Suchergebnisse

The implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and especially the Dayton Constitution has become a vehicle for constitutional protection of collectivist ethnopolitical practice of discriminatory subordination of citizens on basis of their ethnic «kinship» or their religious affiliation. Therefore, it is important to explore possibilities of re-focusing the attention from a collective-rights-oriented to an individual-rights-oriented political arrangement as possible mode for accommodation of ethnic differences in Bosnia. Furthermore, I intend to claim that every attempt to institutionalize ethnic differences in the political arena generates an untenable crisis with the prospects of possible war.

Historically, Nagorno-Karabakh has always been occupied predominantly by Armenians. It was wrongly allocated to Azerbaijan by Lenin in 1921, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union its people voted for independence and recruited a local army of their own people to fight the civil war, 1991-4. During the siege of Stepanakert (a grave Azeri war crime), the road between that city and Goris (in Armenia) took on the status of a humanitarian corridor, secured by the justifiable capture of the town of Lachin. The author has interviewed some of the war commanders and victims and draws on their evidence, filed with the European Court of Human Rights but never before published, to explain how "the right of belligerent reprisal" arose to justify protecting the civilian population by taking and keeping the corridor. A legal precedent can be found in the "safe havens" established for Iraqi Kurds in Iraq. Nagorno-Karabakh has a strong argument for self-determination, following on from the precedents from East Timor and Kosovo. And it satisfies the tests for statehood laid down in the MonteVideo Convention. Given its vulnerability to Azeri attack by the prolonged illegal blockade of the Lachin corridor, it may be that nothing will succeed except secession.

Abstract: In recent times, international practice has provided new cases of decolonization, but also of mutually agreed secessions with a previous independence referendum, as well as violent ruptures. Although the unilateral secessions are not well received by the international community, they are not only possible, but they have been favored by the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. This paper analyzes new cases involving the right to self-determination, to later try to identify new holders of the right to self-determination in the light of modern international practice. It focuses on the "wide self-determination" approach, the so-called "modern self-determination", whose holders are not "peoples under colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation". Resumo: Nos últimos tempos, a prática internacional forneceu novos casos de descolonização, mas também de secessão mutuamente acordada, com um devido referendo de independência, além de rupturas violentas. Embora as secessões unilaterais não sejam bem recebidas pela comunidade internacional, elas não são apenas possíveis, mas foram favorecidas pela Opinião Consultiva do CIJ sobre a legalidade da declaração de independência realizada pelas Instituições Provisionais de Auto-Governo de Kosovo. Este artigo analisa novos casos envolvendo o direito à autodeterminação, para posteriormente tentar identificar novos detentores do princípio da autodeterminação à luz da prática internacional moderna. Ele se concentra na concepção ampla do princípio, a chamada "autodeterminação moderna", cujos detentores não são povos sob dominação colonial ou estrangeira.