Upload
silvia-gray
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lecture 12:Human Rights as Group Rights: Nations, Peoples, and the Right
to Self-Determination
Government S-1740
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Summer 2006
OUTLINE
I. International Law and self-determination of peoplesA. Philosophical considerationsB. Historical impetusC. Toward a legal formulationD. Indigenous peoples in the US: nations or not?
II. The international community and groups’ rightsA. The League of Nations “mandates” systemB. The UN system
III. Consequences, limitations and contradictionsIV. International relations theory and minority/group rights
II. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SELF-
DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES
PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
• 18th century European thought: – JJ Rousseau
Division of Poland:
Prussia: 160,000
Russia: 340,000
Austria: 1.5 million
HISTORICAL IMPETUS
• Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)
• Post World War I (1920s)
• Decolonization movement (1950s-1960s)
• Post Cold War period (1990s)
NAPOLEONIC WARS, 1799-1815
POST-WWI BREAKDOWN OF HETEROGENOUS EMPIRES
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIREPre-WWI
Post WWI
DECOLONIZATION, 1950s-1960s
BREAKUP OF SOVIET EMPIRE, 1990s
TOWARD A LEGAL FORMULATION
• Wilson’s Fourteen Points
Original short-hand draft, January 1918
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE US: NATIONS OR
NOT?• A history of legal limbo
• Early recognition– 1787 Constitution– 1790 Intercourse Act– George Washington’s 1789
message to the Senate
19th CENTURY EVOLUTION
• US Attorney General, 1821 and 1828
• Indian Removal Act, 1830
Trail of Tears, 1838
• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
• Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
• Cayuga Indians Arbitral Case (1926)
LEGAL CASES ON INDIGENOUS
RIGHTS
II. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND
GROUP RIGHTS
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS’ MANDATE
SYSTEM• System of foreign
administration
• Similar to colonial administration
• But with an obligation to report to the League
THE UNITED NATIONS
• Renewed effort to address the rights of peoples
• The UN mandate system
• The Charter
• General Assembly Resolutions
SHIFT IN THE MEANING OF SELF-DETERMINATION
ETHNIC KURDS
III. CONSEQUENCES FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW
LESSONS FROM DECOLONIZATION
• People of a non-independent entity may have a right to a state
• A right to resist if their self-determination is not recognized
SELF-DETERMINATION: LIMITATIONS AND CONTRADICTIONS
• The problem of consent
• The problem of viability
• Self-determination versus territorial integrity
• A right to protective external intervention?
• A right to an independent state?
Realist Theories of Group Rights
• Minority rights are another example of the “organized hypocrisy” of international law.
• The protection of minorities’ rights is a function of power relations.– effected by coercion and imposition, not legal
agreements– Most powerful governments intervene to “protect
minorities” when it is in their interest to do so.
Rational functionalist theories of group rights
• Krasner:
“…one of the reasons for honoring international pledges of religious toleration was that in some cases violations by one ruler could lead to retaliation by others against religious minorities within their own territories.” (p. 82)
• Some minority rights agreements are self-enforcing through expectations of reciprocity.
Constructivist Theories of Group Rights
• Identity-based, ethical, as well as instrumental reasons to recognize group rights.
• Politics over legal recognition will reflect identity-related struggles
• Tolerance and self-determination results from a logic of appropriateness, not just consequences.
• To understand the rise and application of rights to self-determination of peoples, you have to understand the struggle over how to frame the issue of group rights.
SUMMARY• “Group rights”, or rights of peoples, have a longer
history in IL than do individual human rights• The breakdown of heterogeneous empires has
stimulated demands for national self-determination• Irony: principles of self-determination received
attention in US foreign policy while indigenous peoples’ rights deteriorate within the US
• Decolonization reflects a special meaning of self-determination as independence from European domination.
• Territorial integrity tends to trump self-determination when these principles clash.