champion of provincial rights. When Duplessis defeated the Liberals, the trend was so well established that it transcended party lines. Later, the pressure exercised gradually by the separatist movement and the increasing desire of Quebeckers to have more freedom and be masters in their own house led to the Quiet Revolution whose leaders finally asked for a special status. If polls are any indication, it is towards this last approach that a majority of Quebeckers are looking to solve the constitutional question. On the other hand, the right of peoples to self-determination has acquired a wide measure of international recognition since Durham's report which is a far cry from Professor Brossard's recent « report » on the subject as it applies to Quebec, written under the aegis of the Centre de recherche en Droit public of the law faculty of the Université de Montréal. As things now stand, the next step in the determination of Quebec's right to self-government is in the hands of Quebeckers at the forthcoming referendum.


Polar Record ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothée Céline Cambou

Abstract In 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government was adopted. It recognises that “the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law with the right of self-determination”. Within this framework, the people of Greenland have gained significant control over their own affairs and the right to access to independence. Yet, the extent to which this framework ensures the right of self-determination in accordance with fundamental human rights can still be questioned. From a human rights perspective, the right of self-determination is not a one-time right. It is fundamental human right that applies in different contexts beyond decolonisation and which has implications not only for colonial countries and peoples but also for the population of all territories, including indigenous and minority groups. From this perspective, this contribution seeks to disentangle and analyse the different facets of self-determination in Greenland while considering the implications of the right based on the multifarious identity of the peoples living in the country as colonial people, citizens, indigenous and minority groups, including their claim to control mining resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document