Independence or Autonomy: The Right to Self-Determination in the Enclave of Cabinda

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Ian Denhez

For decades, armed groups in the Angolan enclave of Cabinda have been attempting to overthrow the Angolan government and establish an independent state. However, since their military struggle has not succeeded, what, if any, basis for secession can Cabinda claim under international law? This article argues that while Cabindan nationalists can draw upon a number of effective legal arguments justifying independence, the enclave ultimately has a better claim not to full independence, but rather to autonomy within Angola. This is demonstrated by considering and refuting three major legal arguments used by proponents of Cabindan independence. After a brief review of the relevant legal concepts and Cabindan history, the first argument to be examined is that Cabinda’s distinct historical status voids Angola’s uti possidetis claim to Cabinda. Following this will be a review of the claim that political abuses and the denial to the Cabindan people of a plebiscite on independence grant Cabinda the right to ‘external’ self-determination. The final argument to be examined is that the scale of the misappropriation of Cabinda’s oil wealth by Angola and foreign companies justifies independence, given the enclave’s present lack of economic self-determination. The article ultimately concludes that although Cabinda had a stronger case for secession during the Angolan civil war, recent political and economic changes have weakened Cabinda’s claims under international law.

Author(s):  
В.Д. Дзидзоев

В статье рассматривается, сложная проблема национального самоопределения народов. В современном международном праве, как известно, признаются два кардинально противоположных подхода к решению данной про блемы. Первый подход связан с территориальной целостностью государств, ко торая признается международным правом и уставом ООН, а второй с правом нации на самоопределение вплоть до отделения и возникновения нового незави симого государства. В то же время от влиятельных государств земного шара, а не от международного права зависит, признавать то или иное вновь образо вавшееся государство или не признавать. Классическим примером в этом плане служит Республика Косово, чью независимость признали США и другие государ ства, а независимость Абхазии и Южной Осетии признала РФ и еще несколько государств. The article deals with the complex problem of national selfdetermination of peoples. Modern international law, as we know, recognizes two radically opposite approaches to the solution of this problem. The rst approach is related to the territorial integrity of States, which is recognized by international law and the UN Charter, and the second to the right of a nation to selfdetermination up to the separation and emergence of a new independent state. At the same time, it is up to the in uential States of the world, not international law, to recognize a newly formed state or not to recognize it. Classic examples in this regard are the Republic of Kosovo, separated with the help of the United States, great Britain and other States from Serbia, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, separated from Georgia. The independence of Kosovo was recognized by the USA and other States, and the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was recognized by Russia and some other States.


Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert

The issue of sovereignty over natural resources has been a key element in the development of international law, notably leading to the emergence of the principle of States’ permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. However, concomitant to this focus on States’ sovereignty, international human rights law proclaims the right of peoples to self-determination over their natural resources. This has led to a complex and ambivalent relationship between the principle of States’ sovereignty over natural resources and peoples’ rights to natural resources. This chapter analyses this conflicting relationship and examines the emergence of the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources and evaluates its potential role in contemporary advocacy. It notably explores how indigenous peoples have called for the revival of their right to sovereignty over natural resources, and how the global peasants’ movement has pushed for the recognition of the concept of food sovereignty.


2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-26
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its unclarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, i.e. to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This study situates Russia’s approach to the right to self- determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the topic, it is suggested that Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-45
Author(s):  
Milena Ingelevič-Citak

Abstract The article presents the Crimean conflict from Russian and Ukrainian standpoints, confronting them with international law analysis. It is worth to mention, that Crimean crisis is still extremely controversial, since both parties are justifying their actions with norms of international law. This article starts with brief introduction of historical background of the Crimean crisis. Second chapter assesses the Crimean secessionist movement claiming the right of self-determination, and its compliance with Ukrainian law. Third chapter examines Russia’s position and its actions on the basis of Russian law. Fourth chapter presents the international law analysis of events in Crimea and its current legal status. Results of the analysis are presented in a conclusion.


Author(s):  
Marishet Mohammed Hamza

Abstract The right to self-determination is an essential international law principle that holds an erga omnes character. Also, the right is often enshrined under domestic legislation, including constitutions. The 1995 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution (fdre Constitution) is one such constitution and, uniquely, it explicitly recognizes the right to self-determination including the right of secession as an unconditional right of the nations, nationalities, and peoples in Ethiopia. This paper selects the fdre Constitution and analyses whether such constitutional law frameworks better address some of the contentious matters concerning the right to self-determination under international law. In a comparative perspective (with international law), the article analyses, inter alia, how the fdre Constitution approach the questions of who the subjects of the right to self-determination are, and the substantive guarantees for exercising internal and external aspects of the right to self-determination with particular emphasis on secession as a legal right.


Author(s):  
Muhamad Sayuti Hassan ◽  
Rohaida Nordin

The main objective of this article is to critically evaluate the compatibility of the ‘right to political participation’ of the Orang Asli by looking at international law standards. The present study utilises a qualitative socio-legal approach, which analyses the political participation of the Orang Asli under Malaysian law and determines whether the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 (apa) can provide for the protection, well-being, and the advancement of the Orang Asli. Arguably, the existing provisions of the apa are not in conformity with the recognition in undrip and in no way guarantee the Orang Asli’s right to self-determination as recognised by international law. Thus, the current study recommends an amendment to the apa and introduces guidelines to empower political participation of the Orang Asli by incorporating the principles of undrip. The amendment is necessary to ensure that the protection of the right to self-determination of the Orang Asli is compatible with international law standards.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-305
Author(s):  
Amrei Müller

Abstract Recent literature and United Nations documents advocate that most armed non-state actors (ANSAs) should be bound by human rights law. This article takes a more critical stance on this issue. It argues that only a limited number of ANSAs should potentially become human rights duty-bearers: those that exercise de facto (human rights) jurisdiction and thus have considerable institutional and military capacities, as well as particular normative characteristics. It specifies these capacities and characteristics with an analysis of ANSAs’ practice that tentatively indicates that some of these entities may indeed exercise de facto jurisdiction. The argument is justified by highlighting the broader consequences that recognising ANSAs as human rights duty-bearers will entail. It will also endow them with privileges that will legitimise their authority over time. This is grounded in the normative logic of human rights law that emphasises the interrelationship between human rights, equality and democracy that also permeates the notion of jurisdiction and is further supported by a political understanding of the right to self-determination. The article closes with a brief sketch of two complementary ways to develop international law binding ANSAs to be further explored in future research: the so-called ‘responsibilities for human rights’ and an adapted law of occupation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document