The
Responsibility To Protect
Self-Determination
By
Cameron Hunt
30 November,
2007
Countercurrents.org
Thursday,
29 November 2007, marked the sixty year anniversary of the most regrettable
decision in United Nations' history; a decision that is no longer open
to discussion. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted
resolution 181 – the ‘Partition resolution’ –
thereby authorizing the partition of historic Palestine into “Independent
Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the
City of Jerusalem”. Notably, there is still no Palestinian state
or “Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem”;
and no longer any apparent hope or desire for the latter. Notably, with
no state, or the requisite institutions, the Palestinians are still
unable to exercise their right to self-determination; something I will
be returning to throughout this article.
Let’s
now jump to December 2001, and the Report by the ‘International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’ (ICISS): The
Responsibility to Protect. This Report introduces us to a new concept,
‘the responsibility to protect’, which “implies above
all else a responsibility to react to situations of compelling need
for human protection”. The policy challenge for ICISS was: “External
military intervention for human protection purposes has been controversial
both when it has happened – as in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo –
and when it has failed to happen, as in Rwanda. For some the new activism
has been a long overdue internationalization of the human conscience;
for others it has been an alarming breach of an international state
order dependent on the sovereignty of states and the inviolability of
their territory.” As a result of these tensions, which have come
to be referred to as the ‘sovereignty-intervention debate’,
the Government of Canada established ICISS in September 2000, in order
“to wrestle with the whole range of questions … rolled up
in this debate, … and to bring back a report that would help …
find some new common ground”.
According
to the Commission’s Report: “NATO’s intervention in
Kosovo in 1999 brought the controversy to its most intense head…
[It] raised major questions about the legitimacy of military intervention
in a sovereign state. Was the cause just: were the human rights abuses
committed or threatened by the Belgrade authorities sufficiently serious
to warrant outside involvement?… was it the case that had the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization … not intervened, Kosovo would
have been … the occasion for genocidal slaughter like that which
occurred in Bosnia four years earlier?”
One of the
Commission’s key focuses in framing their Report was the concept
of ‘human security’, which itself forms the basis of the
emerging concept that the Commission came to name ‘the responsibility
to protect’. “Human security means the security of people
– their physical safety, their economic and social well-being,
respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection
of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The Commission
claims: “The meaning and scope of security have become much broader
since the UN Charter was signed in 1945… [The] concept of human
security … has … become an increasingly important element
in international law… Although the issue is far from uncontroversial,
the concept of security is now increasingly recognized to extend to
people as well as to states.”
You may have
been able to glean from the last sentence that the Commission’s
overriding concern in framing their Report, was in fact the sovereignty
aspect of the ‘sovereignty-intervention debate’ –
‘state sovereignty’ – which is where we shall begin
our analysis. The Commission tells us: “Sovereignty has come to
signify … the legal identity of a state in international law.
It is a concept which provides order, stability and predictability in
international relations since sovereign states are regarded as equal…
The responsibility for protecting the lives and promoting the welfare
of [a state’s] citizens lies first and foremost with the sovereign
state, secondly with domestic authorities acting in partnership with
external actors, and only thirdly with international organizations…
The defence of state sovereignty [however] … does not include
any claim of the unlimited power of a state to do what it wants to its
own people... It is acknowledged that sovereignty implies a dual responsibility:
externally – to respect the sovereignty of other states, and internally,
to respect the dignity and basic rights of all the people within the
state.” The Commission goes on to tell us: “The bedrock
non-intervention principle is spelt out in Article 2.4 of the [UN] Charter,
which provides that ‘All Members shall refrain … from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations,’ and in Article 2.7 which
prohibits the United Nations from intervening ‘in matters which
are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’.”
In addition to the two UN Principles just mentioned, we must add Article
2 paragraph 1, which reads: “The Organization is based on the
principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”.
Interestingly,
we have already reached the current limits of our analysis of ‘state
sovereignty’ – a concept that is not explicitly mentioned
in the UN Charter – because ‘state sovereignty’ can
only be understood through the prism of ‘self-determination’
– something that is explicitly provided for in the Charter, and
to where we will now turn our attention.
On the principle
of ‘the right to self-determination’, the Report states:
“Protective enforcement usually indicates sustaining or restoring
forms of territorial self-government and autonomy... That said, the
responsibility to protect is fundamentally a principle designed to respond
to threats to human life, and not a tool for achieving political goals
such as greater political autonomy, self-determination, or independence
for particular groups within the country (though these underlying issues
may well be related to the humanitarian concerns that prompted the military
intervention).”
Sadly, as
a careful reading of the previous sentence suggests, the urgent need
for improvements in human security would actually have been best facilitated
by a conscientious reading of the established UN Charter, rather than
empty discussions about an “an emerging guiding principle”.
This failed to happen, above all, owing to the Commission’s facile
conflation of the terms ‘state’, and ‘nation’;
a confusion that is dispelled by the most cursory of glances at an English
dictionary; something I will get back to very shortly. First, we need
to continue our analysis of the (firmly established) international law
principle of ‘the right to self-determination’.
The opening
lines of the 1945 UN Charter declare that “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE
UNITED NATIONS”, are “DETERMINED … to reaffirm faith
in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person,
in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”.
There are two key words in these lines that the Commission was apparently
either unable, or unwilling to apprehend. The Compact Oxford English
Dictionary – which I shall use throughout this article –
defines ‘nation’ as “a large body of people united
by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state
or territory.” Thus, given that this “large body of people”
can be “inhabiting a particular state or territory”, they
need not have their own state in order to be regarded as a nation. What
then is a ‘state’? A “nation or territory considered
as an organized political community under one government.” It
is only in a ‘nation-state’ – a fundamentally hypothetical
entity – that “most of the citizens or subjects are united
also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent.”
This leaves us with the second key term, ‘peoples’: “the
members of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.” Not
the members of a particular state.
Moving down
through the Charter, Article 1, which outlines the four Purposes of
the UN, has as its first two paragraphs: “1. To maintain international
peace and security”, and, “2. To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples”.
Did the Commission
have anything else to say on self-determination? “Useful guidelines
for the behaviour of intervening authorities during a military intervention
in failed states … might be found in a constructive adaptation
of Chapter XII of the UN Charter… The most relevant provision
in this regard is Article 76 which notes that the aim of the system
is to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement
of the people of the territory in question”. You didn’t
notice any reference to self-determination? That is because the Commission
discarded it (something they also did with Article 55 in paragraph 3.18
of their Report). A less skewed reading of Article 76, paragraph b,
would have included: “to promote the political, economic, social,
and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories,
and their progressive development towards self-government or independence
as may be appropriate to … the freely expressed wishes of the
peoples concerned”.
Furthermore,
not only is Article 76 not the “most relevant provision in this
regard”, it is in no way relevant. The “system” that
the Commission speaks of is the ‘International Trusteeship System’,
established by Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter, “for the
administration and supervision of such [trust] territories as may be
placed there under by subsequent individual agreements”. There
hasn’t been a ‘trust territory’ under the UN Trusteeship
System since the independence of Palau on 1 October 1994, and there
are currently no plans for one to “be placed there under by subsequent
individual agreements”. The “most relevant provision in
this regard” – that of “the behaviour of intervening
authorities” – is Article 73; something the Commission appears
to have gone out of its way to avoid. Article 73 falls under Chapter
XI of the Charter, the “DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING
TERRITORIES”. Article 73 reads as follows: “Members of the
United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration
of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of
self-government … accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote
to the utmost … the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories,
and, to this end: … b. to develop self-government, to take due
account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them
in the progressive development of their free political institutions”.
The first point to be made on this Article is that, unlike the irrelevant
Article 76, it speaks only of “self-government”; not of
“independence”. The second point that shouldn’t need
to be made, but strangely does, is that any “Members of the United
Nations” which have been declared an ‘Occupying Power’
under the terms of the Geneva Conventions – such as Israel –
can very certainly be said to “have … responsibilities for
the administration of [those Non-Self-Governing] territories”
which they occupy, and that they are therefore required to comply with
the terms of Article 73 of the Charter.
At this point,
we have covered the key Articles of the UN Charter pertaining to self-determination.
Given that there may still be some sceptics out there, the three most
relevant UN Declarations on the topic also need to be mentioned, as
they all help to confirm the existence of ‘the right to self-determination’
as an established principle of international law. Firstly, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, of 10 December 1948, “proclaims THIS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement
for all peoples and all nations, … both among the peoples of Member
States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”.
Article 21 of the Declaration states: “The will of the people
shall be the basis of the authority of government”. This Article
confirms the right to self-determination not only as a principle of
international law, but also as a fundamental human right.
Secondly,
in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
and Peoples, of 14 December 1960, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) declares:
“Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting
the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,
… Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to …
the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national
territory, … 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation,
domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human
rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment
to the promotion of world peace”. The UNGA goes on to declare
that “2. All peoples have the right to self-determination”,
and that “5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing
Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,
to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without
any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed
will and desire”. In the Declaration’s final paragraph the
UNGA declares: “7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly
the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality,
non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect
for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
Whilst many may argue that there is an apparent contradiction in this
final paragraph, there is actually no contradiction whatsoever if we
give the Charter an honest reading.
Finally,
in its Declaration on Principles of International Law, of 24 October
1970, the UNGA: “Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien
subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle
to the promotion of international peace and security, Convinced that
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes
a significant contribution to contemporary international law, …
1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles: … Every State
has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization
of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
in accordance with the provisions of the Charter… Every State
has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples
… of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.
In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in
pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples
are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes
and principles of the Charter.”
This Declaration
goes on to say: “The establishment of a sovereign and independent
State, the free association or integration with an independent State
or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by
a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination
by that people”. However, as I have already mentioned, the Charter
itself speaks only of a right to “self-government” in the
case of Non-Self-Governing territories; not of a ‘right’
to “independence”. Another point that needs to be made is
that the ‘no-state solution’ to the Israel-Palestine conflict
– something I outlined in my article Two-State Chimera, No-State
Solution – could one day become that “other political status
freely determined by a people”, at which point in time it would
very certainly be said to represent another of the “modes of implementing
the right of self-determination”.
Relevant
to this article is that the no-state plan represents the only peace
plan currently in the public sphere that would guarantee Palestinian
refugees ‘the right of return’ entitled to them under international
law. How is this relevant? According to a 1978 Report by the UN Secretariat’s
Division for Palestinian Rights, The Right of Return of the Palestinian
People: “In the case of the Palestinian people, the individual
or personal right of return assumes a special significance for without
its restoration, the exercise of the collective or national right of
self-determination, itself guaranteed by a variety of international
instruments, becomes impossible.” Did Ehud Olmert, the Israeli
Prime Minister, have anything to say on the Palestinian ‘right
of return’ at the opening of the Annapolis peace conference? “Israel
would assist Palestinian refugees find a future in the new Palestinian
state” – ‘Israel will continue to deny the Palestinian
nation its right of return; its right to self-determination’.
Only now
that a solid case has been made for the existence of ‘the right
to self-determination’ as an established principle of international
law, can we return to the ICISS concept of ‘state sovereignty’.
Clearly, there is no such concept under the UN Charter – only
‘the sovereignty of nations/peoples’, or ‘national
sovereignty’. The term ‘sovereignty’ means “supreme
power or authority”, so, the question becomes, who has “supreme
power or authority” under the UN Charter, the state, or the nation?
Were ‘state sovereignty’ to be a legitimate principle, it
would mean, for one thing, that states would have the legal right to
oppress those ethnic minorities representing “a large body of
people” within their borders, and to deny those peoples their
right to self-determination, with complete protection under international
law. This is certainly not the case. Whilst it is true that under today’s
international law – the “emerging guiding principle”
of ‘the responsibility to protect’ (R2P) aside – the
government of a pure ‘nation-state’ (were one to be identified)
has the ability to oppress its own nationals, and to deny them their
individual self-determination, with complete immunity from action by
the UN – owing to this being a matter “essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction” of that state – the same could
not be said if the actions of that government were to impact upon the
right to self-determination of other peoples, other nations; something
that would no longer be “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction”
of that government. The only possible, consistent reading of the UN
Charter brings us to the principal of ‘national sovereignty’,
not ‘state sovereignty’ – with the caveat that neither
is explicitly named in the UN Charter. Having said that, “WE THE
PEOPLES” do, in the Charter’s Preamble, state our determination
“to reaffirm faith in … the equal rights of … nations”.
Yes, the Charter also declares that the UN “Organization is based
on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”;
but this paragraph is just as important for what it does not say. It
does not say: ‘The Organization is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all states’. Actually, the word ‘state’
does not appear in the Charter until Article 2 paragraph 4, by which
time ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’ have been mentioned
six times.
We have now
arrived firmly at the international law principle of ‘the right
to national self-determination’ – or what might best be
labelled ‘R2NSD’ under the modern nomenclature. On the basis
of the principle of R2NSD, it can be asserted, with confidence, that
the international community has a far greater responsibility to intervene
in cases where weaker nations, within states, or under their administration,
are seeing their R2NSD forcibly denied, than in cases of intra-nation
fighting – the latter representing a manifestation of national
self-determination; the former, its denial.
Making concessions,
where possible, for the Commission’s noteworthy failure to distinguish
between ‘nations’ and ‘states’ in its “wrestle
with the whole range of questions … rolled up in this debate”,
what else did the Commission have to say on the topics of ‘state
sovereignty’ and ‘national self-determination’? (1)
“A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise
exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders”.
A: No state has “exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial
borders”. (2) “Any use of military force that aims from
the outset … for the alteration of borders or the advancement
of a particular combatant group’s claim to self-determination,
cannot be justified”. A: Self-determination, as the aim of a military
operation, can easily be justified. Its denial cannot. (3) “Another
difficulty that can arise with internationally endorsed and externally
applied preventive measures is that political leaders facing internal
rebellion or secessionist violence will often be concerned about giving
additional momentum or ‘legitimacy’ to those causing their
problems… [T]he objective overall is not to change constitutional
arrangements or undermine sovereignty, but to protect them.” A:
If existing “constitutional arrangements” deny a nation
their R2NSD – something that has historically lead to “internal
rebellion or secessionist violence” – then for the international
community to “protect” the existing constitutional arrangements,
would in fact be for it to “undermine [national] sovereignty”;
precisely what the UN Charter is concerned with. (4) “The overthrow
of a democratic government is a grave matter, requiring concerted international
action such as sanctions and suspension or withdrawal of credits, international
membership and recognition”. A: But, the denial of democratic,
national self-government is best ignored?
Now that
the concepts of ‘state sovereignty’ and ‘self-determination’
have been adequately covered, we can move on to the ‘intervention’
aspect of the ‘sovereignty-intervention debate’. So, on
the basis of the principle of R2NSD, what precisely am I suggesting?
Am I suggesting that the UN should intervene in the intra-state affairs
of each of its Member States, in all cases, and start redrawing state
borders the world over, along ethnic lines? Absolutely not. For one
thing, nowhere in the UN Charter is it mentioned that a nation has a
‘right to statehood’; only a right to national “self-determination”,
through “self-government”. That being the case, when is
intervention justified on R2NSD grounds, and when is it not? My starting
point in answering this question is the Declaration on Principles of
International Law, which has already been discussed in relation to R2NSD,
and in which the UNGA declares: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs
shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would
dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or
political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves
in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination
of peoples”. If “sovereign and independent States [are]
conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples”, then there are in fact no
legal grounds for the UN to intervene in the remaining affairs of those
states; “matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction”.
What does
ICISS have to say on ‘intervention’? (1) The “principle
of non-intervention … is the norm from which any departure has
to be justified. All members of the United Nations have an interest
in maintaining an order of sovereign, self-reliant, responsible, yet
interdependent states. In most situations, this interest is best served
if all states … abstain from intervening or interfering in the
domestic affairs of other states.” A: The “principle of
non-intervention” in intra-state affairs may well be a norm, but
the principle of ‘the right to national self-determination’
finds far stronger support under the UN Charter, and international law.
(2) “The non-interference rule not only protects states and governments:
it also protects peoples and cultures, enabling societies to maintain
the religious, ethnic, and civilizational differences that they cherish.”
A: Did the Commission speak to anybody from Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo,
Darfur, etc.? (3) “The rule against intervention in internal affairs
encourages states to solve their own internal problems and prevent these
from spilling over into a threat to international peace and security.”
A: Could the Commission then please explain: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo,
Darfur, etc.? (4) “Yet there are exceptional circumstances in
which the very interest that all states have in maintaining a stable
international order requires them to react when all order within a state
has broken down or when civil conflict and repression are so violent
that civilians are threatened with massacre, genocide or ethnic cleansing
on a large scale.” A: A little bit of “repression”
is okay? What of human rights? The international community only has
a responsibility to act when “civilians are threatened with massacre,
genocide or ethnic cleansing on a large scale”? That, according
to B’Tselem, 1363 Palestinians had their Jerusalem residency rights
revoked by Israel in 2006 is okay, because it doesn’t represent
“ethnic cleansing on a large scale”? That Israel’s
‘Separation Barrier’ will de facto annex around 50% of the
Palestinian West Bank is okay, as this cannot be said to represent “ethnic
cleansing on a large scale”? Or can it? It is difficult to know,
as the Commission made no reference to the Palestinians in their 75
page Report.
Although
enough has now been said on the Commission’s indefensible position
re intervention, there is a real need to address their assertion that
“All members of the United Nations have an interest in maintaining
an order of sovereign … states.” This paragraph, paragraph
4.11 of their Report, goes on to claim: “Most internal political
or civil disagreements, even conflicts, within states do not require
coercive intervention by external powers”. Interesting then that
the Commission claims: “the overwhelming majority of today’s
armed conflicts are internal, not inter-state. Moreover, the proportion
of civilians killed in them increased from about one in ten at the start
of the 20th century to around nine in ten by its close.” And elsewhere
in the Report: “The most marked security phenomenon since the
end of the Cold War has been the proliferation of armed conflict within
states. In most cases these conflicts have centred on demands for greater
political rights and other political objectives”. Such as R2NSD?
Today, “Millions of human beings remain at the mercy of civil
wars, insurgencies, state repression and state collapse”. How
is it then, we must ask the Commission, that “Most internal political
or civil … conflicts, within states do not require coercive intervention
by external powers”? In terms of those conscience-shocking events
mentioned in the R2P Report, how many of these were intra-state –
but inter-nation – affairs? Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo? Can we add
Darfur? Palestine? – there is no Palestinian state, only the Israeli
State; the ‘Occupying Power’.
Did the Commission
completely miss the strong link between the denial of a nation’s
right to self-determination, and intra-state violence? No. “There
is a growing and widespread recognition that armed conflicts cannot
be understood without reference to such “root” causes as
poverty, political repression, and uneven distribution of resources…
Root cause prevention ... might involve democratic institution and capacity
building; constitutional power sharing, power-alternating and redistribution
arrangements.” That all sounds quite sensible. What else? “The
long-term solution for ethnic minority conflict or secessionist pressures
within a state will often be some kind of devolutionist compromise that
guarantees the minority its linguistic, political and cultural autonomy,
while preserving the integrity of the state in question.” That
also rings true. Two steps forward— “True reconciliation
is best generated by ground level reconstruction efforts, when former
armed adversaries join hands in rebuilding their community”. So,
why should the international community bother to intervene and protect
a nation’s right to self-determination, when “True reconciliation”
simply requires that “former armed adversaries join hands”?
Now that
we have reached the end of our analysis of the ‘sovereignty-intervention
debate’, the question becomes: What is the role of the UN in all
of this? You might recall that Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Charter
gives us the UN’s first Purpose: “To maintain international
peace and security”. Although it beggars belief, it seems necessary
to provide a definition of ‘international’ at this point:
“existing or occurring between nations” – not states.
On the UN,
the Commission’s Report notes: “The Security Council has
the ‘primary’ but not the sole or exclusive responsibility
under the Charter for [international] peace and security matters…
Article 11 gives the General Assembly a fallback responsibility with
regard specifically to the maintenance of international peace and security
– albeit only to make recommendations... To these Charter bases
for General Assembly action must be added the ‘Uniting for Peace’
resolution of 1950 … that was used as the basis for operations
in Korea that year and subsequently in Egypt in 1956”. Actually,
the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution – which I detail
in my article The ‘veto’ charade – was adopted by
the UNGA on 3 November 1950, and played absolutely no role in “operations
in Korea that year”; operations that were authorized by the Security
Council five months prior to its adoption. Furthermore, an objective
reading of the Charter, as well as the events surrounding the invocation
of the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution in 1956, reveals that
whilst the Security Council indeed has “primary responsibility”
for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General
Assembly, in fact, has ‘final responsibility’ – not
‘secondary responsibility’ – something it has almost
entirely failed to accept in the past.
Did the Commission
have anything else to say on the UN? “The UN exists in a world
of sovereign states, and its operations must be based in political realism.”
On “sovereign states” and “political realism”,
it appears that the Commission failed to give any thought to the example
of Switzerland. Yes, Switzerland is a sovereign state, but it is a sovereign
state made up of four distinct nations, each speaking a different language,
and, through the Swiss cantonal framework, each “conducting themselves
in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination
of peoples”. Noteworthy in this regard is that the Romansh Nation,
despite constituting just 1% of the Swiss State, had their language
accorded official status in a referendum in 1996. Political realism?
“Throughout
its deliberations, the Commission … sought to reconcile two objectives:
to strengthen, not weaken, the sovereignty of states, and to improve
the capacity of the international community to react decisively when
states are either unable or unwilling to protect their own people…
[T]he very term ‘international community’ will become a
travesty unless the community of states can act decisively when large
groups of human beings are being massacred or subjected to ethnic cleansing.”
This is interesting, because, according to the official ICISS website:
“The mandate of the Commission was to promote a comprehensive
global debate on the relationship between intervention and state sovereignty.”
That being the case, one can only wonder on whose mandate it was that
“the Commission … sought to … to strengthen, not weaken,
the sovereignty of states”?
To return
the article to where it began – 29 November 2007, marked sixty
years since the decision by the UN General Assembly to partition historic
Palestine into “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special
International Regime for the City of Jerusalem”; yet the Palestinian
nation continues to be denied its right to national self-determination.
If ICISS has its way, and if the so-called ‘international community’
continues to do nothing to uphold the UN Charter, it could well be ‘the
right to national self-determination’ that is massacred.
Cameron
Hunt is the author of Pax UNita - A novel solution to the Israel-Palestine
conflict.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.