We need global rules on how self determination is exercised

From Scotland to Catalonia, from Crimea to Kurdistan: We need global rules on how self determination is exercised 

Most countries in the world claim to have derived through some form of national self determination. However, the reality looks very different. The overwhelming majority of nation states and their boundaries emerged as a result of wars, conquests and colonization between the 17th and 20th century. This is why the call for self determination in large parts of Europe and the Middle East cannot simply be ignored by the UN and the EU.

A history of war, occupation & suppressed self determination

Regions like Scotland, Catalonia, Crimea, Kurdistan, South Tyrol and the Szeklerland, to mention just a few, were all conquered by force in the last few centuries and then incorporated into the increasingly centralist political structures of their invader states against the will of the local majority population. 

As our world globalize and societies become increasingly egalitarian, democratic and focused on personal self determination, collective self determination is emerging as another important aspect of modern human aspiration. The rise of separatist movements across the globe, most particularly in Europe and the Middle East, hast to be understood in this context. We will see more rather than less of it in the future.

Self Determination versus Territorial Integrity 

Although self determination is recognized as a basic human right in international law, it is rarely exercised. In fact, there are two international laws that seemingly contradict themselves- the right to self determination and a nation state’s right to territorial integrity.

Whenever a region wants to break up from a nation state, different powers tend to cherry pick which of the two they prioritize depending on their strategic needs. When the Kosovo declared her independence, the US and the majority of EU countries supported the break up of the region from Serbia while Russia was against it. In the case of Crimea, Donezk and Luhansk it was the opposite.

Most nation states emphasize the indivisibility of their territory. They draw on the theory that any break-away-attempt by regions and communes represent a breach of the principle of territorial integrity. This is is also the current approach by Spain.

However, territorial integrity is only supposed to protect the boundaries of an independent state from outside agression. It is certainly not meant to prevent the local or regional population within a state from exercising self determination themselves. It contradicts the modern concept of grass root democracy and subsidiarity that political decisions should always be made as close as possible to the people affected on the regional or even local level.

We need global rules on how self determination is exercised

Any attempt by nation states to prevent their regions and communes from exercising self determination is therefore unquestionably a clear breach of international and European laws, among them the Treaty of Lisbon and the UN Charta on Human Rights. For that reason it is the responsibility of the UN, the EU an the European member states to act.

In the light of current developments, the UN and the EU should set clear rules on how regions and communes can separate from nation states to either become independent or join other states. Any plebiscite would need to be organized and conducted by an independent UN body, incorporate the entire population of the affected area and provide the remain- and separation camps with funds and access to the entire population to communicate their cases.

While on a global basis self determination could only be exercised within a connected and self contained area, the EU could go a step further and enable each commune to vote on its regional and national status. As the Schengen area has no controlled boundaries, enclaves would not matter and democratic self determination could be exercised on the most local level possible.

In the case of Catalonia, for example, this would be a very useful measure as there are enormous regional differences in the level of support for separation from Spain. Why should a commune in which 90% of the population wants to remain in the Spanish state be forced to separate if Catalonia as a whole supports separation and vice versa? The situation in other potential break away regions in Europe is similar. 

A great chance for more democracy and cooperation in a more United Europe

The EU has the unique opportunity to create measures that allow for self determination to be exercised in its purest form. Those nationalist forces in Europe that argue the EU has no legitimacy to get involved in separatist conflicts are wrong.

Those who fear the EU or the European unification process would weaken as a result of local and regional self determination and the possible appearance of more states on the continent are also wrong.

Smaller entities that are closer to the people will make Europe more democratic, resolve ongoing  minority problems, but also increase the need for more cooperation. In fact, they should help create the “United Europe of Regions” that the founders of the European project envisioned after the horrors of two World Wars. Maintaining the inflexible nationalist status quo will do the opposite. 

Peter Josika is a Swiss based historian, political scientist and freelance journalist dealing with topics related to federalism, centralism, human rights and minorities with particular attention to Central Europe. In 2014 he published a book on the concept of a Europe of Regions.

Europe: No democracy without self determination

© Peter Jósika

European society is changing dramatically. Most of our ancestors were born into predetermined social and economic structures and had little scope to alter their lives considerably. Europeans today have substantially more control over their destiny. The underlying concept behind this development is the principle of self determination. 

Personal self determination includes the freedom to choose our educational and professional path, the people we associate with, the language we prefer to speak, the place we want to live in, but also our religious, sexual or political orientation. All these freedoms are recognised as fundamental rights in Western societies, although they were restricted in the past and remain contested in some parts of the world today.

An important part of personal self determination is the concept of collective self determination. We all belong to a variety of collectives, be it a nation, a region, a commune, a religious group, a family or the company we work for. While in the past most collectives were governed by predefined hierarchies, often based on class, gender, age or race, there is growing pressure to increase democratic participation. This is to ensure that all members of a collective have a voice and can attain at least a certain degree of self fulfillment within the collective.

This trend has also reached public life and politics. Half a century ago democracy meant little more than the right to vote for a political party that represented ones social class or a general political view. The modern notion of democracy is substantially more participatory. People want to be directly involved in the decision making process. They expect for politicians to maintain constant two way contact with their constituencies and for important matters to be put directly to the people.

To a limited extend politics has adapted to the need for more grass root democracy by strengthening direct democracy and community involvement in certain areas of the decision making process. However, our overall political structures remain stuck in the early 1900s. They are marked by Europe's ongoing division into ethnic nation states with centralist political systems that are far removed from the people and the needs of an increasingly individualised and multicultural society longing for more self determination. The calls for secession or more autonomy in many regions across Europe are only the tip of the iceberg, but they highlight how out of step the nation states are with the needs of our time.

Therefore, it is not only the often critizised EU that needs to be reformed, but much rather the centralist nation states themselves. While many parts of Europe would benefit from a leaner but also stronger EU in certain fields, it is equally important that we strengthen communes and regions as they are not only closer to the people, but also much closer to most issues that affect them.

Competencies across all levels of government should generally be divided on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity as already defined in the Treaty of Lisbon. In other words: We need to bring the decision making process to the people by giving local and regional government substantially more power. This should translate into more grass root democracy, less nationalism as well as a more flexible and need-based approach in economic and fiscal matters. 

In turn this will enable for Europe as a whole to become stronger and more effective, and for Europe's regions and communes to become more responsible, self sufficient and competetive. Such a EU-wide decentralization process is not only long overdue, but of critical importance to Europe's future.

Peter Jósika is a Swiss based author. He can be reached via his website www.europaderregionen.com. 

Between Federation and Disintegration: Can Europe re-define itself?

The EU is at a crossroads, and the question Europe as a whole needs to ask itself is how it should cope with the growing demand for more democracy as well as more local and regional power within an increasingly globalised world. In this exclusive article for OneEurope, Peter Josika asks whether the current political structures meet the needs of our time and the foreseeable future.

Read my full article:
http://one-europe.info/europe-between-federation-and-disintegration