RECONCILING SELF-DETERMINATION, SOVEREIGN

PREROGATIVES, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT:

AN EXAMINATION OF COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
DR. SARABJIT KAUR MANRAJ SINGH CHANDPURI
[Link].B (HONS.)
1ST SEMESTER

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 1 of 17

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………….……....4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………7

ACKNOWLEDGMENT….……………………………………………….8

THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY & SOVEREIGN

EQUALITY……………………………………………………………..9

VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY…….10

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT DOCTRINE (R2P)……………….12

THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION………………………………13

THE RSD AS A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE...............................................14

PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY HOLDS MORE PRECEDENCE

THAN THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION………………………..15

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 2 of 17

 RECONCILING SELF-DETERMINATION, SOVEREIGN
PREROGATIVES, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT:
AN EXAMINATION OF COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

by Manraj Singh Chandpuri (182/24), [Link].B, Sem I;

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a juridical analysis of the nexus between the right of self-
determination, state sovereignty, & the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) within the
framework of international law. By examining pivotal cases, conventions, and
primary sources of international law, the tensions between peoples' collective
rights and territorial integrity concerns are understood. It explores the evolving
interpretations of self-determination, such as internal & external, & assesses how
international norms interpret claims of secession & unilateral declarations.
Further, this paper recognises the R2P doctrine’s impact on traditional
sovereignty, in safeguarding populations against atrocities. This paper aims to
reconcile these principles, proposing pathways for harmonizing collective and
sovereign rights in contemporary international jurisprudence.

Key Words: Self-Determination, State Sovereignty, Responsibility to Protect

(R2P), Territorial Integrity, International Law, Collective Rights, Non-
Intervention, Jurisprudence, Secession, International Norms.

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 3 of 17

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (I.C.J.) CASES:

1. MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA V. U.S.A.),

JUDGMENT, I.C.J. 1986
2. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN
TERRITORY, ADVISORY OPINION, I.C.J. 2004
3. EAST TIMOR (PORTUGAL V. AUSTRALIA), JUDGMENT, I.C.J. 1995
4. FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO V. MALI), JUDGMENT, I.C.J. 1986
5. CORFU CHANNEL (U.K. V. ALBANIA), JUDGMENT, I.C.J. 1949
6. LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ADVISORY OPINION, I.C.J. 1996
7. NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASES (GERMANY/DENMARK; GERMANY/NETHERLANDS),
JUDGMENT, I.C.J. 1969
8. APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA V. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO), JUDGMENT, I.C.J. 2007
9. ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
BY THE PROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OF KOSOVO, ADVISORY OPINION,
I.C.J. 2010
10. ISLAND OF PALMAS (NETHERLANDS V. U.S.), R.I.A.A. (PERM. CT. ARB. 1928)
11. THE CASE OF THE S.S. “LOTUS” (FRANCE V. TURKEY), JUDGMENT, P.C.I.J. 1927 NO. 10
12. CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO CASE (LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS
ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965), ADVISORY OPINION, I.C.J. 2019

UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS:

1. U.N. CHARTER, ART. 2

2. U.N. CHARTER, ART. 51
3. DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND
CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS,
G.A. RES. 2625 (XXV), U.N. DOC. A/8028 (1970)
4. G.A. RES. 68/262, U.N. DOC. A/RES/68/262 (2014) (TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF UKRAINE)

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 4 of 17

5. G.A. RES. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. DOC. A/RES/3314 (1974) (DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION)
6. G.A. RES. 2131 (XX), U.N. DOC. A/RES/2131 (1965) (DECLARATION ON THE INADMISSIBILITY
OF INTERVENTION IN THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF STATES)

7. S.C. RES. 478, U.N. DOC. S/RES/478 (1980)

8. S.C. RES. 497, U.N. DOC. S/RES/497 (1981)
9. S.C. RES. 660, U.N. DOC. S/RES/660 (1990)
10. S.C. RES. 1244, U.N. DOC. S/RES/1244 (1999)
11. S.C. RES. 1674, U.N. DOC. S/RES/1674 (2006)
12. S.C. RES. 169, U.N. DOC. S/RES/169 (1961)
13. S.C. RES. 216, U.N. DOC. S/RES/216 (1965)
14. S.C. RES. 688, U.N. DOC. S/RES/688 (1991)
15. G.A. RES. 377 (V), U.N. DOC. A/RES/377 A (1950)
16. UNGA RESOLUTION 1514 (XV), U.N. DOC. A/4684 (1961)

TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS:

1. LAW OF TREATIES
2. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR), 1966
3. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS (ICESCR), 1966

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES:

1. OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW (9TH ED., ROBERT JENNINGS & ARTHUR WATTS EDS.,

1992)
2. ROBERT Y. JENNINGS, THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1963)
3. YORAM DINSTEIN, WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-DEFENCE (3RD ED., 2001)
4. MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED., 2008)
5. KARIN OELLERS-FRAHM, CHRISTIAN TOMUSCHAT & ANDREAS ZIMMERMANN (EDS.), THE
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: A COMMENTARY (2006)
6. CHRISTINE GRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE (2ND ED., 2004)
7. BRUNO SIMMA, NATO, THE UN AND THE USE OF FORCE: LEGAL ASPECTS, 10 EUR. J. INT’L L.
(1999)

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 5 of 17

8. M. BYERS & S. CHESTERMAN, CHANGING THE RULES ABOUT RULES? UNILATERAL
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, IN HUMANITARIAN
INTERVENTION: ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL DILEMMAS (J.L. HOLZGREFE & ROBERT O.
KEOHANE EDS., 2003)
9. HUGH THIRLWAY, SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (MALCOLM
EVANS ED., 2ND ED., 2006)
10. MALCOLM N. SHAW, RE: ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1996-1497 OF 30 SEPT. 1996, IN SELF-
DETERMINATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (ANNE F. BAYEFSKY ED., 2000)
11. JANE STROMSETH, RETHINKING HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: THE CASE FOR INCREMENTAL
CHANGE, IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: ETHICAL, LEGAL AND POLITICAL DILEMMAS (J.L.
HOLZGREFE & ROBERT O. KEOHANE EDS., CAMBRIDGE UNIV. PRESS 2003)

REPORTS AND ADVISORY OPINIONS:

1. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ON THE WORK OF THE ORGANIZATION, U.N.

DOC. A/54/1 (1999)
2. 2005 WORLD SUMMIT OUTCOME, G.A. RES. 60/1, U.N. DOC. A/RES/60/1 (2005)
3. U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL, A MORE SECURE WORLD: OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, U.N.
DOC. A/59/565 (2004)
4. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY (ICISS), THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (2001)
5. REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF JURISTS ON THE AALAND ISLANDS QUESTION,
LEAGUE OF NATIONS O.J. SPEC. SUPP. NO. 3 (1920)

OTHER INTERNATIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND PLEADINGS:

1. LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (YUGOSLAVIA V. BELGIUM), PLEADINGS, I.C.J. 1999

2. IAN TATZLAFF, HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION POST KOSOVO, N.Z. PUB. INT. L. & POL’Y J.
(2007)
3. KOSOVO ORAL PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY THE PROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-
GOVERNMENT OF KOSOVO

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 6 of 17

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS ACTUAL TERM

& And

¶ Paragraph

¶¶ Paragraph

Art. Article

CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

ESD External Self-Determination

Hon’ble Honourable

R2P Responsibility to Protect

RSD Right to Self-Determination

UDI Unilateral Declaration of Independence

U.N. United Nations

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNSC United Nations Security Council

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 7 of 17

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Sarabjit Kaur, my faculty

teacher and professor for the United Nations and Global Politics class, whose
guidance and support have been invaluable throughout the process of writing this
paper. Her insights into international relations, coupled with her passion for the
subject, have greatly inspired and enhanced my understanding of the complexities
involved in global politics and international law. I am incredibly thankful for her
constructive feedback, encouragement, and for fostering an environment that
encourages critical thinking and academic growth.

Manraj Singh Chandpuri

[Link].B (Hons.)
1st Semester

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 8 of 17

Before enumerating upon self-determination, it is essential to first establish the
foundational principle of territorial integrity under international law. This
principle provides the context wherein the tensions between self-determination
and state sovereignty emerge.

THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY & SOVEREIGN

EQUALITY

The territorial integrity of states is a central tenet of international law and is a

peremptory norm of jus cogens.1 States have the exclusive authority of a state
within its territory & form an important element of the international global
system.2 Article 2(4)3 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The Helsinki Final Act,
1975 upholds the principle of territorial integrity, which affirms that any
intervention or forceful change in borders forms a breach of international law.

Furthermore, the principle of sovereign equality of states is one of the tenets of

international law in the Charter of the United Nations, which is closely linked to
other established principles of International Law, such as the principle of non-
interference in the internal affairs of another state. Numerous variations of the
principle can be found in conventional international law.4 The United Nations

1
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14,
¶¶ 100-01.
2
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8028
(Oct. 24, 1970); 1 L. Oppenheim, Oppenheim’s International Law ¶ 564 (Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts eds.,
9th ed. 1992); Robert Y. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (1963); Island of Palmas
(Neth. v. U.S.), 2 R.I.A.A. 829, 838-39 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928); The Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (Fr. v. Turk.),
Judgment, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, at 18.
3
U.N. Charter art. 2, ¶ 4.
4
U.N. Charter art. 2, ¶ 1; Friendly Relations Declaration.

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 9 of 17

Charter also protects the domaine réservé of sovereign states and prohibits the
intervention of States on the territory of Sovereign States.5

This principle of territorial sovereignty remains a cornerstone of international

law. The following section examines specific cases where territorial sovereignty
has been challenged, & how these have been addressed.

VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY

Unilateral annexations of a part of the sovereign territory of any state by a

different state is a direct breach of the principle of territorial integrity, which is
protected under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter6. The international community has
often shown its stance in condemning such unilateral annexations for territorial
gain, by passing Resolutions in the UNGA7 & UNSC8, as well as precedents set
by the ICJ9.

Furthermore, in the Corfu Channel Case10, the principle of state sovereignty &
non-intervention in internal affairs, emphasizing the importance of respecting
territorial integrity, was upheld. In Nicaragua v. United States (1986) a foreign

5
U.N. Charter art. 2, ¶¶ 4, 7.
6
U.N. Charter art. 2, ¶ 4.
7
G.A. Res. 68/262, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/262 (Mar. 27, 2014) (Territorial Integrity of Ukraine); G.A. Res. 3314
(XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (Dec. 14, 1974) (Definition of Aggression); G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc.
A/RES/2131 (XX) (Dec. 21, 1965) (Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of
States).
8
S.C. Res. 478, U.N. Doc. S/RES/478 (Aug. 20, 1980); S.C. Res. 497, U.N. Doc. S/RES/497 (Dec. 17, 1981);
S.C. Res. 660, U.N. Doc. S/RES/660 (Aug. 2, 1990).
9
Nicaragua v. U.S.A; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9); East Timor (Port. v. Austl.), Judgment, 1995 I.C.J. 90 (June 30);
Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22).
10
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22.

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 10 of 17

state's provision of military support to rebels constituted a violation of the
principle of non-intervention & the use of force under Article 2(4).

Such annexations also violate the ‘prohibition of the use of force’ which is
codified in the UN Charter & is recognised as Customary International Law11 &
is also jus cogens12. The use of force against other States can be only justified by
two exceptions to the prohibition:13
(i) an act of self-defence or
(ii) a collective action authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of
the UN Charter.14

The right of self-defence can only be invoked when it has suffered an armed
attack by another State & applies even to collective defence. In Nicaragua v.
United States (1986)15, only “the gravest forms of the use of force” call for an
armed intervention & merely providing aid to ethnic groups or citing concerns
for nationals does not justify the use of force.

Given the importance of maintaining territorial integrity, one might question

when, if ever, international intervention is justified. This is where the

11
Law of Treaties, art. 33; Nicaragua v. U.S.A at 189-90; Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence 87
(3d ed. 2001); Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 1123 (6th ed. 2008).
12
Law of Treaties, arts. 53, 64; Karin Oellers-Frahm, Christian Tomuschat & Andreas Zimmermann (eds.), The
Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary 66 (2006); Christine Gray, International Law and the
Use of Force 29 (2d ed. 2004); Bruno Simma, NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects, 10 Eur. J. Int'l
L. 1, 3 (1999); M. Byers & S. Chesterman, Changing the Rules about Rules? Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention
and the Future of International Law, in Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas 181
(J.L. Holzgrefe & Robert O. Keohane eds., 2003).
13
Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, IUSCT Case No. A-18; G.A. Res. 3314 (XXIX), Definition
of Aggression, art. 5(1), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (Dec. 14, 1974); Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the
Work of the Organization, U.N. Doc. A/54/1, at 66 (1999).
14
U.N. Charter, art. 51.
15
Supra note 1.

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 11 of 17

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine comes into play, complicating the
traditional understanding of state sovereignty. The next section will explore the
legal basis and implications of R2P in modern international law.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT DOCTRINE (R2P)

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine lays down the obligations of states
to protect populations from mass atrocities, genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing & crimes against humanity.16 It is part of customary international law
as established state practice,17 exists combined with opinio juris.18

Furthermore, the requirement of opinio juris is satisfied as the R2P is borne from
the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)
report on R2P19 & the UNSC Resolution 1674.20 Furthermore, vast state
practice exists, indulging in various humanitarian interventions. The NATO
bombing of Kosovo to end Yugoslavia's repression of ethnic Albanians justified
their actions by citing an international obligation to prevent a humanitarian
catastrophe & protect a population at risk.21 No Resolution by the UNSC was
passed, which condemned the intervention. Instead, it adopted Resolution

16
2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, ¶¶ 138-139, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct. 24, 2005).
17
Hugh Thirlway, Sources of International Law, in International Law 95 (Malcolm Evans ed., 2d ed. 2006).
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, ¶ 73 (July 8).
18
Statute of the International Court of Justice art. 38(1)(b), June 26, 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. 993; North Sea
Continental Shelf Cases (Ger./Den.; Ger./Neth.), Judgment, 1969 I.C.J. 3, ¶ 77 (Feb. 20).
19
U.N. Secretary-General, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, ¶ 207, U.N. Doc. A/59/565 (Dec.
2, 2004).
20
S.C. Res. 1674, ¶ 4, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1674 (Apr. 28, 2006).
21
Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), Pleadings, 1999 I.C.J. (Apr. 29); Ian Tatzlaff, Humanitarian
Intervention Post Kosovo, N.Z. Pub. Int. L. & Pol’y J., Issue 4, 6-10 (2007); Jane Stromseth, Rethinking
Humanitarian Intervention: The Case for Incremental Change, in Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and
Political Dilemmas 236-37 (J.L. Holzgrefe & Robert O. Keohane eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2003).

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 12 of 17

124422, which asserted the ceasefire.

To exercise this doctrine, the use of force must be authorised by the UNSC under
Chapter VII or the UNGA under the Uniting for Peace Procedure.23 If,
however, the Security Council fails to take any action in "conscience-shocking"
situations involving breaches of human rights, member states may not rule out
other means to meet the gravity & urgency of those situations.24 In the Bosnian
Genocide Case25, the importance of protecting populations & the R2P was
affirmed by showing the obligations of states to intervene & take action when
atrocities are occurring.

While the R2P doctrine focuses on protecting populations from atrocities, it often
intersects with another critical principle in international law: the right to self-
determination. The interplay between R2P and self-determination raises
important questions about when intervention is justified, particularly in cases
where a people seek independence or autonomy.

THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION

The Right to Self-Determination is codified under Article 1(2)26, Article 55 & 56,

22
S.C. Res. 1244, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1244 (June 10, 1999).
23
G.A. Res. 377 (V), U.N. Doc. A/RES/377 A (Nov. 3, 1950).
24
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect, ¶
3(F), XII, 53 (2001).
25
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 2007 I.C.J. 43 (Feb. 26).
26
U.N. Charter art. 1, ¶ 2 (1945).

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 13 of 17

covenants,27 recognised as an erga omnes obligation28, in Portugal v Australia29,
& Chagos Archipelago.30 It takes manifestation in two forms: Internal & External.

“Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and

Peoples”, (1960). It declares that: “subjugation, domination and exploitation of
peoples constitutes a denial of human rights and is contrary to the United Nations
Charter”31

To better understand the evolving nature of self-determination, it is necessary to

consider its status as a customary norm under international law. The following
section explores how the principle of self-determination has gained recognition as
a customary legal obligation, further shaping international responses to claims of
independence.

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CUSTOMARY

PRACTICE

Along with UN Resolutions, the role of the ICJ is also significant for custom’s
development. The ICJ has discussed the principle of self-determination in various
cases and focused on its importance as a custom. The ICJ considered self-
determination as a customary norm. In the Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal

27
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [“ICCPR”];
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3. [“ICESCR”]
28
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,
2004 I.C.J. 136, ¶172 (July 9). [“The Wall’s Case”]
29
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Advisory Opinion, 1995 I.C.J. 90, ¶102 (June 30). [“East Timor”]
30
Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion,
2019 I.C.J. 95, ¶95 (Feb. 25). [“Chagos Archipelago”]
31
UNGA Resolution no: 1514 (XV), UN Doc. A/4684, (1961).

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 14 of 17

v Australia), in which the ICJ has declared that self-determination is erga omnes
obligation meaning thereby part of Customary International Law (CIL). This
interpretation has strengthened and solidified the content of self-determination as
custom. in the advisory opinion of the case of the Chagos Archipelago in 1965,
where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considered the right to self-
determination as a customary norm and has an erga omnes obligation. Thus, it can
be concluded that the right to self-determination held a customary law status under
international law.

Internal Self-Determination concerns the people's ability to fully participate in the

political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an
existing state.32 The people should be represented equitably and without
discrimination in legislative, executive and judicial institutions.33 In contrast,
external self-determination is manifested as independence, complete secession,
secession from the existing state, or self-government.

PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY HOLDS MORE

PRECEDENCE THAN THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION

External self-determination is not recognized, as any disruption of a state's

territorial integrity conflicts with the Charter,34 & the Declaration on Principles
of International Law.35 The principle of ‘uti possidetis juris,’ which requires

32
Quebec, ¶126
33
ICCPR, art. 2; Quebec, ¶136.
34
G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/2625 (Oct. 24, 1970).
35
Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 2.

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 15 of 17

upholding the territorial boundaries, whether colonial or administrative must be
upheld as held in Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali.36

Furthermore, the legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence is

dependent on the recognition by the international community.37 Any singular act
of recognition by any state has no standing in international law due to an
illegitimate change in territory.38

The external self-determination of Rhodesia & Katanga has been declared void
by the UNSC.39 Furthermore, the territorial integrity was upheld in cases where
there was a threat to peace due to targeted violence by separatist activities. This
has been upheld in various Resolutions.40

Furthermore, various states expressed their concerns that accepting RSD as

statehood is in violation of the principle of territorial integrity & would create an
alarming precedent for other secession-seeking groups, endangering international
order.41 At the end of the ICJ proceedings, Judge Koroma stated:
“[I]nternational law does not confer a right on ethnic, linguistic or religious
groups to break away from the territory of a State of which they form part, without
that State’s consent, merely by expressing their wish to do so... The Court’s

36
Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec.
22).
37
Malcolm N. Shaw, Re: Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497 of 30 Sept. 1996, in Self-Determination in
International Law 218 (Anne F. Bayefsky ed., 2000).
38
East Timor, ¶116 (dissenting Opinion of Judge Skubiszewski).
39
S.C. Res. 169, U.N. Doc. S/RES/169 (Nov. 24, 1961); S.C. Res. 216, U.N. Doc. S/RES/216 (Nov. 12, 1965).
40
S.C. Res. 688, U.N. Doc. S/RES/688 (Apr. 5, 1991); S.C. Res. 1244, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1244 (June 10, 1999).
41
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional
Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, Oral Proceedings, Statement of Argentina, CR 2009/32, Dec. 10,
2009, at 26-31; Statement of Bolivia, CR 2009/28, Dec. 4, 2009, at 6-10; Statement of Iran, CR 2009/29, Dec. 7,
2009, at 8-12; Statement of Serbia, CR 2009/30, Dec. 8, 2009, at 14-18; Statement of Spain, CR 2009/31, Dec.
9, 2009, at 20-25. [“Kosovo Oral Proceedings’].

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 16 of 17

Opinion [that Kosovo’s independence declaration had not violated international
law] will serve as a guide and instruction manual for secessionist groups the
world over, and the stability of international law will be severely undermined.”42

Furthermore, the advisory opinion of the International Committee of Jurists in

the Aaland Island Case upheld the claim that national groups cannot separate
themselves from the State by the simple expression of a wish.43

42
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional
Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010 I.C.J. 403, 446 (July 22) (Koroma, J.,
dissenting).
43
Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the
Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, League of Nations
O.J. Spec. Supp. No. 3, at 5 (1920).

Manraj Singh Chandpuri Page 17 of 17