Additional research for agnostica vs referendum

Notes:
1. Humanitarian intervention
- 'Humanitarian intervention', in its classical sense, may be defined as coercive action
by one or more states involving the use of armed force in another state without the
consent of its authorities, and with the purpose of preventing widespread suffering or
death among the inhabitants. Some definitions of recent decades have encompassed
certain elaborations, but do not fundamentally change the classical definition.”1
- Intervention is a valid intervention under the UN Charter:
o Article 1 (2) Preamble
 To develop friendly relations among nations based in respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and to take
other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace2;
o Under GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, Definition of Aggression
Article 7
 Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way
prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence as
derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and
referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly relations and Co-operation among States in
accordance with the Charter of the UN particularly people under
colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; nor the
right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive
support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in
conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration. 3
 Under Article 1, aggression is the use of armed force by a state against
the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United
Nations as set out in this Definition.4

2. The support of referendum by Reverentia was a support for the internal self-
determination and not for secession.
- Self-determination is the right of the people to “freely determine their political status
and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.” 5
- This has been adopted under the ICCPR and the ICESC in both their respective Article
1, Part 1.

1, Adam Roberts, The So Called Right of Humanitarian Intervention, 2001, citing the definition of
humanitarian intervention contained in a report commissioned by the Danish government in January 1999
and completed in October 1999, Humanitarian Intervention: Legal and Political Aspects (Copenhagen,
Danish Institute of International Affairs 1999) p. 11. Here such intervention is defined as 'coercive action by
states involving the use of armed force in another state without the consent of its government, with or
without authorisation from the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of preventing or putting to
a halt gross and massive violations of human rights or international humanitarian law'
2 United Nations Charter
3, Definition of Aggression, GA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974
4 Same
5 Paragraph 2, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People, GA

Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

 - According to Burak COP* and Do¤an Eymirlio¤lu6, the right to an internal self-
determination is suitably better in contemporary international politics.
o “The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) passed a
recommendation in 1996 which distinguished internal self-determination from
the external one. The CERD described the internal self-determination as the
“right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs at any level”.
o Within the framework of internal self-determination, Antonio Cassese
formulates a new concept that he names “political self-determination”. Cassese
considers this new concept to be “more consonant with new demands for
freedom at the present time”.
o The definition of the CSC regarding internal self-determination, which is
acknowledged by the Court as a concept fulfilling the external self-
determination, is as follows: “a people’s pursuit of its political, economic,
social and cultural development within the framework of an existing
state”.
o In Twining’s words; “the right to internal self-determination is directed against
authoritarian regimes, therefore, not only against external interference but
mainly against internal interference”.
o Shaw points out that a development concerning self-determination, which can
extend this right as to include the right of secession from a state, is possible,
but notes that it has not persuasively happened yet.”7
- In the case of Quebec, secession was defined as “the effort of a group or section of a
state to withdraw itself from the political and constitutional authority of that state, with
view to achieving statehood for a new territorial unit on the international plane.8”
- In this case, Quebec performed a unilateral secession against the state of Canada in
the form of a Referendum. According to court, Quebec may not hold or purport to hold
self-determination to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of the
proposed secession to the other parties. There is a need for a negotiation after all.
However, that a “clear expression of self-determination by the people of Quebec would
impose no obligations upon the other provinces or the federal government. The
continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order cannot
remain indifferent to the clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that
they no longer wish to remain in Canada. This would amount to the assertion
that other constitutionally recognized principles necessarily trump the clearly
expressed democratic will of the people of Quebec. Such a proposition fails to
give sufficient weight to the underlying constitutional principles that must
inform the amendment process, including the principles of democracy and
federalism. The rights of other provinces and the federal government cannot
deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear
majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so,
Quebec respects the rights of others. Negotiations would be necessary to
address the interests of the federal government, of Quebec and the other
provinces, and other participants, as well as the rights of all Canadians both
within and outside Quebec…
- “Refusal of a party to conduct negotiations in a manner consistent with
constitutional principles and values would seriously put at risk the legitimacy of

6 The Right of Self-Determination in International Law Towards the 40th Anniversary of the Adoption of
ICCPR and ICESCR, Winter 2005
7 Same
8 Reference re Secession of Quebec, 20 August 1998,
 that party's assertion of its rights, and perhaps the negotiation process as a
whole. Those who quite legitimately insist upon the importance of upholding the rule
of law cannot at the same time be oblivious to the need to act in conformity with
constitutional principles and values, and so do their part to contribute to the
maintenance and promotion of an environment in which the rule of law may flourish.9”
- The Agnostican government refused to adhere to the assertion of self-determination
of the East Reverentia despite the numerous attempts for peaceful negotiation.
- Under numerous present Conventions of the UN, the support for self-determination by
party states is clear.
o ICESCR-The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having
responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust
Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination,
and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the
Charter of the United Nations10.
o GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, Definition of Aggression- Nothing
in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right
to self-determination, freedom and independence as derived from the Charter,
of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly relations and Co-operation
among States in accordance with the Charter of the UN particularly people
under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; nor the
right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive
support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in
conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.11
o GA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations- States have the
duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of the differences in their
political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international
relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote
international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations
and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such
differences.
 … (b) States shall co-operate in the promotion of universal
respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all, and in the elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination and all forms of religious intolerance;
 (c) States shall conduct their international relations in the
economic, social, cultural, technical and trade fields in
accordance with the principles of sovereign equality and non-
intervention; …12
o In addition, under the same Declaration- By virtue of the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external
interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and

9 Same
10 Par 3, Part 1
11 Article 7
12 The Duty of the States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter
 cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in
accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
 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, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out
the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the
implementation of the principle, in order:

 To promote friendly relations and co-operation among

States; and
 To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to
the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien

subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the
principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary
to the Charter.

 Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action
universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

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.

 Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which
deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present
principle 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.

The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory

has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of
the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the
Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing
Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance
with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.

o Nevertheless, even in the event that the secession was considered

instead of an act of a state for self-determination, many critics have
interpreted that under the Declaration of Friendly Relations, secession is
authorized. As stated under the Declaration, “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 as described above and thus possessed of a government
representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as
to race, creed or colour.”
o “This statement has been interpreted to authorize secession of peoples
from states that do not conduct themselves in compliance with the
principle of self-determination." Furthermore, the Declaration imposes
a requirement that governments be representative of the people they
govern. If the government is not representative, this Declaration
suggests that secession may be a legitimate exercise of the right of
self-determination.13"
- The support for Referendum by the Reverentia was an act of adherence with the
international responsibility of Reverentia in promoting self-determination among
peoples who have decided independently to separate from their government.

3. Territorial Integrity of Agnostica was not violated.

13 Roya M. Hanna, Right to Self-Determination in In Re Secession of Quebec, 23 Md. J. Int'l L. 213 (1999)
citing Mitchell Hill, What the Principle of Self-Determination Means Today, 1 ILSA J. Int’l &Comp L. (1995)