Non-territorial autonomy (NTA) incorporates a mixture of different
arrangements such as consociationalism and national-cultural autonomy (NCA),
and forms of representation that de-territorialize self-determination. The
paper analyses NTA possibilities in reaching indigenous self-governance and
reveals the dilemmas in the applicability of NTA for securing the right to
self-determination of indigenous peoples. Although the practice points
towards some positive examples and successes of NTA institutions related to
ingenious peoples (e.g. S?mi Parliaments), the question remains whether NTA
holds sufficient potential for addressing indigenous needs upheld by the
international principle ?right to land, territories and traditionally owned
resources.?
It would be unrealistic to reject secession from the doctrine of self-determination and limit the doctrine to the colonialism context. Nevertheless, the question is: What principles do states need follow in response to secession movements? Democratic principles are not the best—or only—options to address these requirements, but the secession doctrine's development and state practice has made such principles legally and practically relevant, according to many scholars. This Article proposes that the focus of the debate should be transferred to the internal dimension of the right to self-determination. The possibilities that can come from the realization of this aspect of the right to self-determination can be further explored. Certainly there is a very wide and flexible range of options and measures for addressing, protecting, and promoting diversity, and thus overcoming identity conflicts and providing a balance of social power. Those political arrangements, though imperfect, can help to avoid secession, thereby providing stability, harmony, and prosperity of democratic societies. But practice has shown that there are exceptional cases in which the current conditions on the ground make the application of tools for internal self-determination impractical. In these exceptional cases, internal self-determination fails to achieve the desired goal. This Article examines the legal arrangements for realization of internal self-determination through the examples of Basque Country and Scotland as vital quests for secession in countries with long democratic traditions.
Self-determination has been defined as the right of people to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. During decolonization, the right aimed towards the establishment of the self-government for the peoples – inhabitants of nonself-governed colonial territories. Over the last half century, the process of decolonization resulted in a successful attainment of formal sovereignty for the former colonies. However, the liberation movements reached self-determination externally but failed to reach it internally. Since the process of decolonization is formally over, there is a change in a right holder and the mode for practicing self-determination. Except for an aggregate population – people within the state that can practice an external form of self – determination, as a process internal self-determination can be granted to different subnational groups. The ones that reached external self-determination should accept legal norms that grant forms of internal self-determination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.