Right to Self-Determination in Newly Colonized States
Traditionally defined as the introduction of fair right and equality into the framework of legal and personal relationships between the residents of the state, the incorporation of self-determination principles into the framework of the legal system of newly colonized states occurred gradually (Havemann 2013). According to the existing evidence, these are the tradition and the force of habit, as well as the challenges related to the reestablishment of the basic principles of interaction between the state members that block the right to self-determination from becoming a part of the colonized states’ policy (Havemann 2013). Thus, the bureaucracy related problems often become an obstacle to self-determination.
Moreover, the proponents of creating a system based on self-determination in newly colonized states often face harsh enmity from the representatives of different social strata within the state in question. According to Hannum (2013), in most cases, people are unwilling to change their behavioural and attitudinal patterns: “The point about culturally divided societies… is that they wish to be divided” (Hannum 2013, p. 6). Therefore, in most cases, cultural specifics of the local residents coupled with the fear of changes are the key impediments to promoting the right to self-determination within the states in question.
Efficacy of the Individual Complaints Mechanism by the First Optional Protocol
According to the key tenets of the document, the First Optical Protocol suggests that the individual complaints mechanism should be used as the basis for addressing the cases of human rights violation (Bourke 2010). It is, therefore, implied that the First Optical Protocol should provide the tool that will allow for gathering feedback in a fast and efficient manner, as well as help process the information and transfer it to the competent sources so that proper measures should be taken to address the issue causing the complaint (Havemann 2013).
A closer look at the way, in which the individual mechanism works, however, will show that it may have some major flaws in its very design. Particularly, the fact that the process of applying the protocol to specific cases and the further analysis of the case in point takes an impressive amount of time deserves to be mentioned: “proceedings held before the Federal Constitutional Court may take a considerable amount of time” (Payandeh 2014, p. 68). Indeed, the specified loophole in the overall strong canvas of the protocol invites a range of questions concerning the safety of the people, whose rights are supposed to be protected by the document in question.
Reference List
Bourke, R 2010, ‘Transforming the end into the means: the Third World and the right to self-determination,’ in Burke, R, Decolonization and the evolution of international human rights, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Hannum, H 2013, Autonomy, sovereignty, and self-determination: The accommodation of conflicting rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania, PA.
Havemann, P 2013, ‘Indigenous peoples: human rights,’ in Human rights, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Payandeh, M 2014, The Individual Complaints Procedure under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Web.