INTRODUCTION

Self-determination is the right of groups to "determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development."' Although the emergence of new sovereign entities was not initially a concern of international law, decolonization necessitated the emergence of new international law in the form of rules for self-determination. Much like there are legal guidelines for passing domestic statutes in the United States, there are international legal requirements for resolving self-determination conflicts. The use of legal norms such as earned sovereignty and plebiscites legalizes the process of recognizing emerging independent states or, in the alternative, recognizing the sovereign rights attributed to sub-states. Earned sovereignty provides the legal framework for resolution and addresses international legal status, and the plebiscite ensures that the framework attains legal status only after popular consultation of the people.' The conflict in Kashmir is a fight for selfdetermination, a recognized right in international law. Until recently, the international legal community had not come up with the legal framework to reach a solution. From the beginning of the Kashmir conflict, the involved parties argued that the appropriate solution was a plebiscite, a direct vote whereby the government gives the people the right to accept or refuse a particular proposal. The parties claimed that a plebiscite' would illustrate the will of the people. The actions of Pakistan and India, however, have negated any possibility of selfdetermination. The international community's attitude toward the Kashmir plebiscite was to ignore it and retain the status quo.' This attitude has changed as the danger of the situation has escalated since India and Pakistan became nuclear powers." Neither of the parties rules out the use of nuclear weapons, and Pakistan does not deny the possibility of a first strike. Recent alterations in regional politics, along with changing worldviews on terrorism, may soon open the door for a final solution to the Kashmir conflict. Scope This project will firstly examine the developments on the issue that have taken place during the course of time. Then, the legal framework envisaged by the U.N. Charter, ICCPR and other Covenants. This work will refer to various court decisions, GA resolutions, and scholars arguments in this respect. In the second part it will examine the historical and current situation in Kashmir. Finally, a study on the exercise of the right of self-determination with special reference to Kashmir issue will be presented in comparison with classical and modern requirements for the exercise of the said right.

Chapterisation
Part-I The development and nature of right of self-determination 1) Origin and historical background 2) Content and nature of self-determination 3) Convention and legal framework 4) Current issues Part-II Kashmir Issue: Historical background and Current Scenario 1) History and time line of events 2) Conflict: Act of terrorism, Human right violations etc. 3) Recent developments and International interventions Part-III Analysis 1) A study of development of right of self-determination in other parts of the world and consequently its impact on Kashmir. Part-IV Conclusion and Recommendation

Research Questions:1) What are the meaning, objective and purpose of the right of self-determination? 2) What is the status of right of self-determination in International Community? 3) What is the implication of right of self-determination over Kashmir Issue?

Bibliography:UN era 88 American Journal of International Law (1994) Khan, Fakiha, Nuking Kashmir: Legal Implications of Nuclear Testing by Pakistan and India in the Context of the Kashmir Dispute 29 The Geogria Journal of Books: Addo, Michael K., International human rights law (Adershot: Ashgate, 2001) Alston, Philip and Crawford, Alston, ed., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) Banton, Michael P. International action against racial discrimination (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996)

Bayefsky, Anne, Self-determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned (Hague: Kluwar Law International, 2000) Cassese, Antonio, International Law, 2ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) Cassese, Antonio, self- Determination of Peoples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) Cassese, Antonio, International Law and indigenous peoples (Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff, 2005) McWhinney, Edward, The United Nations and a new World Order for a new millennium: Self-determination, State succession, and humanitarian intervention (The Hague; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2000) Moore, Margaret, ed., Self-Determination and Secession (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) Musgrave, Thomas D., Self-determination and national minorities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1997) Nesiah, Devanesan, Discrimination with Reason? The Policy of reservations in the United States, India and

Articles: Anaya,S. J., A Contemporary Definition of the International Norms of Self-Determination 3Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems (1993) Brilmayer, L., Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation 16 Yale Journal of International Law (1991) F. L., The Degrees of Self-Determination in the International and Comparative Law (2001) Kolodner, Eric, The Future of the Right to self-Determination 10 Connecticut Journal of International Law (1994) Koskenniemi, M., National Self-Determination today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice 43 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1994) Lea, Brilmayer, Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation 16 Yale Journal of International Law 177(1991) R. Emerson, Self-determination American Journal of International Law, 65 (1971)

UN Documents:

Human Rights Committee

General Comment No. 12 The right to Self- Determination of Peoples (Art 1):. 13/03/84 CCPR General Comment No. 12 (General Comments) General Comment No. 21 General Recommendation No.21: Right to Self- Determination:. 23/08/96 CERD General Comment No. 21 (General Comments)