No self-determination for Bangsamoro
By Jemy Gatdula
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:39:00 09/03/2008
Filed Under: Collective contracts, Constitution, Legislation, Minority groups, Moro
Some still mistakenly bandy the phrase “right to self-determination” in relation to the MILF and the Bangsamoro advocates. There is currently a lot of misguided reliance on wrongful readings of international law. Thus, to emphasize again, the right to self-determination applies essentially to colonial peoples and is designed as a right against foreign military occupation.
The right to self-determination certainly does not give license to secession and definitely does not allow an ethnic or religious minority group to secede or otherwise carve out its own territory to become an independent State.
In fact, going by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Western Sahara case and, more relevantly, the Namibia case, the right of self-determination applies specifically only to “non-self-governing territories which are under the aegis of the United Nations,” including trust territories and mandates.
It is not even correct to say that such interpretation or understanding of the concept of self-determination is “outmoded.” The events surrounding the Georgia-Russia conflict demonstrate the fact that no group of people within the Philippines has any right to be a separate international entity or any rights under the concept of "self-determination."
The response against Russia's recognition of two so-called "breakaway States" from Georgia have been overwhelming, indicating the unanimity in the position as far as international law is concerned. Thus, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe declared that: “All ... member states including Russia should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states.”
Even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (composed of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) backed this position. Obviously, the US and EC are against the Russian act of recognition as well. Indeed, that Russia cannot be seriously considered as a believer in granting rights of self-determination to ethnic groups can be summed up in one word: Chechnya.
In any event, the recent pronouncements of such an overwhelming majority of States indicate that "self-determination" does not apply to an ethnic group and that stability in the national and international order, as well as territorial integrity, is paramount. While one can indeed discuss East Timor, note that it is a “non-self governing territory” (ICJ Rep 1995 90) and would not detract from the fact that international law is categorical in denying the right to self-determination for ethnic groups.
Just as recently, Georgetown Professor Charles E. Pirtle wrote that the right to national self-determination is barred against ethnic groups due to “respect for the territorial integrity of independent states.” In fact, Professor Pirtle continues, “secessionist groups have never been among the three groups of ‘peoples’ recognized in state and UN practice as having a right of self-determination. The nationalist doctrine of ‘a state for every nation and one nation in every state’ has never taken root in UN and state practice, or as a recognized right under international law.”
International law, contrary to the ignorant or misleading statements by some, actually provides no remedy whatsoever (not even greater access to government or political participation) to ethnic groups. As international law professor Antonio Cassese points out, as far as “religious, cultural, or linguistic minorities” are concerned, no general rights or “any right of internal or external self-determination” are applicable to them. Indeed, General Assembly Resolution 1514 clearly states: “Any attempt aimed at the 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 of the United Nations.”
Now is also the best time for the Philippines to start considering withdrawing its “optional jurisdictional clause” made at the ICJ. It gives us no strategic benefit in terms of international disputes and it’s really time we put this inane desire to be a “good” member of the international community to sleep. We should focus on national interest and the optional jurisdiction clause serves no practical national interest.
Incidentally, if there’s any foreign country actively supporting a local movement that could result in loss of Philippine territory, then following the precepts of the ICJ in Nicaragua vs. USA, I say we sue these countries before any international court or the court of international opinion for violating international law on non-interference and for violating our sovereign rights. It’s time all Filipino lawyers start lawyering for the Philippines.
Finally, due to the peculiar nature of international law, I urge everybody (from the government to the media) to stop using terms like “war,” “armed conflict,” “belligerent community,” “insurgent community,” and “self-determination.” All these concepts are inapplicable as far as matters in the Southern Philippines are concerned and the things happening there should be considered a mere internal matter for which only domestic laws are applicable and our constitution is paramount.
We should definitely stand with our Muslim brothers in addressing their grievances – but definitely never at the cost of our country’s territorial integrity.
Website: http://www.paseoblur.blogspot.com
|
