Julian Aguon for Marianas Variety
Monday, June 27, 2011
(Editor's Note: Julian Aguon is an attorney who specializes in international law, and has authored several books and law journal articles on the subjects of self-determination, decolonization, and international human rights law. He teaches International Law at the University of Guam and has lectured extensively on these and other issues on four continents. This is the first of a series on his legal appraisal of Guam’s quest for self-determination.)
THE imprecision let loose on this island is more dangerous now than it has ever been, and writers, like myself, are being called to battle in a way we were not before.
In these high-stakes times – when the chips we are gambling with are children, coral reefs, limestone forests, narratives, whole imaginations – writers are called upon to do more than use our words; we are called to wield them. And in a time when words have been so methodically drained of meaning, it is irresponsible, if not indictable, to be imprecise.
The recent clamor around self-determination has demonstrated the danger of haphazardly flinging words around. The onslaught of opinion about the right of self-determination – namely what it is and who holds it – has reached a deafening roar.
We can hardly hear ourselves think. But in the end, opinions about the law are not the law. And despite the aggressive assertions of some, self-determination, at least as a matter of law, is not entirely up for debate. For instance, self-determination is not principally a race-based issue. Neither is it a purely political (as opposed to legal) one.
The right of self-determination has a certain shape and contour on which nearly the whole world has agreed. Self-determination is well-established in both the legal literature and actual practice of countries, and is an exalted normative domain in the contemporary international legal system. The recent clamor, then, is cruel. It does not help the people of Guam make sense of self-determination. It clouds, not clarifies, the law in this area. The following is a brief legal appraisal of self determination under international law, which is offered in an attempt to erase some of the confusion surrounding the fundamental human right.
What is the right of self-determination?
Upon the founding of the United Nations at the end of World War II and continuing thereafter, the international community increasingly recognized that the plight of colonized peoples, and later of indigenous peoples, must be terminated and their self-determination assured. The UN Charter itself, being both a political compact and an organic document, made but cursory references to this norm.
Its Article 1 calls for the development of “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Article 55 then states that the United Nations shall promote, among other values, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”
Article 73, which addresses the rights of peoples in non-self-governing territories (like Guam) who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.” These Administering Powers accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people. Toward this end, subsection (e) of Article 73 commands Administering Powers to submit annual reports to the United Nations on the steps they have taken and the progress they have made to move the territories toward self-government.
The interpretation of these Charter articles has been set out in major declarations adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
For instance, the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, or Resolution 1514, states that “[t]he 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 and co-operation.” Although the general rule is that declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly are not in themselves binding, to the extent that they illuminate and record the position of the international community on any given subject, they may be, and are frequently invoked as, evidence of the practice of states, which is a source of customary international law.
ICJ
Moreover, where General Assembly resolutions concern general norms of international law, their acceptance by a majority vote both constitutes evidence of the opinions of governments on any given subject and provides a basis for the progressive development of the law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1975 advisory opinion in the Western Sahara case adopted this perspective when it relied heavily on General Assembly resolutions to establish basic legal principles concerning the right of peoples to self-determination.
Major international conventions, or treaties, have lent further meaning and growth to the concept of self-determination. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) enshrine self-determination as a right. Approved by the General Assembly in 1966, and legally binding as of 1976, these treaties bind those countries that ratify them. The first article in each covenant, identically worded, indicates the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination in international law and sets out its classic wording: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Finally, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, also known as Resolution 2625 (XXV), provides that all peoples have the right to determine their political status without external interference, and that every state has the duty to respect this right.
Unlike the 1966 Covenants, which bind only those states that ratify them, Resolution 2625 is considered a datum of customary international law binding on all countries.
Showing posts with label non self-governing territories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non self-governing territories. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Self-Determination Legislation - Opportunity for US Administered Territories?
Self-Determination Legislation - Opportunity for US Administered Territories?
An OTR Editorial
Now that legislation authorizing United States (US) assistance to three territories under its administration has been adopted by the full US House of Representatives (H.R. 3940), the next phase of the process is crucial. The measure, originally introduced by Guam Delegate to Congress Madeleine Z. Bordallo, has now been forwarded to the US Senate for consideration. Delegate Bordallo should be commended for having done her job well in guiding the legislation through the US House.
The original legislation was amended during the House vetting process to include the territories of American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, as the original bill was specific to Guam. The revised text has also been strategically re-casted to amend a decades-old 1980 US law (P.L. 96-597) meant to "authorize appropriations for certain insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes." This would appear to heighten the opportunity that some dedicated resources would be attached to the measure, although the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $2 million over the period 2010 - 2014 appears rather paltry for one territory, let alone three such jurisdictions. The resources provided must be commensurate with the importance of the initiative as a significant contribution to the long-delayed process of self-determination. Otherwise, it would be mere window-dressing.
In the 7th December 2009 House of Representatives report interpreting the legislation (H.R. Report 111-357), it was emphasised that the political education programme envisaged in the bill would be based on political status alternatives "including, but not limited to" the internationally-recognised options of (US) "statehood, free association (and) independence," along with "maintaining the status quo." The first three alternatives were confirmed by the White House in two White House Reports in 2005 and 2007, respectively, as the “permanent” political status for options for Puerto Rico, and by extension for the other four US-administered territories.
The “not limited to” reference in the House report, however, is problematic as it implies the legitimacy of other options not providing for political equality, and inconsistent with democratic governance. The 1993 political status referendum in the US Virgin Islands is an example where an excessive total of seven options was put before the voters in referendum. These included no less than three different versions of the status quo, in addition to the three permanent options and one autonomous model. Not surprisingly, there was no conclusive referendum result as confusion reigned during the public education process over minute details between virtually indistinguishable dependency options. The options of political equality got “lost in the wash.” Political status for that territory has been considered only intermittently since then, and mostly in unofficial circles. This present Congressional legislation may force the issue to be revisited in earnest.
Such a proliferation of political status choices should be assiduously avoided through the provision of a less complicated process with a clearer and less complicated array of political alternatives. In this regard, the three permanent political status options identified by the White House, with an option for the temporary continuation of the status quo, would be the best approach. This should be done by informing the people of the territory concerned what they should have been advised of all along - that the status quo is not a permanent form of democratic government, nor was it ever meant to be so. Thus, if the people choose to remain as a dependent territory, they should have to be consulted again - sooner or later until they arrive at a permanent solution.
There is a precedent for this enlightened approach – it is the 2009 legislation on the self-determination of Puerto Rico which recognises the primacy of the three options consistent with international law. The legislative measure for Puerto Rico was approved by the US House of Representatives last June, and is also under consideration by the Senate. The Puerto Rico bill provides that the electorate be consulted again (as many times as it takes) if the dependent status of commonwealth is chosen in a referendum, since a permanent status would not have been achieved. The legislation for the other three territories presently has no such requirement. It is clearly understood in most political circles in Puerto Rico – even amongst those who support the status quo - that there are inherent democratic deficiencies in the territorial status which need to be corrected through “enhancements.”
The same democratic deficiencies apply to the territorial status of the other three US – administered territories, as well ( in addition to the Northern Mariana Islands), even as this may not be as readily recognised in these other territories. Thus, it should be made clear in the US Senate that the legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands refers to the same options of political equality as those offered to Puerto Rico - along with the possibility to temporarily retain the status quo, with the same stipulation that the territories would be periodically consulted until a permanent status is chosen. In fact, the distinction between temporary and permanent options should form an integral part of any public education process in the territories concerned, especially as the status quo itself is not stagnant, but rather allows for erosion of the limited autonomy of the territorial government at any time through unilateral decisions and applicability of legislation. The Northern Mariana Islands is a clear example of how such unilateral applicability of US law has begun to erode their erstwhile autonomous arrangement. The entire political arrangement should be the subject of formal review and reconsideration.
In some territories, the discussion on political evolution has already begun prior to this US legislation. The Governor of American Samoa initiated a promising political status and constitutional development process utilising local resources. That was before the tsunami earlier this year. Understandably, all efforts in that territory are now directed to reconstruction following the disaster, and the issue of political evolution is scheduled to be revisited in 2010. This timetable places the American Samoa process within the framework of the legislation being considered by the US Senate.
In the US Virgin Islands, an elected constitutional convention adopted an ambitious draft constitution last May for consideration by the US Congress which would test the limited parameters of the status quo dependency arrangement as a first step in resuming focus on political and constitutional development after over a decade and a half of dormancy. Whether the draft constitution would formally be considered by Washington, however, remains to be determined by the territorial court which has yet to rule on whether the document will be transmitted to the US Congress over the objection of the current elected governor who has held back the document based on certain provisions within it. Chances are that a US Congressional analysis of the draft constitution could determine that the additional powers sought for the territory contained in the document could only be realised in one of the permanent options – thus, the process could comes full circle, squarely back into the realm of the fundamental need to address the political status question – as one scholar has written, “decolonisation rather than colonial reform.”
The role of civil society in all of this continues to be crucial. Organisations in the US Virgin Islands such as the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) have been active for over a decade in providing information on the importance of a legitimate process of self-determination. Non-governmental organisations in Guam have taken a sustained approach over the years through organisations such as the Chamoru Nashion, and the Organisation of Peoples for Indigenous Rights (OPIR), among others. American Samoa’s Political Status Commission did especially important work on political alternatives several years ago, and this should serve as an excellent point of departure as the legislation in Congress shifts to the US Senate. In Puerto Rico, the political parties and the Bar Association, among others, have historically taken the lead in advocacy on the issue.
The introduction of the Bordallo legislation, therefore, was an important step in ‘jump-starting’ the process of self-determination in all of these territories, and has the promise of reviving serious deliberations among the people on their political evolution. Meanwhile, in the territories, media attention to the measure has been uneven. Other than in Guam, the media in the other two territories covered by the bill has been curiously and conspicuously silent as to the very existence of the legislation, and OTR is not aware of any official statements emanating from these territorial capitols on the legislation with the notable exception of Guam whose governor testified before the US Congress in Washington in favour of the measure.
With the appropriate clarifications to the legislation, including the correction of re-focusing on the permanent options, along with a realistic amount of resources for the three territories to wage a serious public campaign, a process of self-determination can yet be realised. The Obama Administration could very well be the first US administration since these territories were acquired at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century to foster a genuine process of self-determination for the peoples of these territories, and the first to seriously implement its international obligations under the United Nations Charter to bring genuine self-government and full political equality to the territories under its administration.
An OTR Editorial
Now that legislation authorizing United States (US) assistance to three territories under its administration has been adopted by the full US House of Representatives (H.R. 3940), the next phase of the process is crucial. The measure, originally introduced by Guam Delegate to Congress Madeleine Z. Bordallo, has now been forwarded to the US Senate for consideration. Delegate Bordallo should be commended for having done her job well in guiding the legislation through the US House.
The original legislation was amended during the House vetting process to include the territories of American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, as the original bill was specific to Guam. The revised text has also been strategically re-casted to amend a decades-old 1980 US law (P.L. 96-597) meant to "authorize appropriations for certain insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes." This would appear to heighten the opportunity that some dedicated resources would be attached to the measure, although the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $2 million over the period 2010 - 2014 appears rather paltry for one territory, let alone three such jurisdictions. The resources provided must be commensurate with the importance of the initiative as a significant contribution to the long-delayed process of self-determination. Otherwise, it would be mere window-dressing.
In the 7th December 2009 House of Representatives report interpreting the legislation (H.R. Report 111-357), it was emphasised that the political education programme envisaged in the bill would be based on political status alternatives "including, but not limited to" the internationally-recognised options of (US) "statehood, free association (and) independence," along with "maintaining the status quo." The first three alternatives were confirmed by the White House in two White House Reports in 2005 and 2007, respectively, as the “permanent” political status for options for Puerto Rico, and by extension for the other four US-administered territories.
The “not limited to” reference in the House report, however, is problematic as it implies the legitimacy of other options not providing for political equality, and inconsistent with democratic governance. The 1993 political status referendum in the US Virgin Islands is an example where an excessive total of seven options was put before the voters in referendum. These included no less than three different versions of the status quo, in addition to the three permanent options and one autonomous model. Not surprisingly, there was no conclusive referendum result as confusion reigned during the public education process over minute details between virtually indistinguishable dependency options. The options of political equality got “lost in the wash.” Political status for that territory has been considered only intermittently since then, and mostly in unofficial circles. This present Congressional legislation may force the issue to be revisited in earnest.
Such a proliferation of political status choices should be assiduously avoided through the provision of a less complicated process with a clearer and less complicated array of political alternatives. In this regard, the three permanent political status options identified by the White House, with an option for the temporary continuation of the status quo, would be the best approach. This should be done by informing the people of the territory concerned what they should have been advised of all along - that the status quo is not a permanent form of democratic government, nor was it ever meant to be so. Thus, if the people choose to remain as a dependent territory, they should have to be consulted again - sooner or later until they arrive at a permanent solution.
There is a precedent for this enlightened approach – it is the 2009 legislation on the self-determination of Puerto Rico which recognises the primacy of the three options consistent with international law. The legislative measure for Puerto Rico was approved by the US House of Representatives last June, and is also under consideration by the Senate. The Puerto Rico bill provides that the electorate be consulted again (as many times as it takes) if the dependent status of commonwealth is chosen in a referendum, since a permanent status would not have been achieved. The legislation for the other three territories presently has no such requirement. It is clearly understood in most political circles in Puerto Rico – even amongst those who support the status quo - that there are inherent democratic deficiencies in the territorial status which need to be corrected through “enhancements.”
The same democratic deficiencies apply to the territorial status of the other three US – administered territories, as well ( in addition to the Northern Mariana Islands), even as this may not be as readily recognised in these other territories. Thus, it should be made clear in the US Senate that the legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands refers to the same options of political equality as those offered to Puerto Rico - along with the possibility to temporarily retain the status quo, with the same stipulation that the territories would be periodically consulted until a permanent status is chosen. In fact, the distinction between temporary and permanent options should form an integral part of any public education process in the territories concerned, especially as the status quo itself is not stagnant, but rather allows for erosion of the limited autonomy of the territorial government at any time through unilateral decisions and applicability of legislation. The Northern Mariana Islands is a clear example of how such unilateral applicability of US law has begun to erode their erstwhile autonomous arrangement. The entire political arrangement should be the subject of formal review and reconsideration.
In some territories, the discussion on political evolution has already begun prior to this US legislation. The Governor of American Samoa initiated a promising political status and constitutional development process utilising local resources. That was before the tsunami earlier this year. Understandably, all efforts in that territory are now directed to reconstruction following the disaster, and the issue of political evolution is scheduled to be revisited in 2010. This timetable places the American Samoa process within the framework of the legislation being considered by the US Senate.
In the US Virgin Islands, an elected constitutional convention adopted an ambitious draft constitution last May for consideration by the US Congress which would test the limited parameters of the status quo dependency arrangement as a first step in resuming focus on political and constitutional development after over a decade and a half of dormancy. Whether the draft constitution would formally be considered by Washington, however, remains to be determined by the territorial court which has yet to rule on whether the document will be transmitted to the US Congress over the objection of the current elected governor who has held back the document based on certain provisions within it. Chances are that a US Congressional analysis of the draft constitution could determine that the additional powers sought for the territory contained in the document could only be realised in one of the permanent options – thus, the process could comes full circle, squarely back into the realm of the fundamental need to address the political status question – as one scholar has written, “decolonisation rather than colonial reform.”
The role of civil society in all of this continues to be crucial. Organisations in the US Virgin Islands such as the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands (UNAVI) have been active for over a decade in providing information on the importance of a legitimate process of self-determination. Non-governmental organisations in Guam have taken a sustained approach over the years through organisations such as the Chamoru Nashion, and the Organisation of Peoples for Indigenous Rights (OPIR), among others. American Samoa’s Political Status Commission did especially important work on political alternatives several years ago, and this should serve as an excellent point of departure as the legislation in Congress shifts to the US Senate. In Puerto Rico, the political parties and the Bar Association, among others, have historically taken the lead in advocacy on the issue.
The introduction of the Bordallo legislation, therefore, was an important step in ‘jump-starting’ the process of self-determination in all of these territories, and has the promise of reviving serious deliberations among the people on their political evolution. Meanwhile, in the territories, media attention to the measure has been uneven. Other than in Guam, the media in the other two territories covered by the bill has been curiously and conspicuously silent as to the very existence of the legislation, and OTR is not aware of any official statements emanating from these territorial capitols on the legislation with the notable exception of Guam whose governor testified before the US Congress in Washington in favour of the measure.
With the appropriate clarifications to the legislation, including the correction of re-focusing on the permanent options, along with a realistic amount of resources for the three territories to wage a serious public campaign, a process of self-determination can yet be realised. The Obama Administration could very well be the first US administration since these territories were acquired at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century to foster a genuine process of self-determination for the peoples of these territories, and the first to seriously implement its international obligations under the United Nations Charter to bring genuine self-government and full political equality to the territories under its administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)