I am proud of the Australian judicial system, particularly their independence and separation from political and other corrupt powers attempting to influence decisions. Law is to serve people, to ensure justice and my passion for this righteousness was the reason why I studied human rights law. I have never been more proud then when I heard that Cardinal George Pell, Australia’s most senior Catholic Church representative and now former prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy for the Vatican once making him one of the most powerful religious figures has been found guilty of sexually abusing young children. What does this precedent now mean for not only all the victims of sexual abuse but also for Catholicism? Read More
International obligations have been developed to assist States – particularly vulnerable countries in the developing world – to further develop domestic legislation that will protect them from potential abuse particularly from multinational cooperations, such as the Maastricht Guidelines that explains the obligations of the State to adhere to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as explicated in the international covenants. Read More
Peak hour traffic. An endless array of coloured helmets litter the streets, smoke coughing out of the exhaust of an old bus filled with tired faces, a frowning man with his forehead pasted against the dirty window stares out aimlessly at the hundreds of scooters honking their way through the busy street. Two young girls play on the footpath mimicking the others’ moves completely oblivious to the chaos surrounding them. It is easy to zone out, to shut the overwhelming unease that the thousands upon thousands can make you feel, like a person rescued by their imagination as they drift off into a day dream. Like me. I look out at the various clothing stores we crawl past on my way to the airport, thinking about what I need in my wardrobe for work to look a little more professional. Maybe a vintage midi-skirt, that pair of black jeans I have at home that would go well with the white shirt worn by the manikin, perhaps add some blue earrings and red shoes? Zone out from the fact that just before I caught this taxi I saw an elderly Australian man at the hotel lobby, his spotted, plump hands tickling the waist of a young Vietnamese girl as he commented about the bad service from staff, reminding me that underneath the millions in this Vietnamese megacity lies a disturbing reality of sex tourism that is causally linked to sexual exploitation. His yellow stained teeth and hardened belly impregnated by the constant consumption of alcohol that protrudes out and over the belt of his pants sends both shivers down my spine and a desire to kick him and protectively whisk her away from his dishonourable nature.
The global sex industry is a multi-billion dollar economy and despite being predominantly illegal and socially objectionable, the incredibly large numbers expose the darker side to this black market crime and to human behaviour. In China alone, $73B dollars was spent on prostitution in one year, in Israel over 10,000 men per month visit a prostitute and 41% of men who visit a prostitute in France are married. There are generalisations that prostitutes are willing and content selling their bodies for financial reward and such ideas enable continuity of this ancient industry, however the reality is quite the reverse where up to 89% or more desire to leave the industry. Studies of women who escaped prostitution show significantly higher tension and stress responses from the psychological trauma that include PTSD, somatization and sleeping problems caused by the high risk of exposure to violence and mistreatment. The horrible reality is that many are unable to leave because of this fear and the fact that 40% of prostitutes were formerly trafficked and exploited into the industry as children that increases the difficulty to identify with anything else. The link between prostitution and sex trafficking is what needs to be remembered.
Women and girls are disproportionately affected by forced labour, accounting for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry, and 58% in other sectors
In addition to this, is there a link between pornography and the commercialisation of trafficking? Sex offenders communicate using technologies that now give them access to encounter children online or through tourism hidden under the guise of education (such as international teaching or volunteering in the not-for-profit sectors). This is further perpetuated by stereotypes of Asian women being sexually available and willing that has dehumanised them into a sexual fetish, countries like China and Japan view very young virgins as sexually appealing where young girls in school uniforms giggling has become a widespread stereotype and aligns itself with the fact that such countries are responsible for the majority of sexual exploitation and trafficking of girls and women. According to Licadho president, “many Asian men, especially those over 50, believe sex with virgins gives them magical powers to stay young and ward off illness.” This leaves poor families vulnerable and being uneducated view children as property and answers the reason why there is a strong prevalence of sexual slavery, violence and exploitation within Asia. It doesn’t end there. Women from an Asian background in the Australian sex industry also explains the correlation of the high percentage of trafficked women particularly through ‘Asian-women only brothels’ that function as venues to trick women into the country for exploitation over a short period of time before returning them back to their country, therefore making it difficult for police to report the incident.
The situation becomes even darker where livestreaming of child pornography in Australia has increased despite laws to prevent registered sex offenders from travelling overseas and with the availability of telecommunications technology and the internet exposes the surge of paedophilia particularly in South East Asia. Paying as little as $40 enables these sex predators to livestream children being raped and therefore eliciting the eventual trafficking of poor young girls from the region. South East Asia is one of the poorest regions in the developing world, the GDP per capita in Vietnam and other ASEAN countries confirms that hundreds of millions live far below the poverty line that increases the vulnerability particularly of children, especially since $40 could feed an entire family for a month in most regions. UNICEF reports that almost 385 million children live in extreme poverty and are too poor to go to school that disproportionately increases their risk of exploitation as it is access to proper food and shelter, school and the provision of other stable determinants that protect young children. Sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism (SECTT) and the predatory behaviour of sex offenders is a huge problem in the region where offenders approach young children living on the streets or at the beach. “In many cases, these children are working day and night on the streets, on beaches, and around bar and restaurant areas. These children are highly vulnerable to SECTT.”
My recent visit to the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam gave me first-hand experience of the poverty and vulnerability of these families and children. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has indicated that almost 4.8 million people are exploited for sexual purposes globally. UNODC’ Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, 20% of those trafficked are children but in the upper Mekong region the percentage of children trafficked are much higher and the larger majority of those trafficked are for sexual exploitation. The greatest impediment to tackling the problem of trafficking and sexual exploitation is the denial by governments and the lack of data, however international law and the instruments have become a powerful conduit to tackle and eliminate trafficking by creating measures that countries can sign, ratify and enforce for national compliance. Australian sex offenders committing crimes overseas are still liable to tough Australian penalties through Div 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Federal Police have provided a report Child Sex Tourism Form for people to report suspicious behaviour, in addition to preventing or monitoring any registered sex offender who wants to travel overseas to prevent any potential offenses overseas and to protect children particularly from the Philippines, China and South East Asia from such predators. This follows the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children supplements the Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and while Australia has adopted numerous measure to reduce potential risks by ratifying UNTOC and the protocol including the prohibition of other forms of exploitation through trafficking including slavery, debt bondage and forced marriage, we should also approach the international justice system particularly due to our proximity to Asia through continued monitoring of the Asian region as well as the provision of assistance to these countries that will improve their abysmal investigative and judicial record. While Australia has formed Asia Regional Trafficking in Persons Project (ARTIP) to combat trafficking in Asia, more pressure and focus on transnational crime and cooperation should be made to effect any real change in the Asian region that starts with our domestic attitude to Asian stereotypes.
I hear it, the idea that it is legal because there is consent and payment – and therefore a transaction – but it is clear that a majority of those in the industry have been exploited and in particular from childhood that cannot in any way, shape or form be justified by remuneration particularly since a human being is not an object. It is heinous to forget their humanity, their story behind the act and all the causal links that chain them to the industry. Ignorance is no excuse and it is our responsibility to protect all children and women who are vulnerable to exploitation due to extreme poverty and a lack of education, but also the widespread view that objectifies women in general and to see their purpose solely for the gratification of men rather than as human beings with decision-making capacity.
I believe that many people turn a blind-eye away from these facts because most men believe they are vulnerable to becoming predators themselves. Indeed, men have urges and may sometimes feel the fear that they are capable of committing gross offenses that it is easier to simply look away – out of sight, out of mind – in order to prevent the potential of committing gross indecency themselves, but all this does is perpetuate the horrible reality that women, children and teenagers are nothing more then commodities. You cannot blind yourself to prevent yourself from going to hell and love your neighbour at the same time, but a truly moral person would use the law and social awareness to educate the public and reduce women being seen as human beings and not as objects. It is also to remember that the market exists because men are paying for it and therefore the problem is within men. Objectifying women is a form of violence and what differentiates between our humanity and what is heinous is our ability to reason, to feel empathy and to humanise rather than dehumanise people into objects or things. To see a living person is to love our neighbour as ourselves, including women.
The 1967 Arab-Israel war transformed the landscape of the Middle East, where in only six days the failure of the Arab offensive enabled Israel to capture the Golan Heights. This has become strategically beneficial since the name itself exemplifies the elevation, but rebel groups following the Syrian civil war have captured areas near the buffer zone that warns of a threat of escalating violence, particularly with the proxy war with Iran ever looming in the shadows.
In order to really understand the dynamics of the region and ultimately the reason for the civil war in Syria, it is especially important having a clear understanding of its recent past. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the immense global changes and foreign intervention in the region stunted the post-colonial identity of those indigenous to the regions. Syria, indeed most of the Near Eastern region, has a unique religious history that shaped and influenced the structure as has Iran, Lebanon and Iraq since many heterodox and syncretistic religions were located in these areas including Druze, Ahl-e Haqq, Yezidi and Alawi. For centuries, the Ottomans had poor relations with these Shi’i sects and both met with antagonism and ultimately violence, most notable with the conflict between the empire and the Safavid’s. Heterodox groups were never granted the status of millet that consequently left them unprotected and were often required to pay high taxes. Long experiencing persecution for their beliefs, they retreated to the region that isolated them into an impoverished environment, found themselves tasting relative freedom and independence for the first time. Read More
There is a great deal anti-Semitism around, even today. A great deal. A quick peruse through social media and you’ll find scores of people posting theories and postulates that iterates previous systemic racism against the Jewish community (i.e. taking over the world), some doing it so well that you have to read between the lines to realise the embedded racism that methodically attempts to generate fear and hatred (‘we give to them and we care for them, but what do they do for us?’). It is no wonder Benjamin Netanyahu’ diplomatic antagonism against the world is so believable and indeed endorsed by the Likud Party that it has penetrated deep into the executive and legislative divisions within Israel. Read More
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are both introduced with articles on the right to self-determination. The principle of self-determination as jus cogens or an indisputable norm in international law nevertheless remains ambiguous, particularly relating to the legality behind the principle within the context of contemporary international life. The development of the principle was initially intended on overcoming the human rights impact colonialism had on those subjected to its authority in addition to the impact of decolonisation and post-colonialism had to international stability, economic relations and security as clearly stated in General Assembly Resolution 1514. What is the relationship or distinction between State and Government and does the state itself possess the qualifications as embodied by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States if indeed such qualifications epitomise a universal model of statehood and autonomy? This intricacy is further debilitated when entrenched with ideological discourse as a tool to construct hegemonic regimes rather than adhering to the constitutive conditions within international public law. This complexity is undoubtedly exposed with the annexation of Crimea [territory of the Ukraine] by Russian authorities, undermining the regulations of the United Nations Charter and of jus ad bellum or the criteria that determines the legality of warfare and the use of force, along with the prohibitions and the application of self-determination contained by the authority of international law. From the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, to the referendum in Crimea that seemingly found the majority of the population in favour of becoming subjects of Russia, to the eventual deployment of Russian military personnel and annexation of the region with the intent of protecting its subjects from pro-Ukrainian extremists, is there a breach of Russia’ international obligations or is there credibility that can be considered legally tenable? It is the intention of this blog post on this gorgeous albeit cold Sunday afternoon to focus on the situation in Crimea by ascertaining Russia’ legal obligations regarding territorial integrity along with use of force, utilising a comparative approach on Kosovo and the Former Yugoslavia to ascertain the meaning of self-determination in international public law.
The principle of self-determination in international law embodies various doctrines such as sovereignty, statehood, territorial integrity and a number of other principles that negotiate and regulate the practice of international relations between existing and emerging nation-states. The onslaught of the first half of the twentieth century necessitated international corporation to prevent any repetition of violence, annexation or conquests and thus the development of the United Nations as an international body to deliver such measures and regulations was established. Notwithstanding the original and albeit failed attempt to institute the conditions that encourage peaceful, secure relations through the League of Nations, the United Nations with its principle organs has successfully delegated compulsory resolutions with the intent of managing and recommending international peace and cooperation. The problem of effectiveness of enforcing international law, however, remains questionable though enforcement mechanisms that negotiate sustainable processes or sanctions to safeguard human rights principles that encourage changes to domestic laws and other initiatives that bind international law into constitutive characteristics and customary principles is gaining strength. “Nevertheless, there remains vast domains in which the central enforcement of international law is largely non-existent or, at best, sporadic.” A clear example of this failure can be seen with the collapse of Yugoslavia during the last decade of the twentieth century, whereby notoriety of the UN Peacekeepers failing to protect the safe areas of Srebrenica ultimately led to the massacre of thousands of Bosniak boys and men.
The transition of the former Yugoslavia – contained by six socialist republics and two autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina – has since exposed the miscarriage of international organisations to manage adequate responses to emergency situations, becoming the stimulus to modify and enhance the mechanisms that define and regulate the substantive criteria of the principle of self-determination and the conditions that define statehood. One particular aspect of this relies on the concept of territorial integrity and the modalities that outline the legal characteristics between dissolution and succession. According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933, a treaty that attempts to elucidate the general requirements within customary international law vis-à-vis statehood – the norms and exceptions of what frameworks self-determination, sovereignty and statehood – purports that a state as a person of international law should possess the qualification of a defined territory. “[A] state is defined as an entity with a defined territory and a permanent population under the control of its own government, which as the capacity to engage in diplomatic relations with other states.” Territorial integrity is contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter along with Principle IV (Territorial Integrity of States) of the Helsinki Final Act (1975) along with a number of bi- and multilateral agreements that declares duties including non-recognition of territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained by force. Recognition as a criteria for statehood, the latter being the “plenary competence to perform acts, make treaties, and so on, in the international sphere,” that is sovereignty within a defined territory is legitimate when founded on the evidential criteria as inferred within international law. Northern Cyprus, for instance, is recognised by the United Nations as territory under occupation and an infringement of Cypriot sovereignty and conversely, the controversy regarding the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo from Serbia has raised a plethora of questions as to the legal precedent it has set particularly for the criteria of self-determination and de-jure recognition.
The lack of clarity regarding self-determination and the UN Charter invoked the Council of the European Union to establish an Arbitration Committee with Robert Batinter as president to answer pressing legal questions on subjects of concern related to the situation and ethnic violence advancing in Yugoslavia at the time, namely to be a source of guidelines vis-à-vis the establishment of new States in Europe. Opinions that were put forward to the Commission following an initial request made by Lord Carrington on the subject of secession on the Social Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, for which the Commission concluded that Yugoslavia was in the process of dissolution. This led to two vital opinions – for the intention of this subject – namely that of self-determination and the subject of borders. The determination of boundaries during the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia found the committee purporting through Opinion No. 3 of whether internal boundaries within the Former Yugoslavia are to be regarded as borders in public international law, the Commission responded purporting that whilst the external borders remained within the international principle of uti possidetis pursuant to the UN Charter and the Helsinki Accords – the latter being the inviolability of national borders vis-à-vis territorial integrity – internal borders were vindicated by the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1974. “Article 5 requires the consent of all republics and provinces before the borders of Yugoslavia can be altered,” which, during a period of conflict and dissolution is complex. Jurisdictionally, the consequences of the opinions by the Arbitration Committee proved a failure to ascertain the ultimate consequences the subject of international borders along nationalist or ideological can have to the security and safety of minorities. According to Peter Ragan, on closer inspection particularly following Opinion 11 of the Reports the Badinter Borders Principle should have been flexible enough to accommodate the impulse for secession rooted in ideological grounds and therefore more sophisticated measures could have prevented the likelihood of ethnic violence considering the lack of national homogeneity.
“The case of a multinational unit within a federation in which a majority national group resolves that the federal unit will secede, recognition of that unit within existing federal borders is, on the evidence of the secessions and recognition of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, likely to facilitate violent ‘ethnic cleansing’. The result will be either a nationally homogeneous state, or a de facto partition of the state along national lines. Croatia serves as an example of the former and Bosnia-Hercegovina is an example of the latter. The consequences of applying the Badinter Borders Principle were disastrous for the SFRY.”
It is perhaps essential to comparatively analyse ‘remedial secession’ under international law and its similarities or differences with the right to self-determination, namely the challenge of territorial integrity and the fragmentation of existing States vis-à-vis minority groups or peoples exercising their right to self-determination. International customary law on territorial integrity is reflected in the UN Charter however GA Res 1541/1960, whilst elucidating outcomes relating to self-determination purported that integration with another state is a rightful part of the application of self-determination. “Secession is the process by which a particular group seeks to separate itself from the State to which it belongs.” Accordingly, Crimean and Russian authorities allege themselves legally justified for claiming the right to secession following the referendum that found the majority voting in favour of becoming subject to Russian federal authority whilst the international community view it as an “illegal annexation that followed Russia’s use of force in contravention of international law.” International case law confirms that an adequate application of the principle of self-determination requires a democratic plebiscite or referendum. Nevertheless, according to domestic Ukrainian law, the referendum held in Crimea was illegal; that whilst the autonomous status of Crimea provides administrative independence and the capacity to hold referendums but only so related to domestic matters. The Constitution of Ukraine clearly states that territory of Ukraine “within its present border is indivisible and inviolable” with Crimea an inseparable part or constituent. Thus, a legal referendum would require a plebiscite involving all of Ukrainian territory, including Ukraine, and not just Crimea. In addition, regulations on how a referendum is to be held, particularly relating to the use of force whereby the presence of Russian military and control of public infrastructure during the plebiscite along with the language or wording of the question that ensures clarity to answer a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was not correctly adhered to, particularly since the referendum asked two questions in breach of Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice.
I am not sure how you are supposed to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the following?
- Are you in favour of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea reuniting with Russia as a constituent part of the Russian Federation? or
- Are you in favour of restoring the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of 1992 and of Crimea’s status as part of Ukraine?”
The Russian authorities, in an attempt to justify the occupation of Crimea, claim the declaration of independence by Kosovo has set a legal precedent, confirmed during the Crimean proclamation of independence from the Ukraine in 2014, whereby “Putin referred to numerous Western states, which had recognised Kosovo’s right to self-determination… Putin presented a moral argument claiming that the same rights could not be denied to the people of Crimea.” It is true that the International Court of Justice decision pertaining to Kosovo failed to adequately address the question of secession and the consequences of the declaration of independence from Serbia instead “limited the scope of its opinion to the question of whether the declaration as such violated international law.” Many countries including Spain decidedly chose to not recognise Kosovo since it was clear that there existed a failure to reach an agreement followed by a U.N. Security Council resolution, which is a requirement for secession. Nevertheless, the ICJ clearly outlined the required processes vis-à-vis the legality and practice of independence with regards to international law. Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andrii Deshchytsia introduced a draft resolution recounting the referendum held in Crimea along with territorial integrity, whereby the referendum was officially declared by the United Nations to be invalid. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation claims that “territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State or country or at its political independence is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter.”
Historically, Crimea is known to be the hub of the White Army [anti-Bolshevik] during the Russian Revolution, where it retreated under the leadership of General Baron Peter Wrangel with the intent on developing a counteroffensive to defeat the onslaught of the Red Army [Bolsheviks] in 1920; by 1921 following orders by Vladimir Lenin, tens of thousands of adherents of the White Movement that failed to escape Crimea to Istanbul or Europe were summarily executed without trial in what became known as the Red Terror. During this period, the Soviet government created Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) and additionally promoted the national identity of the indigenous Crimean Tatars as they had served the Red Army and played an role in their victory. This was swiftly reversed during the Stalinist era that ordered the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars among other nationalities from the country to labour camps for allegedly collaborating with the German Nazis, whereby during World War Two the Nazi regime successfully captured the region of Sevastopol until 1945, where the Soviet Union reclaimed and transferred it as the Crimean Region of the USSR from the original ASSR and downgrading it to an administrative division or oblast.
By 1954, however, the Soviet Union under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev issued a decree to transfer Crimea to the then Soviet Ukraine and legalised by the USSR Parliament, claiming that territorial proximity along with a moral gesture to celebrate strong cultural ties purposed the transfer. “Article 77 of the 1978 Ukrainian SSR Constitution placed the Crimea and the two cities of Sevastopol and Kyiv under Soviet Ukrainian Republican jurisdiction.” Notwithstanding any alleged political machinations by Khrushchev at the time that ultimately resulted in the Crimean transfer, the intention was to normalise and promote friendly relations analogous to the principles of international law in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The transfer was legally instituted in the then USSR Parliament despite allegations – as seen in the Crimean speech by Vladimir Putin in 2014 – that the circumstance determining the transfer was a personal initiative or mere formality rather than legally pertinent. “Any allegations that the transfer of the Crimean peninsula to the Ukrainian SSR was conducted in breach of the constitutional law of the USSR appear to be baseless after a study of the legal procedures followed in 1954.” Russia has argued that the transfer itself was illegitimate not simply relating to the city of Sevastopol that it claims has since 1948 never been part of the Crimean region, but namely that it defied the USSR constitution and thus the transfer remains null and void. The attempt to determine a violation of legal procedures as applied by the Presidium of the Supreme Council in the Russian SFSR that approved the transfer of Crimea is substantiated by the view that the Presidium– consisting of 27 members and the highest authority at the time – only received 13 votes. “The Supreme Council did approve the transfer by unanimous vote, but it did so without a quorum present,” however the other 14 voters were merely absent and thus no procedural breach occurred. Thus the amendments to Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of the USSR whereby the Crimean region was deleted from the former article with further amendments to ensure full jurisdiction of Crimea by the Ukraine remains legal.
The attacks against the legitimacy of the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine appear to be a smokescreen in an attempt to justify the legality of the occupation. This occupation was many years in the making and the internal conflicts within Ukraine established a chain of events that found both Crimean and Russian authorities encourage and eventually hold a referendum fashioned with problems that determined whether Crimean territory would be absorbed by Russia. Prior to the referendum, there were doubts as to the influence of Russia on Ukrainian political affairs, with increased tension following former president Viktor Yanukovych suspending original plans to sign an EU trade agreement. “Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who was due to formally sign his country’s agreement with the EU, had a last minute change of heart.” In addition, the response to peaceful pro-EU protests held at Independence Square – known as the Euromaiden – in Kiev, whereby riot police attacked protestors leading to mass demonstrations throughout the country only worsened when parliament overstepped its legislative powers by changing the laws of association. The pejorative of the anti-protest laws was to restrict freedoms of association and speech that only increased the tension of protestors, leading to several deaths and street clashes with police and ultimately forcing pro-Russian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to resign following comments labelling the actions of protestors as ‘Nazi’ behaviour. Regarding the latter, the suspicions of Ukrainian civil society was embellished earlier with developments of a language policy that attempted to change laws making Russian the second official language – the law later abolished – with comments from Azarov claiming Ukrainian is a ‘little Russian language’ that merely sparked controversy particularly to where his loyalty lied.
The subject of self-determination in international law is wrought with complications, primarily because of its incredibly close relationship with politics. Whilst there remains no universally accepted definition of statehood, the International Law Commission did attempt to codify the theory of recognition vis-à-vis statehood, namely: “The political existence of the State is independent of its recognition by other States. Even before it has been recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its preservation and prosperity, and, consequently, to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate in regard to its interests, to administer its services and to determine the jurisdiction and competence of its courts of justice.” This broad draft proposal was rejected as it was grounded in ambiguity that it could in the context of international law contain political repercussions. The dichotomy between constitutive and declaratory approaches, namely that of recognition or that of meeting the legal criteria for statehood, only adds to the complication. It is clear that those territories experiencing decolonisation contain challenges particularly related to self-determination, with cultural divides and unstable political systems [it has been noted that democracy is not a static event but a political process that is developed over a period of time] confirming that a salient transition to independence is inhibited. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples itself proved conscious of the conditions that the process of civic liberation could threaten peace; “[a] ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace.”
I find it useful ending this post with:
“Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”