Since the inception of self-determination in the Eighteenth Century, the concept has brought together two ideas that may otherwise be incongruent: nationalist indignation and popular independence. Consequently, a country’s self-determination is understood as a balancing act between two opposing philosophies: the people’s rules and the laws of virtue. As perceived from the people’s perspective, Europe’s revolutionary era reshaped the ethnically flat country of the Eighteenth Century, forming a conceptually credible state in the 20th Century (MacFarlane & Sabanadze, 2013). For instance, although having different origins, the French and German entities ultimately agreed to unite into a single cultural nation within one sovereign country. The idea of state self-determination has stayed a controversial and foreign principle throughout the 19th Century.
The supporting arguments express that attaining independence in self-determination relies on the strategic question of what or who is sovereign and its relationship with this right. Throughout the initial 150 years following Westphalia, monarchies were often regarded as unconditional and based on the genealogical notion of divine mandate. Later, critical independence philosophers acknowledged some limitations upon the monarch’s ultimate authority derived from their responsibilities under natural or divine law (MacFarlane & Sabanadze, 2013). A people’s or country’s will was essentially unimportant. Minority ethnic populations acknowledge the necessity to promote the discussion on this self-determination right and the territorial governance systems globally.
In contemporary times, ethnic groups encounter power disparity, as portrayed in many protracted and violent confrontations between these underrepresented peoples and the states. Consequently, underrepresented ethnic communities find it difficult to negotiate with the government’s peaceful settlement of conflicts. Therefore, they lose trust in the state, and disputes become daily for years, inflicting terrible suffering and eradicating entire cultures. Worldwide non-governmental and governmental organizations must aggressively emphasize these confrontations, encourage peaceful settlement and defend people’s rights to self-determination to overcome inherent power dynamics that perpetuate such conflicts (MacFarlane & Sabanadze, 2013). Suspension of this paramount right to self-determination triggers numerous protracted confrontations, most of which solution has not been solicited. People must understand with significance that the deprivation of this fundamental right is a reason for ethnic conflict. Governments and institutions must aggressively encourage the globally acknowledged self-determination right to prevent and resolve self-determination-related disputes.
Diverse aspects of educational and cultural autonomy have challenged the achievement of independence. These constitute a crucial part of realizing self-determination rights worldwide and they are occasionally critical and essential rather than achieving an independent position. In a more interconnected society, the cost of switching to territorial independence is frequently too high. In addition, there appears to be a global movement rejecting self-determination independence in favor of increased cultural and social autonomy (MacFarlane & Sabanadze, 2013). However, ethnic groups can attain this right through the effective administration of educational opportunities and reinforcement of ethnic and linguistic identities. The significance of cultural identity throughout this phenomenon strengthens state-level sovereignty processes and structures and spearheads the right to self-determination.
Ethnic self-determination rights are viewed from a standpoint in the international community, provided geographical boundaries, sovereignty, and nationality are congruent. Inter-ethnic conflicts involving sovereignty and territoriality are categorized on one side, separate from self-determination. Unfortunately, ethnic sense of identity and ethnicity do not complement each other constantly. The independence principle was comparatively well-realized throughout Europe in the 20th Century (MacFarlane & Sabanadze, 2013). This owes its success to the shift to positivism and liberal understanding of international law that lessened the constraints to self-determination imposed by natural and divine law. Moreover, there were rare notable instances of ethnic-group participation by the turn of the 19th Century. Nevertheless, in the initial decades of the 20th Century, the idea of judicial impartiality in self-determination was gaining momentum.
The counter-arguments of the independence of the ethnic groups focus on the weakness of self-determination rights, which is the confusion among the affected people. The fundamental question that the critics to this present are to whom does such right apply, especially in a multi-ethnic and multicultural setting. The practice of self-determination remains uncertain, and the duration it takes for this concept to be determined and integrated into the state policies and several global interventions and platforms that defend human rights (MacFarlane & Sabanadze, 2013). One critique challenges the entire teachings as a mediocre way of taking a state and the schemes to implement these self-determination principles. There are problematic outcomes for the countries that face constituting competent government directives concerning these ethnic groups. In a normal situation, there cannot be an ideal situation where the demands of every community are satisfied.
In summary, there are several reasons that ethnic groups are yet to attain independence objectives concerning their self-determination rights. As identified in the paper, there are challenging political dynamics that inhibit the achievement of sovereignty by ethnic communities. Nonetheless, with international law coming into policymaking, much effort has been made toward actualizing self-determination. The current state of the world presents a better chance to achieve these goals; therefore, the particular communities and groups facing this challenge can liberate themselves. The academicians have a noble role in ensuring that the right to self-determination is defended on all forums.
Reference
MacFarlane, N., & Sabanadze, N. (2013). Sovereignty and self-determination: Where are we? International Journal, 68(4), 609-627. Web.