View source for Self-determination

{{Short description|Right of all people to freely participate in the political procedures of their government}}
{{About|self-determination in international law|other uses|Self-determination (disambiguation)}}
{{Rights |By claimant}}
{{Nationalism sidebar|core}} {{War|expanded=law}}
'''Self-determination'''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Self determination (international law) |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law) |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> refers to a [[people]]'s right to form its own political entity, and internal self-determination is the right to representative government with [[full suffrage]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Forsyth |first=Tim |title=Encyclopedia of International Development |date=2018 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |location=United Kingdom|quote="External" self-determination refers to a people's right to form its own political entity, and "internal" self-determination refers to the right to have a representative government with effective participation in the political process...The right to self-determination was at first limited to colonial territories' right to external self-determination. The right was made secondary to territorial integrity and national unity, effective "locking" colonial boundaries. In 1970, the right to self-determination was expanded to apply beyond colonial situations. This declaration linked self-determination's internal and external aspects by suggesting that a racial or religious group denied equal participation in the political process would be entitled to external self-determination, voiding the principle that territorial integrity or national unity should not be threatened in extreme cases. The Vienna Declaration (1993) broaded this argument to include ethnic groups denied effective political participation. While representation and effective participation is usually enough to satisfy a people's right to self-determination, a people may have the right to external self-determination when those conditions are not met.}}</ref><ref>Alexander, Yonah, and Friedlander, Robert A. Self-determination: National, Regional, And Global Dimensions. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2019.</ref>

Self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern [[international law]], binding, as such, on the [[United Nations]] as an authoritative interpretation of the [[Charter of the United Nations|Charter]]'s norms.<ref>''See'': [[s:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514|United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514]] in [[Wikisource]] states</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-Building and the Alternative, Federal Option |last=McWhinney |first=Edward |author-link=Edward McWhinney |year=2007 |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |isbn=978-9004158351 |page=8 }}</ref> The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be (whether [[independence]], [[federation]], [[protectorate|protection]], some form of [[autonomy]] or full [[Cultural assimilation|assimilation]]),<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Griffiths |editor1-first=Martin |title=Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics |date=2013 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |location=United Kingdom |quote=Since the end of decolonization, it has become clear that the diplomatic compromises that facilitated the transfer of political authority during that era are now obsolete. Today, the principle of self-determination lacks both definition and applicability. Saving it from a complete descent into incoherence will require a renewal of the links between autonomy, democracy, human rights and the right to self-determination. Central to cultivating this renewal should be the adoption of a more liberal and expansive interpretation of the  meaning of self-determination. Self-determination does not have to mean irredentism, secession and the violent renegotiation of territorial frontiers. The promotion of minority rights, devolution, federalism and greater acknowledgement of the legitimacy of cultural self-expression are all expressions of self-determination.}}</ref> and the right of self-determination does not necessarily include a right to an independent state for every ethnic group within a former colonial territory. Further, no [[right to secession]] is recognized under international law.<ref>{{cite web |title=Legal Aspects of Self-Determination |url=https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/511 |website=The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination |publisher=Princeton University}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Foweraker |editor1-first=Joe |editor2-last=Clarke |editor2-first=Paul Barry |title=Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought |date=2003 |publisher=Taylor&Francis |location=United Kingdom |page=655 |quote=At present, international law is ambiguous regarding the right to secede. Some documents assert that self-determination is a fundamental right, but in practice the United Nations and other international organisations have very rarely recognized breakaway states, and the trend at the turn of the millennium seems to be toward increasing the opposition to separatism, largely as a result of the grave effects observable in most cases where it has been attempted. One ICJ judge, Rosalyn Higgins, has written that there is no legal right of secession where there is representative government. However, some other experts disagree, adding that self-determination is justifiable where there is representative government but the minority nevertheless faces severe human rights violations.}}</ref>

[[File:Zuid-Molukkers demonstreren bij Indonesische Ambassade in Den Haag tegen schendi, Bestanddeelnr 933-7169.jpg|thumb|[[Moluccan diaspora|Moluccans]] in [[The Hague]] protesting [[Indonesia]] [[New Order (Indonesia)|under Suharto]]'s [[East Timor genocide|treatment of East Timor]], calling for freedom for [[East Timor independence|East Timor]], [[Free Papua Movement|Papua]], [[Free Aceh Movement|Aceh]] and [[Republic of South Maluku|Maluku]], 1986]]

The concept emerged with the rise of [[nationalism]] in the 19th century and came into prominent use in the 1860s, spreading rapidly thereafter.<ref name=Fisch>{{cite book|author=Jörg Fisch|title=A History of the Self-Determination of Peoples: The Domestication of an Illusion|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PETjCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA118|date=9 December 2015|page=118|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-03796-0}}</ref> During and after [[World War I]], the principle was encouraged by both [[Premier of the Soviet Union|Soviet Premier]] [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[President of the United States|United States President]] [[Woodrow Wilson]].<ref name=Fisch/> Having announced his [[Fourteen Points]] on 8 January 1918, on 11 February 1918 Wilson stated: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gwpda.org/1918/wilpeace.html |title=President Wilson's Address to Congress, Analyzing German and Austrian Peace Utterances (Delivered to Congress in Joint Session on February 11, 1918)|date=February 11, 1918|website=gwpda.org|access-date=September 5, 2014}}</ref> However, neither Wilson and Lloyd George nor Lenin and Trotsky considered the peoples of the Global South as the main target for their statements supporting self-determination. Nevertheless, their rhetoric resonated far beyond the European audiences they aimed to reach.<ref>{{Citation |last=Manela |first=Erez |title=The Wilsonian Uprisings of 1919 |date=2021 |work=Revolutionary World: Global Upheaval in the Modern Age |pages=152–174 |editor-last=Motadel |editor-first=David |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/revolutionary-world/wilsonian-uprisings-of-1919/4957EB339AD9ADC5AD5A3AD6F9D9023D |access-date=2025-03-16 |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781108182409.007 |isbn=978-1-107-19840-1|url-access=subscription }}</ref> During [[World War II]], the principle was included in the [[Atlantic Charter]], jointly declared on 14 August 1941 by [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], President of the United States, and [[Winston Churchill]], Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.<ref>''See'': Clause 3 of the [[Atlantic Charter]] reads: "Third, they respect the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them" then became one of the eight cardinal principal points of the Charter all people had a right to self-determination.</ref> It was recognized as an international legal right after it was explicitly listed as a right in the [[UN Charter]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 |title=Self-Determination |website=Oxford Public International Law |date=2008 |doi=10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e873 |last1=Daniel |first1=Thürer |last2=Thomas |first2=Burri |isbn=978-0-19-923169-0 }}</ref>

Implementing the right to self-determination can be politically difficult, in part because there are multiple interpretations of what [[Nation-building|constitutes a people]] and which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.<ref name="Unterberger">Betty Miller Unterberger, [https://web.archive.org/web/20080220083041/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132482 "Self-Determination"], ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy,'' 2002.</ref> As World Court judge [[Ivor Jennings]] put it: "the people cannot decide until somebody decides who are the people".<ref name="Oxford University Press">{{cite book |last1=Mayall |first1=James |editor1-last=Breuilly |editor1-first=John |title=The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism |date=2013 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford | isbn=978-0-19-876820-3 | page=542 | chapter=International Society, State Sovereignty, and National Self-Determination}}</ref>

== History ==
=== Pre-20th century ===
The norm of self-determination can be traced to the [[American Revolution|American]] and [[French Revolution|French]] revolutions, and the emergence of [[nationalism]].<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Hecher|first1=Michael|last2=Borland|first2=Elizabeth|date=2001|title=National Self-Determination: The Emergence of an International Norm|pages=186–233 |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1550896|publisher=Russell Sage Foundation|isbn=978-1-61044-280-0 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Mayall |first1=James |editor1-last=Breuilly |editor1-first=John |title=The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism |date=2013 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford | isbn=978-0-19-876820-3 | pages=539–540 | chapter=International Society, State Sovereignty, and National Self-Determination}}</ref> The European [[revolutions of 1848]], the post-World War I [[Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)|settlement at Versailles]], and the decolonization movement after World War II shaped and established the norm in international law.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hechter |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rZk2AQAAQBAJ |title=Alien Rule |date=2013 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-04254-4 |pages=5 |language=en}}</ref> The American example has been seen as the earliest assertion of the right of national self-determination, although this was argued primarily in terms of resistance to a despotic ruler rather than appeals to a 'natural right' of peoples to determine their political fate, the latter emerging with the [[Spanish American wars of independence|independence of Spanish colonies in Latin America]].<ref name="Simma">{{cite book |last1=Oeter |first1=Stefan |editor1-last=Simma |display-editors=etal |title=The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary |date=2024 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780192864536 |pages=457–484 |edition=4th |chapter=Self Determination}}</ref>

These concepts were inspired particularly by earlier ideas from [[Hugo Grotius]] and [[Immanuel Kant]], and by the mid-nineteenth century 'self-determination' had evolved into a weapon for revolutionary nationalism.<ref name="Simma"/> [[Thomas Jefferson]] further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the [[United States Declaration of Independence]], which became an inspiration for European nationalist movements during the 19th century.<ref name="Unterberger" /> The French Revolution legitimized the ideas of self-determination on that [[Old World]] continent.<ref>Chimène Keitner, [[Oxford University]], [http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/woc01/National Self-Determination: The Legacy of the French Revolution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200304141255/http://www.ciaonet.org/ |date=2020-03-04 }}, paper presented at International Studies Association Annual Meeting, March 2000.</ref><ref>[https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B16FD3D5C147A93C2AB178CD85F4D8185F9 "Self-Determination Not a New Expedient; First Plebiscite Was Held in Avignon During the French Revolution—Forthcoming Book Traces History and Growth of the Movement"], ''[[New York Times]]'', July 20, 1919, 69.</ref>{{How|date=May 2024}}

Nationalist sentiments emerged inside traditional empires: [[Pan-Slavism]] in Russia; [[Ottomanism]], [[Kemalist ideology]] and [[Arab nationalism]] in the Ottoman Empire; [[State Shintoism]] and [[Japanese nationalism|Japanese identity]] in Japan; and [[Chinese nationalism|Han identity]] in juxtaposition to the [[Manchu people|Manchurian ruling class]] in China. Meanwhile, in Europe itself, the [[Rise of nationalism in Europe|rise of nationalism]] led to [[Greek War of Independence|Greece]], [[Hungarian Revolution of 1848|Hungary]], [[Greater Poland Uprising (1848)|Poland]] and [[Bulgarian unification|Bulgaria]] all seeking or winning independence.

[[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] supported some of these nationalist movements, believing nationalism might be a "prior condition" to social reform and international alliances.<ref>[[Erica Benner]], ''Really existing nationalisms: a post-communist view from Marx and Engels'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=N-7Xc8WtCLgC&dq=%22self-determination%22+of+colonies+marx&pg=PA188 p. 188], Oxford University Press, 1995 {{ISBN|0-19-827959-0}}, {{ISBN|978-0-19-827959-4}}</ref> In 1914 [[Vladimir Lenin]] wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."<ref name="Lenin">{{cite web|url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm#v20pp72-395 |title=What Is Meant By The Self-Determination of Nations? |publisher=Marxists.org |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

In contrast, [[Rosa Luxemburg]] called a "right of nations to self-determination", valid for all countries and all times, "nothing more than a metaphysical cliché" that offers no "practical solution of nationality problems" and argued that the very concept of the nation as an "homogenous social and political entity" was derived from [[Bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] ideology.<ref name="Lewis">{{cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=Tom |title=Marxism and Nationalism |journal=International Socialist Review |date=October–November 2000 |issue=14 |url=https://isreview.org/issues/14/marxism_nationalism_part2/ |access-date=22 October 2022}}</ref><ref name="Luxemburg">{{cite book |last1=Luxemburg |first1=Rosa |title=The National Question, Chapter 1: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination |date=1909 |publisher=Marxists.org |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch01.htm |access-date=24 November 2024}}</ref>

=== World Wars I and II ===

==== Europe, Asia and Africa ====

[[File:Map Europe 1923-en.svg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|Map of [[Aftermath of World War I|territorial changes]] in Europe after World War I (as of 1923)]]

[[File:Decolonization - World In 1945 en.svg|upright=1.5|thumb|Map of the world in 1945, showing [[United Nations Trusteeship Council]] territories in green<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world45.pdf |title=The World in 1945 |date=May 2010 |work=United nations |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>]]

[[Woodrow Wilson]] revived America's commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When the [[Bolsheviks]] came to power in Russia in the [[October Revolution]], they called for Russia's immediate withdrawal as a member of the [[Allies of World War I]]. Lenin had used 'national self-determination' as a weapon against the [[Russian Empire]], and after the Revolution the party supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination.<ref name="Lenin" /> The 1918 [[Soviet Russia Constitution of 1918|Constitution of the Soviet Union]] acknowledged the right of [[secession]] for its constituent republics.<ref name="Unterberger" />

In January 1918 Wilson issued his [[Fourteen Points]] of January 1918 which, among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims, insofar as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples.<ref name="Unterberger" /> The [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Russia–Central Powers)|Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]] in March 1918 led to [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Soviet Russia]]'s exit from the war and the nominal independence of Armenia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Poland, though in fact those territories were under German control.{{citation needed|date=January 2024}} The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeated [[Austro-Hungarian Empire]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and the union of the [[State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs]] and the [[Kingdom of Serbia]] as new states out of the wreckage of the [[Habsburg monarchy|Habsburg empire]]. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especially [[Polish people|Poles]], [[Czechs]], and [[Serbs]] and [[Romanians]]) were given power over nationalities who disliked and distrusted them was eventually used as a pretext for German aggression in [[World War II]].

The [[League of Nations]] was established as the symbol of the emerging postwar order. One of its earliest tasks was to legitimize the territorial boundaries of the new [[Nation state|nation-states]] created in the territories of the former [[Ottoman Empire]], Asia, and Africa. The League was not consistent in how it applied the principle in the post-war peace treaties and, in many places, had to compensate with highly complex arrangements to ensure protection of minorities.<ref name="Oeter" /> Nor did the principle of self-determination extend so far as to end colonialism, under the reasoning that the local populations were not civilized enough the League of Nations was to assign each of the post-Ottoman, Asian and African states and colonies to a European power by the grant of a [[League of Nations mandate]].<ref>{{cite book| title=Fezzes in the River |author=Sarah D. Shields |publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

One of the German objections to the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a somewhat selective application of the principle of self-determination, as the [[Republic of German-Austria]], which included the [[Sudetenland]], was seen as representing the will to join Germany in those regions, while the majority of people in [[Free City of Danzig|Danzig]] wanted to remain within the ''Reich''. However, the Allies ignored the German objections. Wilson's 14 Points had called for [[History of Poland (1918–1939)|Polish independence]] to be restored and Poland to have "secure access to the sea", which would imply that the German city of Danzig (modern [[Gdańsk]], [[Poland]]) be ceded to Poland.<ref name="Macmillan, Margaret page 211">Macmillan, Margaret ''Paris 1919'', New York: Random House page 211.</ref>  At the [[Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)|Paris Peace Conference]] in 1919, the Polish delegation asked Wilson to honor point 14 of the 14 points by transferring Danzig to Poland, arguing the city was Polish until 1793, and that Poland would not be economically viable without it.<ref name="Macmillan, Margaret page 211"/> During the [[Partitions of Poland|First Partition]] of Poland in 1772, the inhabitants of Danzig fought fiercely for it to remain a part of Poland,<ref>''Gdańsk i Ziemia Gdańska'' Franciszek Mamuszka Wiedza Powszechna, 1966 page 83</ref> but as a result of the [[Germanisation]] process in the 19th century,<ref>Książka polska w Gdańsku w okresie zaboru pruskiego 1793-1919, page 61 Maria Babnis, Ossolineum 1989</ref> 90% of its inhabitants were [[Germans|German]] by 1919, which led to the creation of the [[Free City of Danzig]], a city-state in which Poland had certain special rights.<ref>Macmillan, Margaret ''Paris 1919'', New York: Random House page 218.</ref> Through the city of Danzig was 90% German and 10% Polish, the surrounding countryside around Danzig was overwhelmingly Polish, and the ethnically Polish rural areas included in the Free City of Danzig objected, arguing that they wanted to be part of Poland.<ref name="Macmillan, Margaret page 211"/> Neither the Poles nor the Germans were happy with this compromise and the Danzig issue became a flash-point of German-Polish tension throughout the interwar period.<ref>Macmillan, Margaret ''Paris 1919'', New York: Random House page 219.</ref>

During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of [[decolonization]]. The [[Statute of Westminster 1931|Statute of Westminster]] granted independence to [[Canada]], [[Dominion of New Zealand|New Zealand]], [[Newfoundland and Labrador|Newfoundland]], [[Commonwealth of Australia|Australia]], and the [[Union of South Africa]] after the [[British parliament]] declared itself incapable of passing laws over them without their consent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2017 |title=Statute of Westminster 1931 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1931/4/pdfs/ukpga_19310004_en.pdf |access-date=29 November 2024 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archives (UK) |quote=All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0 |archive-date=22 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181222222020/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1931/4/pdfs/ukpga_19310004_en.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> This statute built on the [[Balfour Declaration of 1926]] which recognized the autonomy of these British dominions, representing the first phase of the creation of the [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth of Nations]]. [[Kingdom of Egypt|Egypt]], [[Kingdom of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]], and [[Kingdom of Iraq|Iraq]] also achieved independence from Britain.{{Dubious|reason=This independence was nominal at best, certainly in the cases of Egypt and Iraq, Britain maintained disproportionate influence over their affairs until the 50s|date=November 2024}} Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the [[Indian independence movement]]. Meanwhile, Italy, Japan and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring certain territories under their control. In particular, the [[National Socialist Program]] invoked this right of nations, as it was publicly proclaimed on 24 February 1920 by [[Adolf Hitler]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}}

In Asia, Japan became a rising power and gained more respect from Western powers after its victory in the [[Russo-Japanese War]]. Japan joined the Allied Powers in World War I and [[Japan during World War I|attacked German colonial possessions]] in the [[Far East]], adding former German possessions to its own empire. In the 1930s, Japan gained significant influence in [[Inner Mongolia]] and [[Manchuria]] after it [[Mukden Incident|invaded Manchuria]].  It established [[Manchukuo]], a [[puppet state]] in [[Manchuria]] and eastern [[Inner Mongolia]]. This was essentially the model Japan followed as it invaded other areas in Asia and established the [[Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere]]. Japan went to considerable trouble to argue that Manchukuo was justified by the principle of self-determination, claiming that people of Manchuria wanted to break away from China and asked the [[Kwantung Army]] to intervene on their behalf. However, the [[Lytton Report|Lytton commission]] which had been appointed by the League of Nations to decide if Japan had committed aggression or not, stated the majority of people in Manchuria who were [[Han Chinese]] who did not wish to leave China.{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}}

In 1912, the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]] officially [[successor state|succeeded]] the Qing Dynasty, while [[Outer Mongolia]], [[Tibet (1912–1951)|Tibet]] and [[Tannu Uriankhai|Tuva]] proclaimed their independence. Independence was not accepted by the [[Beiyang government|government of China]]. By the [[Treaty of Kyakhta (1915)]] [[Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919|Outer Mongolia]] recognized China's sovereignty. However, the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize [[Mongolian People's Republic|Outer Mongolia's independence]], provided that a referendum was held. The referendum took place on October 20, 1945, with (according to official numbers) 100% of the electorate voting for independence.{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}}

Many of [[East Asia]]'s current disputes to sovereignty and self-determination stem from unresolved disputes from World War II. After its fall, the [[Empire of Japan]] renounced control over many of its former possessions including [[Korea]], [[Sakhalin Island]], and [[Taiwan]].  In none of these areas were the opinions of affected people consulted, or given significant priority. Korea was specifically granted independence but the receiver of various other areas was not stated in the [[Treaty of San Francisco]], giving Taiwan ''de facto'' independence although its political status continues to be ambiguous.{{Citation needed|date=December 2024}}

=== The Cold War world ===

==== The UN Charter and resolutions====

In 1941 [[Allies of World War II]] declared the [[Atlantic Charter]] and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the [[Declaration by United Nations]], which accepted those principles. The ratification of the [[Charter of the United Nations|United Nations Charter]] in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

* Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ |title=United Nations Charter |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2015-05-08}}</ref>
* Article 1 in both the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm |title=Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |publisher=.ohchr.org |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303001412/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm |archive-date=March 3, 2012 }}</ref> and the [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]] (ICESCR)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm |title=Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights |publisher=.ohchr.org |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303114220/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm |archive-date=March 3, 2012 }}</ref> reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. "
* The United Nations [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

[[File:Colonization 1945.png|thumb|right|upright=1.7|Western European [[colonial empire]]s in [[Asia]] and [[Africa]] disintegrated after World War II]]
On 14 December 1960, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] adopted [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV)]] subtitled "[[Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples]]", which supported the granting of [[independence]] to [[Colonialism|colonial]] countries and people by providing an inevitable legal linkage between self-determination and its goal of decolonisation.  It postulated a new international law-based right of [[Liberty|freedom]] to exercise economic self-determination. Article 5 states: Immediate steps shall be taken in [[United Nations list of non-self-governing territories|Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories]],<ref name="nonselfgov">{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml |title=Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories listed by the United Nations General Assembly |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2014-04-10}}</ref> or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the people of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

On 15 December 1960 the United Nations General Assembly adopted [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)]], subtitled "Principles which should guide members in determining whether or nor an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under [[Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter|Article 73e]] of the [[United Nations Charter]] in Article 3", which provided that "[t]he inadequacy of political, economic, social and educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying the right to self-determination and independence." To monitor the implementation of Resolution 1514, in 1961 the General Assembly created the Special Committee referred to popularly as the [[Special Committee on Decolonization]] to ensure [[decolonization]] complete compliance with the principles of self-determination in General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV).<ref name="ReferenceA">{{sourcetext|source=United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514}}</ref><ref>[http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages: 509-510)] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320074502/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf |date=March 20, 2012 }}</ref>

However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining [[self-government]], nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine of [[uti possidetis juris]], meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.<ref name="Hensel">Paul R. Hensel and Michael E. Allison, Department of Political Science [[Florida State University]] and Ahmed Khanani, Department of Political Science, [[Indiana University]], [http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~phensel/Research/io05.pdf The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability: Uti Possidetis and Territorial Claims in the Americas] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050528084649/http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~phensel/Research/io05.pdf |date=2005-05-28 }}, research paper at Paul Hensel's Florida State university web site.</ref><ref name="Gudeleviciute">Vita Gudeleviciute, [https://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/2009/10/Gudeleviciute.pdf Does the Principle of Self-determination Prevail over the Principle of Territorial Integrity?], ''International Journal of Baltic Law'', [[Vytautas Magnus University]] School of Law, Volume 2, No. 2 (April 2005).</ref> Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, thirty-seven new nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East gained independence from colonial powers.<ref name="Unterberger" /><ref>[[:s:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514|Resolution 1514 (XV) "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"]]{{Circular reference|date=January 2025}}</ref><ref>[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/independence.htm Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508055042/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/independence.htm |date=2012-05-08}}, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.</ref> The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption that [[territorial integrity]] is as important as self-determination.<ref name="Hensel" />

==== The communist versus capitalist worlds ====
{{See also|Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War}}

Decolonization in the world was contrasted by the [[Soviet Union]]'s successful post-war expansionism. [[People's Republic of Tuva|Tuva]] and several regional states in [[Eastern Europe]], the [[Baltic states|Baltic]], and [[Soviet Central Asia|Central Asia]] had been fully annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II. Now, it extended its influence by establishing the [[satellite states]] of [[East Germany|Eastern Germany]] and the countries of [[Eastern Bloc|Eastern Europe]], along with support for revolutionary movements in [[China]] and [[North Korea]]. Although satellite states were independent and possessed sovereignty, the Soviet Union violated principles of self-determination by suppressing the [[Hungarian revolution of 1956]] and the [[Prague Spring]] Czechoslovak reforms of 1968. It [[Soviet–Afghan War|invaded Afghanistan]] to support a communist government assailed by local tribal groups.<ref name="Unterberger" /> However, [[Marxism–Leninism]] and its theory of imperialism were also strong influences in the national emancipation movements of [[Third World]] nations rebelling against colonial or puppet regimes. In many [[Third World]] countries, communism became an ideology that united groups to oppose imperialism or colonization.

Soviet actions were [[Containment|contained]] by the United States which saw communism as a menace to its interests. Throughout the cold war, the United States created, supported, and sponsored regimes with various success that served their economic and political interests, among them [[anti-communist]] regimes such as that of [[Augusto Pinochet]] in [[Chile]] and [[Suharto]] in [[Indonesia]]. To achieve this, a variety of means was implemented, including the orchestration of coups, sponsoring of anti-communist countries and military interventions. Consequently, many self-determination movements, which spurned some type of anti-communist government, were accused of being Soviet-inspired or controlled.<ref name="Unterberger" />

==== Asia ====
In Asia, the Soviet Union had already converted Mongolia into a satellite state but abandoned propping up the [[Second East Turkestan Republic]] and gave up its [[Soviet invasion of Manchuria|Manchurian claims]] to China. The new [[People's Republic of China]] had gained control of mainland China in the [[Chinese Civil War]]. The [[Korean War]] shifted the focus of the Cold War from Europe to Asia, where competing superpowers took advantage of [[decolonization]] to spread their influence.

In 1947, India gained independence from the [[British Empire]]. The empire was in decline but adapted to these circumstances by creating the [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]]—since 1949 the [[Commonwealth of Nations]]—which is a free association of equal states.  As India obtained its independence, multiple ethnic conflicts emerged in relation to the formation of a statehood during the [[Partition of India]] which resulted in Islamic Pakistan and Secular India. Before the [[British Raj|advent of the British]], no empire based in mainland India had controlled any part of what now makes up the country's Northeast, part of the reason for the ongoing [[insurgency in Northeast India]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20060824053616/http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/ReligiousRadicalism/PagesfromReligiousRadicalismandSecurityinSouthAsiach10.pdf] p. 220</ref> In 1971 [[Bangladesh Liberation War|Bangladesh obtained independence]] from Pakistan.

[[Myanmar|Burma]] also gained independence from the British Empire, but declined membership in the Commonwealth.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rothman |first=Lily |last2=Ronk |first2=Liz |date=2017-10-24 |title=‘The Turmoil of Burma’ in 1949: The Constant Conflict of Myanmar |url=https://time.com/4958097/burma-1949-conflict-turmoil-burma/ |access-date=2025-03-07 |website=TIME |language=en}}</ref>

[[Indonesia]] gained independence from the [[Dutch Empire]] in 1949 after the latter failed to restore colonial control.  As mentioned above, Indonesia also wanted a powerful position in the region that could be lessened by the creation of united [[Malaysia]]. The Netherlands retained [[Dutch New Guinea|its New Guinea part]] from the previous [[Dutch East Indies]], but Indonesia threatened to [[Operation Trikora|invade and annex it]]. A vote was supposedly taken under the UN sponsored [[Act of Free Choice]] to allow West New Guineans to decide their fate, although many dispute its veracity.  Later, [[Portuguese Empire|Portugal]] relinquished control over [[East Timor]] in the aftermath of [[Carnation Revolution]] in 1975, at which time [[Indonesian invasion of East Timor|Indonesia promptly invaded and annexed it]]. In 1999, Indonesian president [[B. J. Habibie]] was pressured by [[Australia]] and the [[United Nations]] to give East Timor independence. The people of former Indonesian East Timor were given a choice of either greater autonomy within [[Indonesia]] or [[East Timor independence|independence]]. 78.5% of East Timorese voted for independence, rejecting Indonesia's special autonomy proposal.<ref>{{cite web | url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/30/east-timor-indonesias-invasion-and-the-long-road-to-independence | title= East Timor: Indonesia's invasion and the long road to independence | website=[[TheGuardian.com]] | date=29 August 2019 }}</ref>

=== After the Cold War ===
[[File:Cold War border changes.png|thumb|upright=1.5|[[List of national border changes since World War I|Changes in national boundaries]] after the end of the Cold War]]
The Cold War began to wind down after [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] assumed power as [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Soviet General Secretary]] in March 1985. With the cooperation of the U.S. President [[Ronald Reagan]], Gorbachev wound down the size of the [[Soviet Armed Forces]] and reduced nuclear arms in Europe, while liberalizing the [[economy of the Soviet Union|Soviet economy]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}}

In the [[Revolutions of 1989|revolutions of 1989–90]], the communist regimes of Soviet satellite states collapsed in rapid succession in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, and Mongolia.  East and West Germany united, Czechoslovakia peacefully split into [[Czech Republic]] and [[Slovakia]], while in the 1990s Yugoslavia began a [[Breakup of Yugoslavia|violent break up]] into 6 states. Macedonia became an independent nation and broke off from Yugoslavia peacefully. [[Kosovo]], which was previously an autonomous unit of Serbia declared independence in 2008, but has received less international recognition.<ref name="Unterberger" />

In December 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president and the [[Dissolution of the Soviet Union|Soviet Union dissolved]] relatively peacefully into [[Post-Soviet states|fifteen sovereign republics]], all of which rejected [[Communism]] and most of which adopted democratic reforms and free-market economies.  Inside those new republics, [[Commonwealth of Unrecognized States|four major areas]] have claimed their own independence, but not received widespread international recognition.{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}}

After decades of civil war, Indonesia finally recognized the independence of [[East Timor]] in 2002.{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}}

In 1949, the [[Chinese Communist Party|Communist Party]] won the [[Chinese Civil War]] and established the [[People's Republic of China]] in [[Mainland China]]. The [[Kuomintang]]-led [[Republic of China]] government retreated to [[Taipei]], its jurisdiction now limited to [[Taiwan]] and several outlying islands. Since then, the People's Republic of China has been involved in disputes with the ROC over issues of sovereignty and the political status of Taiwan.{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}}

As noted, self-determination movements remain [[List of active autonomist and secessionist movements|strong in some areas of the world]]. Some areas possess ''de facto'' independence, such as Taiwan, [[North Cyprus]], [[Kosovo]], and [[South Ossetia]], but their independence is disputed by one or more major states. Significant movements for self-determination also persist for locations that lack ''de facto'' independence, such as [[East Turkistan]] ("Xinjiang"), [[Kurdistan]], [[Balochistan]], [[Chechnya]], and [[Palestine]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}}

== Current issues ==

[[File:South Sudan Independence Celebration (5963420792).jpg|thumb|[[South Sudan|Southern Sudanese]] expressed joy and jubilation on their day of independence, July 9, 2011, from Sudan.]]

Since the early 1990s, the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, as sub-groups seek greater self-determination and full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.<ref>Martin Griffiths, [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2003/3.html Self-determination, International Society And World Order], [[Macquarie University]] Law Journal, 1, 2003.</ref> The international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and often dictated more by politics than principle. The 2000 [[United Nations Millennium Declaration]] failed to deal with these new demands, mentioning only "the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation."<ref name="Gudeleviciute" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf |title=United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (08 09 2000), paragraph 4. |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

In an issue of ''[[Macquarie University]] Law Journal'' Associate Professor Aleksandar Pavkovic and Senior Lecturer Peter Radan outlined current legal and political issues in self-determination.<ref name="Pavkovic">{{Cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2003/1.html |title=n Pursuit of Sovereignty and Self-determination: Peoples, States and Secession in the International Order|access-date=2021-03-30 |website=Macquarie Law Journal |last1=Pavkodic|first1=Aleksander|last2=Radan|first2=Peter}}</ref>

=== Defining "peoples" ===
There is not a recognized legal definition of "peoples" in international law.<ref>[http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/law/public-international-law/statehood-and-self-determination-reconciling-tradition-and-modernity-international-law] Duncan French, 2013, Statehood and Self-Determination Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law, p.97</ref> Indeed, [[Ivor Jennings]] called Wilson's doctrine "ridiculous" because, though on the surface it seems reasonable to "let the people decide", in practice "the people cannot decide until someone decides who are the people".<ref name="Oxford University Press"/>

Reviewing various international judgements and UN resolutions, Vita Gudeleviciute of [[Vytautas Magnus University]] Law School finds that, in cases of non-self-governing peoples (colonized and/or indigenous) and foreign military occupation, "a people" is defined as the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. Meanwhile, in cases where people lack representation by a state's government, the unrepresented become a defined as a separate people. Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples, with the notable exception of cases in which such groups are systematically disenfranchised by the government of the state they live in.<ref name="Gudeleviciute" />

Other definitions offered are "peoples" as self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.),{{Explain|date=May 2024}} or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment" ("loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples).<ref>{{cite book|author=Pictet, Jean|title=Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949|year=1987|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|pages=52–53|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Professor Uriel Abulof suggests that self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality: 1. personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics; and 2. and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self's). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.<ref name="Abulof">{{Cite journal|doi = 10.1080/17449057.2015.1051809|title = The Confused Compass: From Self-determination to State-determination|year = 2015|last1 = Abulof|first1 = Uriel|journal = Ethnopolitics|volume = 14|issue = 5|pages = 488–497|s2cid = 142202032}}</ref>

=== Self-determination versus territorial integrity ===

[[File:Kosova independence Vienna 17-02-2008 b.jpg|thumb|200px|Celebration of the [[2008 Kosovo declaration of independence|Declaration of Independence]] of [[Kosovo]] in 2008]]
National self-determination appears to challenge the principle of [[territorial integrity]] (or [[sovereignty]]) of states as it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies that people should be free to choose their own state and its territorial boundaries. However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.<ref name="Pavkovic" /> According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/pdf/unrep1.pdf |title=Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and their implications for international peace, security and development. The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, Security Council, Sixty-third year/ General Assembly, Sixty-third session, Agenda items 13 and 18, A/63/664 – S/2008/823, 29 December 2008 |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120120717/http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/pdf/unrep1.pdf |archive-date=January 20, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol101/vyver.pdf |author=Johan D. van der Vyver |title=Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec Under International Law |journal=Journal of Transnational Law & Policy |volume=10 |issue=1–38 |date=Fall 2000 |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206211910/http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol101/vyver.pdf |archive-date=2012-02-06 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://cria-online.org/1_2.html |author=M. Mammadov |title=Legal Aspects of the Nagorno-Garabagh Conflict |journal=Caucasian Review of International Affairs |volume=1 |issue=1 |date=Winter 2006 |pages=14–30 |via=cria-online.org |access-date=2012-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402120053/http://cria-online.org/1_2.html |archive-date=2012-04-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ucss.ge/lecture%203%20-%20TI%20and%20NSD41.doc |author=S. Neil MacFarlane |title=Normative Conflict – Territorial Integrity and National Self-Determination |publisher=Centre for Social Sciences |date=December 14, 2010 |access-date=2012-03-04 |archive-date=2016-04-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428013355/http://ucss.ge/lecture |url-status=dead }}</ref>

[[File:2014-05-11. Референдум в Донецке 011.jpg|thumb|[[2014 Donetsk and Luhansk status referendums|Donetsk status referendum]] organized by separatists in [[Ukraine]]. A line to enter a polling place, 11 May 2014]]

[[Allen Buchanan]], author of seven books on self-determination and secession, supports territorial integrity as a moral and legal aspect of constitutional democracy. However, he also advances a "Remedial Rights Only Theory" where a group has "a general right to secede if and only if it has suffered certain injustices, for which secession is the appropriate remedy of last resort." He also would recognize secession if the state grants, or the constitution includes, a right to secede.<ref name="Gudeleviciute" />

Vita Gudeleviciute holds that in cases of non-self-governing peoples and foreign military occupation the principle of self-determination trumps that of territorial integrity. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, they also may be considered a separate people, but under current law cannot claim the right to self-determination. On the other hand, she finds that secession within a single state is a domestic matter not covered by international law. Thus, there are no on what groups may constitute a seceding people.<ref name="Gudeleviciute" />

[[File:Hong Kong IMG 20190616 171444 (48073669892).jpg|thumb|During the [[2019–2020 Hong Kong protests|2019–20 Hong Kong protests]], calls rose for self-determination by [[Hongkongers]].]]
A number of states have laid claim to territories, which they allege were removed from them as a result of colonialism.  This is justified by reference to Paragraph 6 of UN Resolution 1514(XV), which states that any attempt "aimed at 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".  This, it is claimed, applies to situations where the territorial integrity of a state had been disrupted by colonisation, so that the people of a territory subject to a historic territorial claim are prevented from exercising a right to self-determination.  This interpretation is rejected by many states, who argue that Paragraph 2 of UN Resolution 1514(XV) states that "all peoples have the right to self-determination" and Paragraph 6 cannot be used to justify territorial claims.  The original purpose of Paragraph 6 was "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions".  Further, the use of the word ''attempt'' in Paragraph 6 denotes future action and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past action.<ref name="Musgrave2000">{{cite book|author=Thomas D. Musgrave|title=Self-Determination and National Minorities|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BJg6T7SqJ1gC|access-date=5 March 2012|year=2000|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-829898-4|page=239}}</ref> An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/documents/The%20Challenge%20of%20Sovereignty%20in%20small%20states.pdf |title=The Challenge of Sovereignty in small states |access-date=2012-03-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120430061445/http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/documents/The%20Challenge%20of%20Sovereignty%20in%20small%20states.pdf |archive-date=2012-04-30 }} Falkland Islands Government, Dick Sawle MLA, The Challenge of Sovereignty in small states ''As I mentioned previously, the UN itself, in 2008, rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming self-determination to be "a basic human right."''</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm | title=General Assembly GA/SPD/406 | publisher=UN Department of Public Information | date=20 October 2008 | access-date=March 10, 2012}}</ref>

=== Methods of increasing minority rights ===

In order to accommodate demands for minority rights and avoid secession and the creation of a separate new state, many states [[decentralization|decentralize]] or [[devolution|devolve]] greater decision-making power to new or existing subunits or [[autonomous area]]s.

=== Self-determination versus majority rule/equal rights ===
Self-determination can be at odds with the principle of [[majority rule]] and equal rights, especially when there is a sizable minority group. In democratic societies, majority rule is often used to determine the outcome in electoral and voting processes. However, a major critique of majority rule is that it may result in the [[tyranny of the majority]], especially in cases in which a simple majority is used in order to determine outcome. This flaw is particularly poignant when there is a large minority group whose interests are not being represented, and who may then seek to secede.

The right to self-determination by a minority has long been contested in democracies with majority rule. For instance, in his first inaugural speech [[Abraham Lincoln]] argued that:<blockquote>Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States: from George Washington 1789 to George Bush 1989 |url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp |access-date=2022-10-02 |website=avalon.law.yale.edu}}</ref></blockquote>However, liberal proponents for the right to self-determination by minority groups contradict this notion by arguing that, in cases where the minority is not able to become the majority, and that minority is territorially concentrated and does not want to be governed by the majority, it may serve the best interest of the state to allow the secession of this group.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Beran |first=Harry |date=March 1984 |title=A Liberal Theory of Secession |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb00163.x#:~:text=The%20claim%20is%20made%20that,is%20morally%20and%20practically%20possible. |journal=Political Studies |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=26–27 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb00163.x |s2cid=144826573 |via=Sage Journals|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Constitutional law ===

Most [[sovereign state]]s do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.<ref name="Kreptul">Andrei Kreptul, [https://mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_3.pdf The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History], [[Journal of Libertarian Studies]], [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]], Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39 – 100.</ref>

In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of [[majority rule]] has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States [[Abraham Lincoln]] acknowledged that secession might be possible through [[List of amendments to the United States Constitution|amending]] the [[United States Constitution]]. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in ''[[Texas v. White]]'' held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States."<ref>Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan, [https://books.google.com/books?id=-IjHbPvp1W0C Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession], p. 222, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.</ref><ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html ''Texas v. White''], 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at [[Cornell University Law School]] Supreme Court collection.</ref> The [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|British Parliament]] in 1933 held that [[Western Australia]] only could secede from Australia upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient.<ref name="Pavkovic" />

The [[Communist Party of China|Chinese Communist Party]] followed the Soviet Union in including the right of secession in its 1931 constitution in order to entice ethnic nationalities and Tibet into joining. However, the Party eliminated the right to secession in later years and had anti-secession clause written into the Constitution before and after the founding the People's Republic of China. The 1947 Constitution of the [[Burma|Union of Burma]] contained an express state right to secede from the union under a number of procedural conditions. It was eliminated in the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (officially the "Union of Myanmar"). Burma still allows "local autonomy under central leadership".<ref name="Kreptul" />

As of 1996 the [[Constitution of Austria|constitutions of Austria]], [[Constitutions of Ethiopia|Ethiopia]], [[Constitution of France|France]], and [[Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis|Saint Kitts and Nevis]] have express or implied rights to secession. Switzerland allows for the secession from current and the creation of new [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantons]]. In the case of proposed [[Quebec]] separation from Canada the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in 1998 ruled that only both a clear majority of the province and a [[constitutional amendment]] confirmed by all participants in the Canadian federation could allow secession.<ref name="Kreptul" />

The 2003 draft of the [[Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe|European Union Constitution]] allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the State which wanted to leave could not be involved in the vote deciding whether or not they can leave the Union.<ref name="Kreptul" /> There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities<ref>Xenophon Contiades, [http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/AUD/s6.htm Sixth Scholarly Panel: Cultural Identity in the New Europe], 1st Global Conference on Federalism and the Union of European Democracies, March 2004. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105214649/http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/AUD/s6.htm |date=January 5, 2009 }}</ref> before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.

As a result of the successful [[2003 Liechtenstein constitutional referendum|constitutional referendum]] held in 2003, every municipality in the [[Liechtenstein|Principality of Liechtenstein]] has the right to secede from the Principality by a vote of a majority of the citizens residing in this municipality.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/monarchy/the-reform-of-the-constitution-in-2003/|title=The Reform of the Constitution in 2003|website=fuerstenhaus.li|access-date=2017-01-02|archive-date=2017-01-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102172008/https://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/monarchy/the-reform-of-the-constitution-in-2003/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Drawing new borders ===
{{See also|Partition (politics)}}In determining international borders between sovereign states, self-determination has yielded to a number of other principles.<ref name="Anstis">Sebastian Anstis, [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592296.2010.482477 The Normative Bases of the Global Territorial Order], [[International relations|Diplomacy and Statecraft]], Volume 21, no. 2 (June 2010), pp. 306 – 323.</ref> Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloody [[Yugoslav Wars]] in the 1990s were related mostly to border issues because the international community applied a version of [[uti possidetis juris]] in transforming the existing internal borders of the various Yugoslav republics into international borders, despite the conflicts of ethnic groups within those boundaries. In the 1990s indigenous populations of the northern two-thirds of Quebec province opposed being incorporated into a Quebec nation and stated a determination to resist it by force.<ref name="Pavkovic" />

The border between [[Northern Ireland]] and the [[Irish Free State]] was based on the borders of existing counties and did not include all of historic [[Ulster]].  A [[Irish Boundary Commission|Boundary Commission]] was established to consider re-drawing it. Its proposals, which amounted to a small net transfer to the Free State, were leaked to the press and then not acted upon. In December 1925, the governments of the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom agreed to accept the existing border.

== Notable cases ==
{{POV section|date=July 2021}}
{{See also|List of historical separatist movements|Decolonization#Independence_movements|l2=Lists of decolonized nations|Lists of active separatist movements}}

=== Artsakh ===
{{Main|Republic of Artsakh}}

[[File:Artsakh Movement, February 13, 1988.jpg|thumb|The first major demonstration in [[Stepanakert]] on February 13, 1988. Traditionally considered the start of the [[Artsakh movement]].]]

The [[Republic of Artsakh]] (also known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), in the [[Caucasus]] region, declared its independence in a [[1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum|1991 referendum]], which had an approval of 99% of voters; however, the breakaway state remained unrecognized by UN states and was disbanded on January 1, 2024, after Azerbaijan's [[2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh|military offensive]] and the [[Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians|evacuation of 99% of the population]]. It was a member of the [[Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations]] along with three other [[Post-Soviet]] disputed republics.

=== Assyria ===
{{Main|Assyrian independence movement|Assyrian People|Assyria}}

The [[Assyrian independence movement]] is a political movement and nationalist desire of the [[Assyrian people]] to live in their traditional Assyrian homeland under the self-governance of an Assyrian state. The Assyrian territory is currently in parts of [[Syria]], [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]].

=== Australia ===
{{Main|Indigenous Australian self-determination}}

Self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to [[Aboriginal Australians]] and [[Torres Strait Islanders]]. In the 1970s, Aboriginal requested the right to administer their own remote communities as part of the [[homelands movement]], also known as the outstation movement. These grew in number through the 1980s, but funding dried up in the 2000s.

===Azawad===
{{Main|Mali War}}

[[File:Les rebelles touaregs joignent leurs forces dans le nord du Mali (8248043080).jpg|thumb|Tuareg rebels in the short-lived [[proto-state]] of Azawad in 2012]]
The traditional homeland of the [[Tuareg people|Tuareg]] peoples was divided up by the modern borders of [[Mali]], [[Algeria]] and [[Niger]]. Numerous rebellions occurred over the decades, but in 2012 the Tuaregs succeeded in occupying their land and declaring the independence of [[Azawad]]. However, their movement was hijacked by the Islamist terrorist group [[Ansar Dine]].

=== Basque Country ===
{{Main|Basque nationalism}}
[[File:Giza katea 3.jpg|thumb|[[2014 human chain for Basque Country's right to decide]]]]
The Basque Country ({{langx|eu|Euskal Herria}}, {{langx|es|País Vasco}}, {{langx|fr|Pays Basque}}) as a [[cultural region]] (not to be confused with the homonym [[Autonomous Community]] of the [[Basque Country (autonomous community)|Basque country]]) is a European region in the western [[Pyrenees]] that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and [[Navarre]] in Spain and the [[Northern Basque Country]] in France.
Since the 19th century, [[Basque nationalism]] has demanded the right of some kind of self-determination.{{citation needed|date=January 2008}} This desire for independence is particularly stressed among [[left-wing politics|leftist]] Basque nationalists. The right of self-determination was asserted by the [[Basque Parliament]] in 1990, 2002 and 2006.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24/noticia/en/politics/pp-and-pse-voted-against-basque-parliament-adopts-resolution-on-s?itemId=B24_18787&cl=%2Feitb24%2Fpolitica&idioma=en |title=EITB: ''Basque parliament adopts resolution on self-determination'' |publisher=Eitb24.com |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>
Since{{Citation needed|date=January 2008}} self-determination is not recognized in the [[Spanish Constitution of 1978]], some Basques abstained and some voted against it in the referendum of December 6 of that year. It was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74.6% of the votes in the Basque Country.<ref>[http://www9.euskadi.net/q93TodoWar/q93Desplegar.jsp] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407091254/http://www9.euskadi.net/q93TodoWar/q93Desplegar.jsp|date=April 7, 2010}}</ref> However, the overall turnout in the Basque Country was 45% when the Spanish overall turnover was 67.9%. The derived autonomous regime for the BAC was approved by Spanish Parliament and also by the Basque citizens in referendum. The autonomous statute of Navarre (''Amejoramiento del Fuero'': "improvement of the charter") was approved by the Spanish Parliament and, like the statutes of 13 out of 17 Spanish autonomous communities, it did not need a referendum to enter into force.<!-- There are not many sources on the issue for the French Basque country. -->

''[[Euskadi Ta Askatasuna]]'' or ETA ({{langx|en|Basque Homeland and Freedom}}; pronounced {{IPA|eu|ˈeta|}}), was an armed Basque nationalist, [[separatist]] and [[terrorist]] organization that killed more than 800 people.<!-- Do not add "terrorist" here, that is covered in the very next paragraph --> <!-- I've added "terrorist" here, because there is not a "very next paragraph" --> Founded in 1959, it evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to a [[paramilitary]] group with the goal of [[Basque independence]]. Its ideology was [[Marxist–Leninist]].<ref>[http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv4.htm ¿QUÉ ES EL MLNV? ( y 4)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190115214359/http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv4.htm |date=2019-01-15 }} "What is the MNLV (4)"</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv3.htm |title=What is the MNLV (3) |language=es |publisher=Goizargi.com |date=2002-01-27 |access-date=2012-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201128/http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv3.htm |archive-date=2016-03-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Biafra ===
{{main|Biafra}}

[[File:Starved girl.jpg|thumb|upright|A girl during the [[Nigerian Civil War]] of the late 1960s. Pictures of the famine caused by Nigerian blockade garnered sympathy for the Biafrans worldwide.]]
The [[Nigerian Civil War]] was fought between Biafran secessionists of the [[Biafra|Republic of Biafra]] and the [[Federal government of Nigeria|Nigerian central government]]. From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law.<ref name="BBCprofile">{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13949550 | title=Nigeria profile | work=BBC Africa | date=May 1, 2012 | access-date=May 19, 2012}}</ref>

=== Catalonia ===
{{Main|Catalonia|Catalan Countries|Catalan independence movement|Catalan declaration of independence}}

After the [[2012 Catalan march for independence]], in which between 600,000 and 1.5 million citizens marched,<ref>{{cite web|title=Catalunya clama por la independencia|url=http://www.elperiodico.com/es/diada-2012/20120911/manifestacion-diada-en-barcelona-2202293|website=ElPeriodico|date=11 September 2012|publisher=El Periodico|access-date=20 October 2017}}</ref> the [[President of the Generalitat of Catalonia|President of Catalonia]], [[Artur Mas]], called for new [[2012 Catalonian parliamentary election|parliamentary elections on 25 November 2012]] to elect a new [[Parliament of Catalonia|parliament]] that would exercise the right of self-determination for Catalonia, a right not recognised under the [[Cortes Generales|Spanish Cortes Generales]]. The [[Parliament of Catalonia]] voted to hold a vote in the next four-year legislature on the question of self-determination. The parliamentary decision was approved by a large majority of MPs: 84 voted for, 21 voted against, and 25 abstained.<ref>{{cite web|title=Two thirds of the Catalan Parliament approve organising a self-determination citizen vote within the next 4 years |url=http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/two-thirds-catalan-parliament-approve-organising-self-determination-citizen-vote-withi |publisher=Catalan News Agency |date=28 September 2013 |access-date=29 September 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121001020028/http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/two-thirds-catalan-parliament-approve-organising-self-determination-citizen-vote-withi |archive-date=October 1, 2012 }}</ref> The Catalan Parliament applied to the Spanish Parliament for the power to call a referendum to be devolved, but this was turned down. In December 2013 the President of the Generalitat Artur Mas and the governing coalition agreed to set the referendum for self-determination on 9 November 2014, and legislation specifically saying that the consultation would not be a "referendum" was enacted, only to be blocked by the [[Constitutional Court of Spain|Spanish Constitutional Court]], at the request of the Spanish government. Given the block, the Government turned it into a simple "consultation to the people" instead.

The question in the consultation was "Do you want Catalonia to be a State?" and, if the answer to this question was yes, "Do you want this State to be an independent State?". However, as the consultation was not a formal referendum, these (printed) answers were just suggestions and other answers were also accepted and catalogued as "other answers" instead as null votes. The turnout in this consultation was about 2·3m people out of 6·2m people that were called to vote (this figure does not coincide with the census figure of 5·3m for two main reasons: first, because organisers had no access to an official census due to the non-binding character of the consultation, and second, because the legal voting age was set to 16 rather than 18). Due to the lack of an official census, potential voters were assigned to electoral tables according to home address and first family name. Participants had to sign up first with their full name and national ID in a voter registry before casting their ballot, which prevented participants from potentially casting multiple ballots. The overall result was 80·76% in favor of both questions, 11% in favor of the first question but not of the second questions, 4·54% against both; the rest were classified as "other answers". The voter turnout was around 37% (most people against the consultation did not go to vote). Four top members of Catalonia's political leadership were barred from public office for having defied the Constitutional court's last-minute ban.

[[File:Un any de l'1-O DC89725 (44160742095).jpg|thumb|Protest in [[Barcelona]] on 1 October 2018]]
Almost three years later (1 October 2017), the Catalan government called a [[2017 Catalan independence referendum|referendum for independence]] under legislation adopted in September 2017, despite this legislation had been suspended by the Constitutional Court for "violating fundamental rights of citizens",<ref>{{Cite web|last=López-Fonseca|first=El País, Rebeca Carranco, Óscar|date=2017-10-17|title=Spain's Constitutional Court strikes down Catalan referendum law|url=https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/17/inenglish/1508250970_489373.html|access-date=2021-04-05|website=EL PAÍS|language=en}}</ref> with the question "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a Republic?". On polling day, the Catalan regional police, which had been accused in the past of [[police brutality]] and impunity during the 15-M protests,<ref>{{Cite web|title=How police brutality helped Spain's 15-M protests {{!}} Iberosphere {{!}} News, comment and analysis on Spain, Portugal and beyond|date=2 June 2011 |url=https://iberosphere.com/2011/06/spain-news-how-police-brutality-helped-spain%e2%80%99s-15-m-protests/2978|access-date=2021-04-05|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-10-03|title=Los Mossos, un historial de abusos e impunidad|url=https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-historial-abusos-impunidad-201710030349_noticia.html|access-date=2021-04-05|website=abc|language=es}}</ref> prevented voting in over 500 polling stations without incidents. In some voting stations, the Catalan regional police did not intervene,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Carranco|first=Rebeca|date=2018-09-30|title=El 1 de octubre: el día del divorcio policial|language=es|work=El País|url=https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/28/catalunya/1538157382_335488.html|access-date=2021-04-05|issn=1134-6582}}</ref> while in other stations they directly confronted the Spanish CNP (National Police Corps) to allow voters to participate.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2017-10-01|title=Vídeo: Encontronazos entre cuerpos de seguridad en el exterior de los colegios electorales|language=es|work=El País|url=https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/01/videos/1506865282_972654.html|access-date=2021-04-05|issn=1134-6582}}</ref> The CNP confiscated ballot boxes and closed down 92,<ref>{{cite web|title=Els Mossos van tancar 600 col·legis electorals; la policia espanyola i la Guàrdia Civil, 92 |url=https://www.rac1.cat/info-rac1/20171005/431811387579/els-mossos-van-tancar-600-collegis-electorals-la-policia-espanyola-i-la-guardia-civil-92.html |publisher=RAC1 |date=6 October 2017 |access-date=22 May 2018 }}</ref> voting centres with violent truncheon charges. The opposition parties had called for non-participation. The turnout (according to the votes that were counted) was 2.3m out of 5.3m (43.03% of the census), and 90.18% of the ballots were in favour of independence.<ref>{{cite web |title=El Govern trasllada els resultats definitius del referèndum de l'1 d'octubre al Parlament de Catalunya |url=http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/303541/ca/govern-trasllada-resultats-definitius-referendum-l1-doctubre-parlament-catalunya.do |publisher=Catalan News Agency |date=6 October 2017 |access-date=22 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523011210/http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/303541/ca/govern-trasllada-resultats-definitius-referendum-l1-doctubre-parlament-catalunya.do |archive-date=23 May 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref>  The turnout, ballot count and results were similar to those of the 2014 "consultation".

=== Chechnya ===
{{main|Chechen Republic of Ichkeria}}
<!-- [[WP:NFCC]] violation: [[File:Chechnya9268.jpg|thumb|[[Russian Armed Forces|Russian Military]] launch offensive towards a Chechen village during the [[War of Dagestan|Chechen War]].]] -->
Under [[Dzhokhar Dudayev]], [[Chechnya]] declared independence as the [[Chechen Republic of Ichkeria]], using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of [[Chechens]], and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: the [[Akhmed Zakayev]]-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States), and the Islamic [[Caucasus Emirate]].

===East Turkistan===
{{main|East Turkestan independence movement}}
[[File:Hokumet ilani.jpeg|thumb|[[East Turkistan Government-in-Exile|ETGE]] members at [[Capitol Hill]] on 14 September 2004]]
On November 12, 1933, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Uzbeks declared independence, establishing the [[First East Turkestan Republic]], and again on November 12, 1944, forming the [[Second East Turkestan Republic]]. Their primary motivations included self-determination, a history of Chinese colonization and oppression in East Turkistan, and a legacy of independence prior to the invasion by China (the Manchu [[Qing Dynasty]]). The [[People's Republic of China]] assumed control over East Turkistan in late 1949. However, the Turkic peoples of East Turkistan, predominantly [[Uyghurs]] and Kazakhs, have persistently fought for their independence. There is a robust movement advocating East Turkistani sovereignty, challenging the Chinese occupation since 1949. The [[East Turkistan Government in Exile]] is at the forefront of the [[East Turkistan Independence Movement]].

===Eastern Ukraine===
{{main|War in Donbas (2014–2022)}}
[[File:2015-04-24. День солидарности молодёжи в Донецке 556 .jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|Pro-Russian separatists in [[Donetsk]], April 2015]]
There is an active secessionist movement based on the self-determination of the residents of the eastern part of [[Donetsk Oblast|Donetsk]] and the south-eastern part of the [[Luhansk Oblast|Luhansk]] regions of eastern [[Ukraine]]. However, many in the international community assert that [[2014 Donbass status referendums|referendums held there in 2014]] regarding independence from Ukraine were illegitimate and undemocratic.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Canada Rejects Illegitimate Referendums in Eastern Ukraine|url = http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/05/11b.aspx?lang=eng|access-date = 2015-10-09|first = Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada|last = Government of Canada|date = 11 May 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=EU@UN - EU Council conclusions on Ukraine |url=http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15004_en.htm |website=eu-un.europa.eu |access-date=2015-10-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016041020/http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15004_en.htm |archive-date=2015-10-16 }}</ref> Similarly, there are reports that [[2014 Ukrainian presidential election|presidential elections in May 2014]] were prevented from taking place in the two regions after armed gunmen took control of polling stations, kidnapped election officials, and stole lists of electors, thus denying the population the chance to express their will in a free, fair, and internationally recognised election.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Trepidation, intimidation in eastern Ukraine as Sunday's election nears|url = http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/23/intimidation-easternukrainevote.html|website = america.aljazeera.com|access-date = 2015-10-09}}</ref> There are also arguments that the de facto separation of [[Eastern Ukraine]] from the rest of the country is not an expression of self-determination, but rather, motivated by revival of [[Neo-Sovietism|pro-Soviet sentiment]] and an invasion by neighbouring [[Russia]], with Ukrainian President [[Petro Poroshenko]] claiming in 2015 that up to 9,000 [[Russian Ground Forces|Russian soldiers]] were deployed in Ukraine.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Ukraine's Poroshenko warns of 'full-scale' Russia invasion |work = BBC News|date = 4 June 2015|url = https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33003237|access-date = 2015-10-09}}</ref> Related, Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]] defended [[Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|the annexation of Crimea]] by citing self-determination of the Crimean people.

=== Ethiopia ===
{{Main|Government of Ethiopia}}

The [[Ethiopia|Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia]] is run as a federation of semi-self-governing [[nation state]]s. The [[1995 Constitution of Ethiopia|Constitution of Ethiopia]] firmly mentions the self-determining nature of its states. The actual implementation of its states self-governance is debate-able.

=== Falkland Islands ===
{{Main|Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute}} 
Self-determination is referred to in the [[Falkland Islands Constitution]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2846/contents/made |title=The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 |publisher=Legislation.gov.uk |date=2011-07-04 |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> and is a factor in the [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute]]. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 190 years.<ref name="Bulmer-Thomas1989">{{cite book |author=Victor Bulmer-Thomas|title=Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kfk0AWSaHjoC&pg=PA3 |access-date=11 September 2012|date=17 August 1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-37205-3 |page=3}}</ref>  In the [[2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum|2013 referendum]], organised by the [[Falkland Islands Government]], 99.8% voted to remain British.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/12/overwhelming-turnout-and-yes-vote-in-the-falklands-referendum |title=Overwhelming turnout and YES vote in the Falklands referendum |newspaper=Mercopress |publisher=En.mercopress.com |access-date=2015-01-30}}</ref> As administering power, the [[Government of the United Kingdom|British Government]] deemed that transfer of sovereignty to [[Argentina]] would be counter to the Falkland Islander right to self-determination, since the majority of Falkland Island inhabitants wished to remain British.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/15/self-determination-and-self-sufficiency-falklands-message-to-the-world-on-liberation-day |title="Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day |publisher=En.mercopress.com |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

[[File:Arte por la Paz en el Museo Malvinas (16395806573).jpg|thumb|''Malvinas and South Atlantic Islands Museum'' in Buenos Aires, 2015]]
Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable to the islands since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', compelling the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the islands.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/gacol3047.doc.htm|title=FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS), GIBRALTAR, AMERICAN SAMOA DISCUSSED IN CARIBBEAN REGIONAL SEMINAR ON DECOLONIZATION |publisher=[[United Nations]]}}</ref> This refers to the [[Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)|re-establishment of British rule]] in the year 1833<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html |title=DIMAS |access-date=2008-10-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110531174231/http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html |archive-date=2011-05-31 }} Argentina's Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands</ref> during which Argentina claims the existing population living in the islands was expelled.  Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity [[#Self-determination versus territorial integrity|should have precedence]] over self-determination.<ref name="López1995">{{cite book |author=Angel M. Oliveri López |title=Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-u1ygYbRBHgC&pg=PA38|year=1995|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|isbn=978-1-55587-521-3 |page=38}}</ref> Historical records dispute Argentina's claims and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained at [[Port Louis, Falkland Islands|Port Louis]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Lowell S. Gustafson|title=The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC |access-date=18 September 2012|date=7 April 1988 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-504184-2|page=26|quote=''Sarandi'' sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave.  The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis....Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Julius Goebel |title=The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FM8ZAAAAYAAJ |access-date=18 September 2012|orig-year=1927|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press |page=456|isbn=9780300029437|quote=On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Mary Cawkell|title=The Falkland story, 1592–1982 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wg8aAAAAYAAJ|access-date=18 September 2012|year=1983|publisher=A. Nelson|isbn=978-0-904614-08-4 |page=30|quote=Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced.  This is incorrect.  Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go.  The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.}}</ref><ref>J. Metford; Falklands or Malvinas? The background to the dispute. International Affairs, Vol 44 (1968), pp. 463–481. "Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed an interim commandant to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, the Government's reserve on East Falkland. The British representative immediately lodged a protest..."</ref> and there was no attempt to settle the islands until 1841.<ref name="Harper1998">{{cite book |author=Marjory Harper |title=Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4x2UdzPB4cC&pg=PA91 |year=1998 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-0-7190-4927-9|page=91}}</ref>

=== Gibraltar ===
{{Main|Status of Gibraltar}}

[[File:Gibraltar National Day 027 (9719742224) (2).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Gibraltar National Day, September 2013]]

The right to self-determination is referred to in the pre-amble of Chapter 1 of the [[Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006|Gibraltar constitution]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/constitution/Gibraltar_Constitution_Order_2006.pdf |title=The Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 |publisher=Gibraltarlaws.gov.gi |date=2006-12-14 |access-date=2013-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121115055815/http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/constitution/Gibraltar_Constitution_Order_2006.pdf |archive-date=2012-11-15 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and, since the United Kingdom also gave assurances that the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians would be respected in any transfer of sovereignty over the territory, is a factor in the dispute with Spain over the territory.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril/docs/9-1/Leathley.pdf |title=Gibraltar's Quest for Self-Determination: A Critique of Gibraltar's New Constitution |publisher=OREGON REVIEW OF INT’L LAW [Vol. 9, 2007] |year=2007 |access-date=2013-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130117100124/http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril//docs/9-1/Leathley.pdf |archive-date=2013-01-17 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The impact of the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians was seen in the [[2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum]], where Gibraltarian voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to share sovereignty over Gibraltar between the UK and Spain. However, the UK government differs with the Gibraltarian government in that it considers Gibraltarian self-determination to be limited by the [[Treaty of Utrecht]], which prevents Gibraltar achieving independence without the agreement of Spain, a position that the Gibraltarian government does not accept.<ref>[http://www.gbc.gi/upload/pdf/NewGibraltarConstitution.pdf Despatch. Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131107060915/http://gbc.gi/upload/pdf/NewGibraltarConstitution.pdf |date=2013-11-07 }}, section 5</ref><ref name="Fordham">{{Cite journal |last=Lincoln |first=Simon J.  |date=1994 |title=The Legal Status of Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway? |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144226179.pdf |journal=Fordham International Law Journal |volume=18 |issue=1 |page=322}}</ref>

The Spanish government denies that Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination, considering them to be "an artificial population without any genuine autonomy" and not "indigenous".<ref name="Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal">{{cite book|author=Antonio Cassese|title=Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&q=Gibraltar+self-determination&pg=PA206|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn= 9780521637527|page=209}}</ref> However, the [[Partido Andalucista]] has agreed to recognise the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=30023 |title=Andalusian nationalists say 'yes' to Gibraltar's self-determination |publisher=Gibraltar Chronicle |date=11 July 2013 |access-date=11 July 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413144944/http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=30023 |archive-date=13 April 2014 }}</ref>

===Greenland===
{{Main|Greenlandic independence}}

=== Hong Kong ===
{{Main|Hong Kong independence}}
Before the United Nations's adoption of resolution 2908 (XXVII) on 2 November 1972, The People's Republic of China vetoed the former British colony of Hong Kong's right to self-determination on 8 March 1972. This sparked several nations' protest along with Great Britain's declaration on 14 December that the decision is invalid. 
Decades later,{{When|date=August 2019}} an independence movement, dubbed as the Hong Kong independence movement emerged in the now Communist Chinese controlled territory. It advocates the autonomous region to become a fully independent sovereign state.

The city is considered a [[Special administrative regions of China|special administrative region]]&nbsp;(SAR) which, according to the PRC, enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the People's Republic of China (PRC), guaranteed under Article 2 of [[Hong Kong Basic Law]]<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-1|[1]]]</sup> (which is ratified under the [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]]), since the [[handover of Hong Kong]] from the United Kingdom to the PRC in 1997. Since the handover, many Hongkongers are increasingly concerned about Beijing's growing encroachment on the territory's freedoms and the failure of the Hong Kong government to deliver 'true' democracy.<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-rally-2|[2]]]</sup>
[[File:Hong Kong Flag 6048.JPG|thumb|upright=1.05|Pro-independence [[Flag of Hong Kong|Hong Kong flag]] put up before a football match between the [[Hong Kong national football team|Hong Kong Football Team]] and the [[China national football team]]]]
The [[2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform]] package deeply divided the city, as it allowed Hongkongers to have universal suffrage, but Beijing would have authority to screen the candidates to restrict the electoral method for the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong]]&nbsp;(CE), the highest-ranking official of the territory. This sparked the 79-day massive peaceful protests which was dubbed as the "[[Umbrella Revolution]]" and the pro-independence movement emerged on the Hong Kong political scene.<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-rally-2|[2]]]</sup>

Since then, [[Localism in Hong Kong|localism]] has gained momentum, particularly after the failure of the peaceful [[Umbrella Movement]]. Young localist leaders have led numerous protest actions against pro-Chinese policies to raise awareness of social problems of Hong Kong under Chinese rule. These include the sit-in protest against the [[Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014|Bill to Strengthen Internet Censorship]], demonstrations against [[University of Hong Kong pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy|Chinese political interference in the University of Hong Kong]], the [[2015 Yuen Long protest|Recover Yuen Long]] protests and the [[2016 Mong Kok civil unrest]]. According to a survey conducted by the [[Chinese University of Hong Kong]] (CUHK) in July 2016, 17.4% of respondents supported the city becoming an independent entity after 2047, while 3.6% stated that it is "possible".<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-3|[3]]]</sup>

=== Indigenous peoples ===
[[File:Indigenous march right to self-determination.jpg|thumb|262x262px|[[Lumad]]s in [[Davao City]] marching for the right to self-determination as part of the [[human rights in Philippines]] in 2008]]
[[Indigenous peoples]] have claimed through the 2007 [[Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]] the term peoples, and gaining with it the right to self-determination. Though it was also established that it is merely a right within existing [[sovereign state]]s, after all peoples also need territory and a central government to reach [[sovereignty]] in international politics.<ref>See the following:
* {{Cite book|title=International law|url=https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380|url-access=limited|first1=Malcolm Nathan|last1=Shaw|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=[https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380/page/n320 178]|quote=Article 1 of the [[Montevideo Convention]] on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'}}
* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on international law|editor1-first=Nandasiri|editor1-last=Jasentuliyana|publisher=Kluwer Law International|year=1995|page=20|quote=So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.}}</ref>

=== Israel ===
{{Main|Zionism|Israel|4 = Jewish history}}
[[File:Declaration of State of Israel 1948.jpg|thumb|[[David Ben-Gurion]] [[Israeli Declaration of Independence|proclaiming Israel's independence]] beneath a large portrait of Theodor Herzl]]
[[Zionism]] is a nationalist ideology founded by [[Theodor Herzl]] which claims a right of historic entitlement by descent as a nation, to exercise self-determination for [[Jewish diaspora|all Jewish people]] in the region of [[Palestine (region)|Palestine]]/[[ancient Israel]]/[[land of Israel]].<ref>Chaim Gans, [''A Political Theory for the Jewish People,''] [[Oxford University Press]] 2016 {{isbn|978-0-190-23754-7}} pp.1-18</ref> The successful implementation of this vision led to the establishment of the [[Israel|State of Israel]] in 1948.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Claeys |first=Gregory |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452234168 |title=Encyclopedia of Modern Political Thought |date=2013 |publisher=SAGE Publications, Ltd. |isbn=978-0-87289-910-0 |location=Thousand Oaks, California |doi=10.4135/9781452234168 |hdl=10138/156263}}</ref>

=== Kashmir ===
{{Main|Kashmir conflict}}

The [[Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir|insurgency in Kashmir]] against Indian rule has existed in various forms. A widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir against India rule in 1989 after allegations of rigging by the Indian government in the [[1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election|1987 Jammu and Kashmir state election]]. This led to some parties in the state assembly forming militant wings, which acted as a catalyst for the emergence of armed insurgency in the region. The conflict over Kashmir has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
[[File:Indian soldiers, Kashmir (8138898130).jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|Indian soldiers on the streets of Kashmir during the [[Kashmir conflict|2016 unrests]]]]
The [[Inter-Services Intelligence]] of [[Pakistan]] has been accused by India of supporting and training both pro-Pakistan and pro-independence militants to fight Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, a charge that Pakistan denies. According to official figures released in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly, there were 3,400 disappearance cases and the conflict has left more than 47,000 to 100,000 people dead as of July 2009. However, violence in the state had fallen sharply after the start of a slow-moving peace process between India and Pakistan. After the peace process failed in 2008, mass demonstrations against Indian rule, and low-scale militancy emerged again.

However, despite boycott calls by separatist leaders in 2014, the [[2014 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election|Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections]] saw highest voters turnout in last 25 years since insurgency erupted. As per the Indian government, it recorded more than 65% of voters turnout which was more than usual voters turnout in other state assembly elections of India. It considered as increase in faith of Kashmiri people in democratic process of India. However, activists say that the voter turnout is highly exaggerated and that elections are held under duress. Votes are cast because the people want stable governance of the state and this cannot be mistaken as an endorsement of Indian rule.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/707|title=A Way Out for Kashmir? - Solidarity|date=30 November 2001|access-date=8 March 2016|archive-date=5 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160805031422/https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/707|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kashmiri.com/newsletters/archive/view/listid-1-mailinglist/mailid-67-joomlacontent44typetitlelink/tmpl-component|title=January 5th – Remembrance of Self-determination in Kashmir|access-date=2016-03-08|archive-date=2016-03-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160308171858/http://www.kashmiri.com/newsletters/archive/view/listid-1-mailinglist/mailid-67-joomlacontent44typetitlelink/tmpl-component|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Kurdistan ===
{{unreferenced section|date=August 2020}}
[[File:YPJ fighters Raqqa (February 2017).jpg|thumb|upright=0.95|Kurdish [[People's Defense Units|YPG]]'s female fighters during the [[Syrian Civil War|Syrian War]]]]
{{Main|Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)|Iraqi–Kurdish conflict|Kurdish separatism in Iran|Rojava conflict}}
[[File:Pre-referendum, pro-Kurdistan, pro-independence rally in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq 25.jpg|thumb|Pro-independence rally in [[Erbil]], [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] in September 2017]]

[[Kurdistan]] is a historical region primarily inhabited by the [[Kurdish people]] of the Middle East. The territory is currently part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. There are Kurdish self-determination movements in each of the four states. [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] has to date achieved the largest degree of self-determination through the formation of the [[Kurdistan Regional Government]], an entity recognised by the [[Constitution of Iraq|Iraqi Federal Constitution]].

Although the right of the creation of a Kurdish state was recognized following World War I in the [[Treaty of Sèvres]], the treaty was then annulled by the [[Treaty of Lausanne (1923)]]. To date two separate Kurdish republics and one Kurdish Kingdom have declared sovereignty. The [[Republic of Ararat]] ([[Ağrı Province]], Turkey), the [[Republic of Mehabad]] ([[West Azerbaijan Province]], Iran) and the [[Kingdom of Kurdistan]] ([[Sulaymaniyah Governorate]], [[Iraqi Kurdistan]], Iraq), each of these fledgling states was crushed by military intervention. The [[Patriotic Union of Kurdistan]] which currently holds the [[President of Iraq|Iraqi presidency]] and the [[Kurdistan Democratic Party]] which governs the [[Kurdistan Regional Government]] both explicitly commit themselves to the development of Kurdish self-determination, but opinions vary as to the question of self-determination sought within the current borders and countries.

Efforts towards Kurdish self-determination are considered illegal separatism by the governments of Turkey and Iran, and the movement is politically repressed in both states. This is intertwined with Kurdish nationalist insurgencies [[Kurdish separatism in Iran|in Iran]] and [[Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)|in Turkey]], which in turn justify and are justified by the repression of peaceful advocacy. In Syria, a self-governing [[Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria|local Kurdish-dominated polity]] was established in 2012, amongst the upheaval of the [[Syrian Civil War]], but has not been recognized by any foreign state.

=== Nagalim ===
{{Main|Naga nationalism}}

[[Naga people|Naga]] refers to a vaguely defined conglomeration of distinct tribes living on the border of India and Burma. Each of these tribes lived in a sovereign village before the arrival of the [[British India|British]] but developed a common identity as the area was Christianized. After the British left India, a section of Nagas under the leadership of [[Angami Zapu Phizo]] sought to establish a separate country for the Nagas. Phizo's group, the [[Naga National Council]] (NNC), claimed that 99. 9% of the Nagas wanted an independent Naga country according to a referendum conducted by it. It waged a secessionist insurgency against the Government of India. The NNC collapsed after Phizo got his dissenters killed or forced them to seek refuge with the Government.<ref name="SK_Chaube_Naga_Politics">{{cite book | last = Chaube | first = Shibani Kinkar | title = Hill politics in Northeast India | publisher = Orient Longman | orig-year = 1973 | year = 1999 | oclc = 42913576 | isbn = 81-250-1695-3 | pages = 153–161 }}</ref><ref name="Ranabir_Samaddar">{{cite book | last = Samaddar | first = Ranabir | title = The Politics of Dialogue: Living Under the Geopolitical Histories of War and Peace | publisher = Ashgate | year = 2004 | oclc = 56466278 | isbn = 978-0-7546-3607-6 | pages = 171–173 }}</ref> Phizo escaped to London, while NNC's successor secessionist groups continued to stage violent attacks against the Indian Government. The Naga People's Convention (NPC), another major Naga organization, was opposed to the secessionists. Its efforts led to the creation of a separate Nagaland state within India in 1963.<ref name="Hamlet2001">{{cite book | author=Hamlet Bareh | title=Encyclopaedia of North-East India: Nagaland | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=b9-Ie-Vp6NoC&pg=PA78 | year=2001 | publisher=Mittal Publications | isbn=978-81-7099-793-1 | pages=78–79}}</ref> The secessionist violence declined considerably after the [[Shillong Accord of 1975]]. However, three factions of the [[National Socialist Council of Nagaland]] (NSCN) continue to seek an independent country which would include parts of India and Burma. They envisage a sovereign, predominantly Christian nation called "Nagalim".<ref>{{cite book | author=Dr. Kunal Ghosh | title=Separatism in North East India: Role of Religion, Language and Script | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_8ylAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT85 | date=1 January 2008 | publisher=Suruchi Prakashan | isbn=978-81-89622-33-6 | page=85}}</ref>

=== North Borneo and Sarawak ===

Another controversial episode with perhaps more relevance was the British beginning their exit from [[British Malaya]]. An experience concerned the findings of a ''United Nations Assessment Team'' that led the British territories of [[Crown Colony of North Borneo|North Borneo]] and [[Crown Colony of Sarawak|Sarawak]] in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the new [[Federation of Malaya|Malaysia Federation]].<ref name="am001">{{cite web|url=http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf |title=United Nations Treaty Series Nr. 10760: Agreement relating to Malaysia |access-date=2010-07-29 |publisher=United Nations |work=United Nations Treaty Collection |date=July 1963 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514204944/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf |archive-date=May 14, 2011 }}</ref> The United Nation Team's mission followed on from an earlier assessment by the British-appointed [[Cobbold Commission]] which had arrived in the territories in 1962 and held hearings to determine public opinion. It also sifted through 1600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations and political parties. Cobbold concluded that around two thirds of the population favoured to the formation of Malaysia while the remaining third wanted either independence or continuing control by the United Kingdom. The United Nations team largely confirmed these findings, which were later accepted by the General Assembly, and both territories subsequently wish to form the new Federation of [[Malaysia]]. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without any [[referendums]] self-determination being held.<ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf |title=United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages: 509-510) |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121100604/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf |archive-date=January 21, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf |title=United Nations General Assembly 18th Session - the Question of Malaysia (pages: 41-44) |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111111232635/http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf |archive-date=November 11, 2011 }}</ref> [[1962 Singaporean national referendum|Unlike in Singapore]], however, no referendum was ever conducted in [[Crown Colony of Sarawak|Sarawak]] and [[Crown Colony of North Borneo|North Borneo]].<ref>[[Jeffrey Kitingan]]: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130310053153/http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/03/08/there-was-no-sabah-referendum/ There was no Sabah referendum], published by [[Free Malaysia Today]], March 8, 2013.</ref> they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there was [[Manila Accord]], an agreement between the Philippines, [[Federation of Malaya]] and Indonesia on 31 July 1963<ref name="Manila Accord">{{cite web|url=http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20550/volume-550-I-8029-English.pdf|title=United Nations Treaty Registered No. 8029, Manila Accord between Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 JULY 1963)|publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-05-29}}{{PD-notice}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20608/volume-608-I-8809-English.pdf|title=United Nations Treaty Series No. 8809, Agreement relating to the implementation of the Manila Accord|publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-05-29}}</ref> to abide by the wishes of the people of [[Crown Colony of North Borneo|North Borneo]] and [[Crown Colony of Sarawak|Sarawak]] within the context of [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)]], Principle 9 of the Annex<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320074502/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf|url-status=dead|title=General Assembly 15th Session – The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages: 509 – 510)|archive-date=March 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029214700/http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf|url-status=dead|title=General Assembly 18th Session – the Question of Malaysia (pages: 41 – 44)|archive-date=October 29, 2013}}</ref> taking into account [[referendum]]s in North Borneo and Sarawak that would be free and without coercion.<ref name="Manila Accord" /> This also triggered the [[Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation|Indonesian confrontation]] because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.<ref name="nonselfgov"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/org1469.doc.htm |title=United Nations Member States |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

=== Northern Cyprus ===
{{Main|Northern Cyprus}}
[[File:Pro-TRNC demonstration in Sarayönü North Nicosia.jpg|thumb|[[Sarayönü Square|Atatürk Square]], North Nicosia in 2006, with the [[Northern Cyprus]] and [[Turkey|Turkish]] flags]]
Cyprus was settled by [[Mycenaean Greece|Mycenaean Greeks]] in two waves in the [[2nd millennium BC]]. As a strategic location in the [[Middle East]], it was subsequently occupied by several major powers, including the empires of the [[Assyria]]ns, [[Ancient Egypt|Egyptians]] and [[Achaemenid Empire|Persians]], from whom the island was seized in 333 BC by [[Alexander the Great]]. Subsequent rule by [[Ptolemaic Kingdom|Ptolemaic Egypt]], the [[Roman Empire|Classical]] and [[Byzantine Empire|Eastern Roman Empire]], [[Caliphate|Arab caliphates]] for a short period and the [[House of Lusignan|French Lusignan dynasty]]. Following the death in 1473 of [[James II of Cyprus|James II]], the last Lusignan king, the [[Republic of Venice]] assumed control of the island, while the late king's Venetian widow, Queen [[Catherine Cornaro]], reigned as figurehead. Venice formally annexed the [[Kingdom of Cyprus]] in 1489, following the abdication of Catherine. The Venetians fortified [[Nicosia]] by building the [[Walls of Nicosia]], and used it as an important commercial hub.

Although the Lusignan French aristocracy remained the dominant social class in Cyprus throughout the medieval period, the former assumption that Greeks were treated only as [[Serfdom|serfs]] on the island is no longer considered by academics to be accurate. It is now accepted that the medieval period saw increasing numbers of [[Greek Cypriots]] elevated to the upper classes, a growing Greek middle ranks, and the Lusignan royal household even marrying Greeks. This included King [[John II of Cyprus]] who married [[Helena Palaiologina]].

Throughout Venetian rule, the [[Ottoman Empire]] frequently raided Cyprus. In 1539 the Ottomans destroyed [[Limassol]] and so fearing the worst, the Venetians also fortified [[Famagusta]] and [[Kyrenia]].

Having invaded in 1570, [[Turkish Cypriots|Turks]] controlled and solely governed all of the Cyprus island from 1571 until its leasing to the [[British Empire]] in 1878. Cyprus was placed under [[British Cyprus|British administration]] based on [[Cyprus Convention]] in 1878 and formally annexed by Britain at the beginning of [[World War I]] in 1914. While Turkish Cypriots made up 18% of the population, the partition of Cyprus and creation of a Turkish state in the north became a policy of Turkish Cypriot leaders and the [[Turkey|Republic of Turkey]] in the 1950s.  Politically, there was no majority/minority relation between [[Greek Cypriots]] and [[Turkish Cypriots]];<ref>[http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0001608.pdf Behice Ozlem Gokakin, MS Thesis, Bilkent Univ., 2001] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170306035518/http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0001608.pdf |date=2017-03-06 }} p.36, Vassiliou (the Council of Europe, 30.01.1990; to the question of Keith Speed (Member of the UK Parliament)): "the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities are political equals."</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2004/1-2004Chapter2.pdf |author1=Nathalie Tocci |author1-link=Nathalie Tocci |author2=Tamara Kovziridze |title=Cyprus |access-date=2017-03-05 |archive-date=2011-03-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110302211747/http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2004/1-2004Chapter2.pdf |url-status=dead }} p.14: In July 1989, UN SG Perez de Cuellar stated "Cyprus is a common home for the Greek and Turkish communities, whose relationship would be not of majority and minority but rather of political equality"</ref> and hence, in 1960, [[Cyprus|Republic of Cyprus]] was founded by the constituent communities in Cyprus (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots)<ref>James R. Crawford, "The Creation of States in International Law", 2007. {{doi| 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228423.001.0001}}</ref> as a non-unitary state; the 1960 Constitution set both [[Turkish language|Turkish]] and [[Greek language|Greek]] as the official languages.<ref>Michael Stephen, 1997, The Cyprus Question. The case of Cyprus is sui generis, for there is no other State in the world which came into being as a result of two politically equal peoples coming together by the exercise by each of its sovereign right of self-determination, to create a unique legal relationship, which was in turn guaranteed by international treaty, to which each of them consented. From its very inception the Republic of Cyprus was never a unitary state in which there is only one electorate with a majority and minority. The two communities were political equals and each existed as a political entity.</ref><ref>[http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/Cristv.Turkey.pdf Saltzman and Evinch and Perles Law Firm] The Republic of Cyprus was founded in 1960 as a bicommunal state in which the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities had the status of co-founders and equal partners.</ref> During 1963–74, the island experienced ethnic clashes and turmoil, following the [[Greek nationalism|Greek nationalists]]' coup to unify the island to Greece, which led to the eventual [[Turkish invasion of Cyprus|Turkish invasion]] in 1974.<ref>Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union, p.&nbsp;12</ref> [[Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus]] was declared in 1983 and recognized only by Turkey.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1021835.stm |title=BBC Timeline: Cyprus, accessed 2-26-2008 |work=BBC News |date=2011-12-13 |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> Monroe Leigh, 1990, The Legal Status in International Law of the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot Communities in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot regimes participating in these negotiations, and the respective communities which they represent, are presently entitled to exercise equal rights under international law, including rights of self-determination.<ref>Prof. Elihu Lauterracht, B.E., Q.C.,1990, The Right of Self-Determination of the Turkish Cypriots. There appears to be nothing on the face of that language taken by itself, to suggest that there is any inequality of status between the parties or that either of them is doing anything other than further exercising its right of self-determination by participating in the settlement negotiations.</ref> Before the [[Turkey]]'s invasion in 1974, Turkish Cypriots were concentrated in [[Turkish Cypriot enclaves]] in the island.

Northern Cyprus fulfills all the classical criteria of statehood.<ref>[http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702375.001.0001/acprof-9780198702375 Self-Determination and Secession in International Law] Christian Walter, Antje Von Ungern-Sternberg, Kavus Abushov, Oxford University Press, 2014, p.64</ref> United Nations Peace Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) operates based on the laws of Northern Cyprus in north of Cyprus island.<ref>[http://www.brill.com/international-peacekeeping-yearbook-international-peace-operations-5 Impediments to Peacekeeping: The Case of Cyprus] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170222061554/http://www.brill.com/international-peacekeeping-yearbook-international-peace-operations-5 |date=2017-02-22 }} Stefan Talmon, p.58-59., in "International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations", Vol.8, 2002. Without a status-of-forces agreement (or similar arrangements) between the United Nations and the Government of the TRNC, UNFICYP operates solely within the framework of the laws, rules and regulations of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which may be altered by the TRNC authorities unilaterally and without prior notice.</ref> According to [[European Court of Human Rights|European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)]],  the laws of Northern Cyprus is valid in the north of Cyprus.<ref>[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 European Court of Human Rights 02.07.2013 Decision] A de facto recognition of the acts of the regime in the northern area may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, ''the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory'', may be regarded as ''having a legal basis'' in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention</ref> ECtHR did ''not'' accept the claim that the Courts of Northern Cyprus lacked "independence and/or impartiality".<ref>[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 ECtHR's 02.09.2015 Decision]"..the ''court system'' in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" courts were thus to be considered as ''"established by law"'' with reference to the ''"constitutional and legal basis"'' on which they operated...the Court has already found that the ''court system'' set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been ''"established by law"'' with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has ''not accepted the allegation'' that the "TRNC" courts as a whole ''lacked independence and/or impartiality''...when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.."</ref> ECtHR directed all Cypriots to exhaust "domestic remedies" applied by Northern Cyprus before taking their cases to ECtHR.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103100|title=HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights|website=hudoc.echr.coe.int}}</ref> In 2014, [[Federal judiciary of the United States|United States' Federal Court]] qualified [[Northern Cyprus|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus]] as a "democratic country".<ref>[http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm Courthouse News Service] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141022134345/http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm |date=2014-10-22 }} The news of the Court decision (13.10.2014)</ref><ref>[http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002 Justia, Dockets and Filings] Page of the Court case (The Defendant: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)</ref><ref>[http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 Justia, Dockets and Filings] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025045018/https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 |date=2017-10-25 }} Decision of the Court</ref> In 2017, United Kingdom's High Court decided that "There was no duty in UK law upon the UK's Government to refrain from recognising Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates cooperation between the two parts of the island."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/criminals-fleeing-british-justice-can-no-longer-use-cyprus-safe Telegraph] 03.02.2017</ref> UK's [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] also dismissed the claim that "cooperation between UK police and law agencies in northern Cyprus was illegal".<ref>[http://ambamarblearch-media.com/sites/default/files/dpp_files/TT.pdf Ambamarblearch] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205184501/http://ambamarblearch-media.com/sites/default/files/dpp_files/TT.pdf |date=2017-02-05 }} Media, page 6</ref>

===  Palestine ===
[[File:Stop the genocide, Free Palestine 023 Mielenosoitus palestiinalaisten tueksi (53274234547).jpg|thumb|"[[Palestinian genocide accusation|Stop genocide]], free Palestine" rally in [[Helsinki]], 21 October 2023]]
{{main|Palestinian self-determination|State of Palestine|Palestinian nationalism}}
Palestinian self-determination is the aspiration of some Palestinians and [[Palestinian nationalists]] for increased [[autonomy]] and [[Sovereign state|sovereign independence]],<ref>Dynamics of Self-determination in Palestine, P. J. I. M. De Waart - 1994, p 191</ref> as well as to the international right of self-determination applied to [[Palestine]]. Such sentiments are features of both the [[one state solution]] and the [[two state solution]]. In the two state solution this usually denotes territorial integrity initiatives, such as resisting [[Israeli-occupied territories#West Bank|occupation in the West Bank]], annexation efforts in East Jerusalem or [[Palestinian freedom of movement|freedom of movement]] along borders, as well the preservation of important sites such as [[Qibli Mosque|al-Aqsa mosque]].<ref>The Failure of the Two-State Solution, Hani Faris - 2013, p 177</ref>

=== Quebec===
{{main|Quebec sovereignty movement}}
[[File:Oui1995referendum.jpg |thumb|220x220px|A poster for Quebec sovereignty during the [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995 referendum]]: {{langnf|fr|links=no|Oui, et ça devient possible|Yes, and it becomes possible}}]]
In Canada, many [[French Canadians|Francophone]] citizens in the [[Quebec|Province of Quebec]] have wanted the province to separate from [[Confederation]]. The [[Parti Québécois]] has asserted Quebec's "right to self-determination. " There is debate on under which conditions would this right be realized.<ref>Guy Leblanc. [https://wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/que-m06.shtml Canada: Parti Québécois convention meets as support for separation wanes] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111128163824/https://wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/que-m06.shtml |date=2011-11-28 }}</ref> [[French-speaking]] [[Quebec nationalism]] and support for maintaining [[Culture of Quebec|Québécois culture]] would inspire [[Quebec nationalism|Quebec nationalists]], many of whom were supporters of the [[Quebec sovereignty movement]] during the late-20th century.<ref name="Clift1982">{{cite book|author=Dominique Clift|title=Quebec nationalism in crisis|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ArsBP5Efqx4C&pg=PA106|year=1982|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP|isbn=978-0-7735-0383-0|pages=106–108}}</ref>

=== Sardinia ===
{{main|Sardinian nationalism}}
Sardinian nationalism or Sardism (''Sardismu'' in [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]]; {{Lang|it|Sardismo}} in Italian<ref>[http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=sardismo Sardismo, lemma, Garzanti Linguistica.]</ref>) is a social, cultural and political movement in [[Sardinia]] calling for the self-determination of the [[Sardinian people]] in a context of national [[devolution]], further [[Autonomism (political doctrine)|autonomy]] in Italy, or even outright independence from the latter. It also promotes the [[Environmental protection|protection]] [[Environmentalism|of the island's environment]] and the preservation of its [[Sardinia#Culture|cultural heritage]].

Even though the island has been characterized by periodical waves of ethnonationalist protests against [[Rome]],<ref name="Carlo Pala">Pala, C. 2015. ''Sardinia''. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism. 1–3. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen319/abstract Abstract]</ref> the Sardinian movement has its origins on the [[Left-wing politics|left]] of the political spectrum;<ref>Hechter (M.), ''The Dynamics of Secession'', Acta Sociologica, vol. 35, 1992, p. 267.</ref><ref>[http://xaviercasals.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/entrevista-a-marcel-farinelli-1-corcega-y-cerdena-forman-un-archipielago-invisible-al-tener-sus-islas-nacionalismos-de-signo-opuesto/ Entrevista a Marcel Farinelli: "Córcega y Cerdeña forman un archipiélago invisible al tener sus islas nacionalismos de signo opuesto"]</ref> [[regionalism (politics)|regionalism]] and attempts for Sardinian self-determination historically countered in fact the Rome-centric [[Italian nationalism]] and [[fascism]] (which eventually managed to contain the autonomist and separatist tendencies<ref name="art.torvergata.it">[https://art.torvergata.it/retrieve/handle/2108/1380/6630/capitolo%201.pdf ''La Sardegna durante il ventennio fascista'', Università di Tor Vergata]</ref>).

=== Scotland ===
{{main|Scottish independence}}
[[File:Scottish Independence Rally, George Square, Glasgow, 2019 1.jpg|thumb|Scotland independence march in [[Glasgow]], 2019]]
[[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]] ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707, as did [[Kingdom of England|England]], when the [[Acts of Union 1707|Acts of Union]] (1707) created the unified [[Kingdom of Great Britain]], but has a long-standing [[Scottish independence movement]],<ref name="theg_ScotSummary">{{Cite web |title=Scottish independence: the essential guide |last1=Carrell |first1=Severin |work=The Guardian |date= 23 April 2012|access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-essential-guide}}</ref> with polls suggesting in January 2020 that 52% of eligible voters would vote for an independent Scotland.<ref name="hera_Scot">{{Cite web |title=Scottish independence support maintains lead in latest poll |work=HeraldScotland |date=3 February 2020 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18208221.poll-puts-scottish-independence-support-highest-nearly-four-years/?ref=rss}}</ref> The country's largest political party, the [[Scottish National Party]],<ref name="rese_Memb">{{Cite journal |title=Membership of UK political parties - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament |journal=Researchbriefings.parliament.uk |date= 9 August 2019|access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125|last1= Loft|first1= Philip|last2= Dempsey|first2= Noel|last3= Audickas|first3= Lukas}}</ref> campaigns for Scottish independence. A [[2014 Scottish independence referendum|referendum on independence was held in 2014]], where it was rejected by 55% of voters.<ref name="theg_Scot2014Results">{{Cite news |title=Scottish independence referendum: final results in full |work=The Guardian |date=18 September 2014 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/sep/18/-sp-scottish-independence-referendum-results-in-full}}</ref> The Independence debate continued throughout the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|UK referendum on EU membership]] where the electorate in Scotland voted by 62% to remain a member of the EU, as did Northern Ireland.<ref name="bbc._Scot">{{Cite news |title=Scotland backs Remain as UK votes Leave |work=BBC News |date=24 June 2016 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102}}</ref> Results in England and Wales, however, led to the whole of the United Kingdom leaving the EU.<ref name="econ_Scot">{{Cite news |title=Scotland votes to stay in the EU—but is dragged out by England |newspaper=The Economist |date=24 June 2016 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/06/24/scotland-votes-to-stay-in-the-eu-but-is-dragged-out-by-england}}</ref> In late 2019 the [[Scottish Government]] announced plans to demand a second referendum on Scottish Independence. This was given assent by the [[Scottish Parliament]] but, as of July 2022, British Prime Minister [[Boris Johnson]] has refused to grant the Section 30 powers required to hold another referendum on the argument that both sides accepted beforehand that the 2014 vote would settle the matter for a generation.<ref name="hera_Bori">{{Cite web |title=Boris Johnson says 'No' to Nicola Sturgeon's demand for second Scottish independence referendum |work=HeraldScotland |date=3 November 2019 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18011390.prime-minister-boris-johnson-says-no-nicola-sturgeons-indyref2-demand/}}</ref>

=== South Africa ===
{{Main|Volkstaat}}

Section 235 of the [[Constitution of South Africa|South African Constitution]] allows for the right to self-determination of a community, within the framework of "the right of the [[South Africans|South African people]] as a whole to self-determination", and pursuant to national legislation.<ref name="section235">{{cite web | title=Section 235 | url=http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons14.htm#235 | work=South African Constitution | year=1996 | access-date=2009-05-17 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090926114134/http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons14.htm#235 | archive-date=2009-09-26 }}</ref> This section of the constitution was one of the negotiated settlements during the handing over of political power in 1994. Supporters of an independent [[Afrikaner]] homeland have argued that their goals are reasonable under this new legislation.<ref name="section235"/>

=== South Tyrol ===
In [[Italy]], [[South Tyrol|South Tyrol/Alto Adige]] was [[Italianization of South Tyrol|annexed]] after the [[World War I|First World War]]. The German-speaking inhabitants of South Tyrol are protected by the [[Gruber–De Gasperi Agreement|Gruber-De Gasperi Agreement]], but there are still supporters of the self determination of South Tyrol, e.g. the party [[Die Freiheitlichen]] and the [[South Tyrolean independence movement]]. At the end of WWII, Italian resistance troops entered South Tyrol and took over the administration against the wishes of the South Tyrolean resistance movement.<ref name="Groge2012">{{cite book |last1=Grote |first1=Georg |title=The South Tyrol question, 1866-2010 : from national rage to regional state |date=2012 |publisher=Peter Lang |location=Oxford |isbn=978-3-0353-0303-2 |page=71 |url=https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/48510/9783035303032.pdf |access-date=2021-07-25}}</ref> The Allies subsequently granted South Tyrol to Italy, with the British foreign minister remarking that "in theory the Austrians have the better argument, however handing over the power stations of South Tyrol to them could openly give the Russians a helping hand with which they could pressurise Italy".<ref name="Groge2012"/> The Allies pushed Italy to grant the region a high degree of autonomy, culminating in the [[Gruber–De Gasperi Agreement]] of 1946.

=== Székely Land ===
{{main|Székely autonomy movement}}
Following the [[World War I|First World War]], large areas of the [[Kingdom of Hungary]] were [[Treaty of Trianon|annexed]] by Romania. Some of these areas were inhabited by an ethnic [[Hungarians|Hungarian]] population called [[Székelys]]. Ever since their homes were integrated into Romania, these people were trying to achieve some form of autonomy or self-governance.

=== Taiwan ===
{{main|Taiwan independence movement}}

=== Tibet ===
{{main|Tibetan independence movement}}
There are several movements in advocacy of the [[Tibetan sovereignty debate|Tibetan sovereignty]] from the [[History of Tibet (1950-present)|Chinese occupation since 1950]]. The [[Central Tibetan Administration|Tibetan Government in-Exile]] is a notable example.

=== United States ===
[[File:Native American Girl.jpg|thumb|upright=0.6|A Native American woman in traditional dress]]
The colonization of the [[North America]]n continent and its [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]] population has been the source of legal battles since the early 19th century. Many Native American tribes were resettled onto separate tracts of land ([[Indian reservation|reservations]]), which have retained a certain degree of [[autonomy]] within the [[United States]].  The [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] recognizes [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States|Tribal Sovereignty]] and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship among the federal, [[State governments of the United States|state]], and tribal governments. The [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] and later federal laws recognize the local sovereignty of tribal nations, but do not recognize full sovereignty equivalent to that of foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations" to qualify the federally recognized tribes.

Certain [[Chicano nationalism|Chicano nationalist]] groups seek to "recreate" an ethnic-based state to be called [[Aztlán]], after the legendary homeland of the [[Aztecs]]. It would comprise the [[Southwestern United States]], historic territory of [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|indigenous peoples]] and their descendants, as well as colonists and later settlers under the [[Spanish Empire|Spanish colonial]] and [[Mexico|Mexican]] governments.<ref>[http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'], Associated Press, 2000 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107032413/http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm |date=November 7, 2012 }}</ref> Supporters of the proposed state of [[Republic of New Afrika|New Afrika]] argue that the history of African-Americans living in and making productive of several U.S. states in the [[Black Belt in the American South|Black Belt]] entitles them to establish an African-American republic in the area, alongside $400 billion as reparations for slavery.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781405198073 |title=The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest |date=2009-07-28 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-1-4051-8464-9 |editor-last=Ness |editor-first=Immanuel |edition=1 |language=en |doi=10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp1253}}</ref>

There are several active [[Native Hawaiians|Hawaiian]] autonomy or independence movements, each with the goal of realizing some level of political control over single or several islands. The groups range from those seeking territorial units similar to [[Indian reservation]]s under the United States, with the least amount of independent control, to the [[Hawaiian sovereignty movement]], which is projected to have the most independence. The Hawaiian Sovereignty movement seeks to revive the Hawaiian nation under the [[1840 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom|Hawaiian constitution]].

[[File:Protest against Washington football team name at TCF Stadium (15692618845).jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|Native Americans and their supporters protest during the [[Washington Redskins name controversy]]]]
Since 1972, the [[Special Committee on Decolonization|U.N. Decolonization Committee]] has called for [[Puerto Rico]]'s "decolonization" and for the US to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. In 2007 the Decolonization Subcommittee called for the United Nations General Assembly to review the [[political status of Puerto Rico]], a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3160.doc.htm |title=Special Committee on Decolonization Calls on United States to Expedite Puerto Rico's Self-determination Process – General Assembly GA/COL/3160 – Department of Public Information – June 14, 2007 |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> This followed the 1967 passage of a [[plebiscite]] act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continued [[Commonwealth (U.S. insular area)|commonwealth]], [[Statehood movement in Puerto Rico|statehood]], and [[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|independence]]. In the first plebiscite, the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes, but US congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998, the status quo was favored.<ref>For complete statistics of these plebiscites, see [http://electionspuertorico.org/cgi-bin/events.cgi Elections in Puerto Rico: Results].</ref>

In a [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum|referendum]] that took place in November 2012, a majority of Puerto Rican residents voted to change the territory's relationship with the United States, with the statehood option being the preferred option. But a large number of ballots—one-third of all votes cast—were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. Supporters of the commonwealth status had urged voters to blank their ballots. When the blank votes are counted as anti-statehood votes, the statehood option would have received less than 50% of all ballots received.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html|title=Puerto Ricans favor statehood for the first time|work=[[CNN]]|author=Castillo, Mariano|date=November 8, 2012}}</ref> As of January 2014, Washington has not taken action to address the results of this plebiscite.

Many current U.S. [[Secession in the United States|state, regional and city secession groups]] use the language of self-determination. A 2008 [[Zogby International]] poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."<ref>[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1531 Middlebury Institute/Zogby Poll: "One in Five Americans Believe States Have the Right to Secede"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080814090142/http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1531 |date=2008-08-14 }}, [http://zogby.com/ Zogby International], July 23, 2008.</ref><ref>Alex Mayer, [https://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/editorial-writers-notebooks/2008/07/secession-still-a-popular-idea/ "Secession: still a popular idea?"] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20080804015722/http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/editorial-writers-notebooks/2008/07/secession-still-a-popular-idea/ |date=2008-08-04 }}, ''[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]],'' July 25, 2008.</ref>

On December 15, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the Puerto Rico Status Act. The act sought to resolve Puerto Rico's status and its relationship to the United States through a binding plebiscite.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-status-act-house-vote-territory-plebiscite-rcna61871|title=House votes in favor of resolving Puerto Rico's territorial status|website=NBC News|date=December 15, 2022}}</ref>

Since the late 20th century, some states periodically discuss desires to [[secession in the United States|secede from the United States]]. Unilateral secession was ruled [[constitutionality|unconstitutional]] by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[Texas v. White]]'' (1869).

===Western Sahara===
{{Main|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}
[[File:Manifestation in Madrid for the independence of the Western Sahara (13).jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.1|A demonstration in [[Madrid]] for the independence of Western Sahara, 2007]]
There is an active movement based on the self-determination of the [[Sahrawi people]] in the [[Western Sahara]]n region. [[Morocco]] also claims the entire territory, and maintains control of about two-thirds of the region.

===West Papua===
{{Main|Papua conflict|Free Papua Movement}}
[[File:Free West Papua Protest Melbourne August 2012.jpg|thumb|A Free West Papua protest in [[Melbourne]] in August 2012]]
The self-determination of the [[Western New Guinea|West Papuan]] people has been violently suppressed by the [[government of Indonesia|Indonesian Government]] since the withdrawal of [[Dutch colonial empire|Dutch colonial rule]] under the [[Dutch New Guinea]] in 1962.

=== Western Cape ===
{{Main|Cape Independence}}
[[File:Cape independence march cpt.jpg|thumb|A march for Cape Independence, January 2023|alt=Cape Freedon March in January 2023]]
Since the late 2000s there has been growing calls for the people of the [[Western Cape]] province of [[South Africa]] to become an independent state. South Africa in its current form was created in 1910 after the [[South Africa Act 1909]] was passed in the British parliament. The Cape Colony ceased to exist, however many of its unique political and cultural quirks such as the [[Cape Qualified Franchise#The Cape Liberal Tradition|Cape Liberal Tradition]] nevertheless continued to exist. Recent polling has shown that over 46% of Western Cape voters back independence outright.

== See also ==
{{colbegin}}
*[[Anti-imperialism]]
*[[Boundary problem (political science)]]
*[[Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations]]
*[[Decolonization]]
**[[Special Committee on Decolonization]]
**[[United Nations list of non-self-governing territories]]
*[[Ethnic separatism]]
*[[Ethnonationalism]]
*[[Ethnopluralism]]
*[[Independence movement]]
*[[Indigenous peoples]]
*[[International relations theory]]
*[[Irredentism]]
*[[Legitimacy (political)|Legitimacy]]
*[[List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom]]
*[[List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies]]
*[[List of national liberation movements recognized by intergovernmental organizations]]
*[[Lists of active separatist movements]]
*[[National delimitation in the Soviet Union]]
*[[National personal autonomy]]
*[[Nation-state]]
*[[Non-Intervention]]
*[[Plurinationalism]]
*[[Religious nationalism]]
*[[Right to exist]]
*[[Consent of the governed]]
*[[Popular sovereignty]]
*[[Self-governance]]
*[[Separatism]]
*[[Stateless nation]]
*[[Territorial integrity]]
*[[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)]]
*[[Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization]]
*[[Wars of national liberation]]
{{colend}}

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== Bibliography ==
{{refbegin|40em}}
* Rudolf A. Mark, "National Self-Determination, as Understood by Lenin and the Bolsheviks." ''Lithuanian Historical Studies'' (2008), Vol. 13, p 21–39. [https://brill.com/view/journals/lhs/13/1/article-p21_4.xml Online]
* Abulof, Uriel and Cordell, Karl (eds.) (2015). [http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/reno20/14/5 Special Issue: Self-determination—A Double-edged Principle], Ethnopolitics 14(5).
* Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., ed. ''The Self-Determination of Peoples: Community, Nation, and State in an Interdependent World'', Boulder: [[Lynne Rienner Publishers]], 2002.
* Danspeckgruber, Wolfgang F., and Arthur Watts, eds. ''Self-Determination and Self-Administration: A Sourcebook'', Boulder: [[Lynne Rienner Publishers]], 1997.
* Allen Buchanan, ''Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford Political Theory)'', [[Oxford University Press]], US, 2007.
* Annalisa Zinn, ''Globalization and Self-Determination (Kindle Edition)'', [[Taylor & Francis]], 2007.
* Marc Weller, ''Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution (Kindle Edition)'', [[Taylor & Francis]], 2007.
* [[Valpy Fitzgerald]], Frances Stewart, Rajesh Venugopal (Editors), ''Globalization, Violent Conflict and Self-Determination'', Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
* Joanne Barker (Editor), ''Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination'', [[University of Nebraska Press]], 2005.
* David Raic, ''Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (Developments in International Law, V. 43) (Developments in International Law, V. 43)'', [[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]], 2002.
* Y.N. Kly and D. Kly, ''In pursuit of The Right to Self-determination'', Collected Papers & Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to Self-Determination & the United Nations, Geneva 2000, Clarity Press, 2001.
* Antonio Cassese, ''Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures)'', [[Cambridge University Press]], 1999.
* Percy Lehning, ''Theories of Secession'', Routledge, 1998.
* Hurst Hannum, ''Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights'', [[University of Pennsylvania Press]], 1996.
* Temesgen Muleta-Erena, ''The political and Cultural Locations of National Self-determination: The Oromia Case'', Oromia Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 2, 1999. {{ISSN|1460-1346}}.
{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category}}

* Thürer, Daniel, Burri, Thomas. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130715211014/http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=%2Fepil%2Fentries%2Flaw-9780199231690-e873&recno=18& Self-determination], ''Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law''
* [https://undocs.org/A/Res/1514(XV) United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV). "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080516034015/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter United Nations Charter].
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080610141041/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm/ Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights].
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080610141047/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm/ Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights].
* [[Jacob T. Levy]], [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1028374 Self-Determination, Non-Domination, and Federalism], published in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy.
* [https://archive.today/20121211060056/http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2010/11/winds-of-change-or-hot-air-decolonization-and-the-salt-water-test/ "Winds of Change or Hot Air? Decolonization, Self-determination and the Salt Water Test, "] Legal Frontiers International Law Blog
* [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm The Right of Nations to Self-Determination] [[Vladimir Lenin]] February – May 1914.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070313120829/http://www.mahapunjab.org/PNSD/ Parliamentarians for National Self-Determination] Unofficial page for London-based Parliamentary lobby group.
* [https://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust4.htm United Nations Trust Territories that have achieved self-determination] 
{{Indigenous rights footer}}
{{Group rights}}
{{Colonization}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Self-Determination}}
[[Category:Political theories]]
[[Category:International law]]
[[Category:Nation]]
[[Category:Secession]]
[[Category:Independence movements]]
[[Category:Collective rights]]
[[Category:Autonomy]]
[[Category:Human rights by issue]]
[[Category:Sovereignty]]
[[Category:Anti-imperialism]]
[[Category:Decentralization]]
[[Category:Decolonization]]