- James Ker-Lindsay?
- PHP 5 for dummies;
- Gender, Work and Space (Routledge International Studies of Women and Place)!
As of December , the two sides could not seem to resolve their differences and the Troika has declared the political negotiations a failure. It is unlikely that anything short of military intervention could have kept Kosovo within Serbia. Thus, it appears that most, if not all, realistic options other than separation had failed.
As should be clear from this analysis, the basic framework provided by international law permits arguments for and against secession.
Declarations of Independence Encyclopedia of American Autonomous and Secessionist Movements
This is the quintessential "tough case. However, if we take as a given that secession is not absolutely prohibited by international law, then the case of Kosovo presents a set of facts that may be persuasive: an ethnic group though perhaps not a "nation" , within a region with historically defined boundaries Kosovo as a province , after an international intervention to prevent a humanitarian disaster being caused by the predecessor state, and after negotiations with the predecessor state leading to a complete deadlock, that seeks independence via a declaration that is coordinated with, and supported by, a significant segment of the international community.
It thus stands in contrast to other claims of a "right" to secede, such as those of Transnistria, which due to different material facts would fail under the same legal analysis. In difficult situations such as these, the issue of legality often shifts from the question of the legality of secession, to the question of the legality of the recognition of secession, a subtly different, but nonetheless different, question.
The EU memorandum on Resolution contends that "[g]enerally, once an entity has emerged as a state in the sense of international law, a political decision can be taken to recognise [sic] it. Rather, recognition merely accepts a factual occurrence. Thus recognition is "declaratory" as opposed to "constitutive. To the contrary, a good argument may be made that states should not recognize a new state if such recognition would perpetuate a breach of international law.
The treatise Oppenheim's Ninth , Sec. But, absent any qualification, that argument cannot be legally correct. Changing the boundaries of a sovereign state Serbia in and of itself would not make Kosovar independence illegal because, as discussed above, the international community has come to accept the legality of secession under certain circumstances. Furthermore, the self-determination analysis is very fact specific, such that absolute arguments of illegality become difficult. And, state practice evinces that, absent a clear indication of illegality, in matters of state recognition there is considerable deference to the political prerogatives of outside states to decide whether or not to recognize an aspirant state.
For an example of the international community indicating illegality, the Security Council issued a resolution condemning the recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. There is no such resolution here, but rather a growing momentum to accept Kosovo's declaration. This does not, in and of itself, make Kosovo's secession legal. But it does show that, in cases of secession, law and politics are especially tightly intertwined.
Given the ambiguity of the claim of a legal privilege of secession and the fairly broad leeway that states have to recognize Kosovo, should they choose to do so, is the example of Kosovo of legal relevance to other separatist conflicts, such as those in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria? Or is Kosovo sui generis and of no precedential weight? The unusual combination of factors found in the Kosovo situation - including the context of Yugoslavia's breakup, the history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against civilians in Kosovo, and the extended period of UN administration - are not found elsewhere and therefore make Kosovo a special case.
Kosovo cannot be seen as precedent for any other situation in the world today. The right of nations to self-determination cannot justify recognition of Kosovo's independence along with the simultaneous refusal to discuss similar acts by other self-proclaimed states, which have obtained de facto independence exclusively by themselves. Moreover, Bosnian Serbs had earlier stated that, should Kosovo declare independence, they would seek independence for "Republika Srpska," the self-proclaimed Bosnian Serb ethnic enclave within Bosnia.
It can be argued that Kosovo is different from other secessionist claims because Kosovo has been under international administration as the international community considered the situation so volatile. Reintegrating such a territory is different from assessing a claim by a separatist group that, on its own, is seeking to overturn the authority of the pre-existing state and unilaterally secede. While secessions are primarily an issue of domestic law, Resolution internationalized the problem. It also moved Kosovo from being solely under Serbian sovereignty into the grey zone of international administration.
This is a highly controversial position. Various reactions to the "uniqueness" argument include that such a contention is "absurd" or that it is an esoteric legal point that will be forgotten in the rush of politics. It may, however, be possible to argue that Kosovo is both unique and a source of precedent at the same time. Two reasons are cited for Kosovo's uniqueness: 1 Kosovo has been under international administration since ; and 2 the Kosovar Albanians are an ethnically homogenous enclave, physically separate and ethnically different from the Serbs.
Let us assume that the first point, international administration, is persuasive and makes Kosovo a special case. Nonetheless, Kosovo can still be cited by other separatists as precedent for the specific issue of how the international community defines a "people" for the purpose of self-determination.
Pregnant and want to know your options?
And it would be irrelevant whether or not Kosovo had been under international administration. As mentioned above, the term has been difficult to define, but modern state practice has tended to treat a "people" as a complete ethnic nation not just a fragment of a larger ethnic group that exists elsewhere. However, those arguing that secession is legal in the Kosovo case seem to be defining people as a homogenous ethnic enclave. In other words, unless those recognizing Kosovo's declaration claim that the Kosovar Albanians are an ethnicity unto themselves, as opposed to just part of the Albanian ethnic group, then they may well be changing what had been the most common definition as to who may claim the privilege of secession.
If that is the case, then the international community may be creating precedent that we will see cited by other ethnic enclaves seeking separation, be they Russians in Abkhazia or Krajina Serbs. Previously, neither of these groups was viewed as having a strong claim for the privilege of secession, as neither of these groups is a "nation" in the ethnographic sense, but rather fragments of Russian or Serb ethnic groups. But their arguments may be strengthened, and one of the bulwarks of international law against facile secessions may be weakened, if the facts of the Kosovo claim are not carefully and narrowly construed.
Despite the declarations and best intentions, just saying something is "unique" may not be enough. Institutional autonomy was often seen as a synonym for self-determination , and many governments feared that it would lead institutions to an irredentist or secessionist region. But autonomy should be seen as a solution to self-determination struggles. Institutional autonomy can diffuse conflicts regarding minorities and ethnic groups in a society.
Relief, drainage, and soils
Allowing more autonomy to groups and institutions helps create diplomatic relationships between them and the central government. In governmental parlance, autonomy refers to self-governance. An example of an autonomous jurisdiction was the former United States governance of the Philippine Islands. The Philippine Autonomy Act of provided the framework for the creation of an autonomous government under which the Filipino people had broader domestic autonomy than previously, although it reserved certain privileges to the United States to protect its sovereign rights and interests.
Autonomy is a key concept that has a broad impact on different fields of philosophy. In metaphysical philosophy , the concept of autonomy is referenced in discussions about free will , fatalism , determinism , and agency.gosvantlameza.tk
Declarations of Independence
Immanuel Kant — defined autonomy by three themes regarding contemporary ethics. Firstly, autonomy as the right for one to make their own decisions excluding any interference from others.
Secondly, autonomy as the capacity to make such decisions through one's own independence of mind and after personal reflection. Thirdly, as an ideal way of living life autonomously. In summary, autonomy is the moral right one possesses, or the capacity we have in order to think and make decisions for oneself providing some degree of control or power over the events that unfold within one's everyday life. The context in which Kant addresses autonomy is in regards to moral theory , asking both foundational and abstract questions. He believed that in order for there to be morality , there must be autonomy.
He breaks down autonomy into two distinct components. This is the aspect where decisions are made on your own. Whereas, "nomos" is the positive sense, a freedom or lawfulness, where you are choosing a law to follow. Kantian autonomy also provides a sense of rational autonomy, simply meaning one rationally possesses the motivation to govern their own life.
Self-Determination | Encyclopedia Princetoniensis
Rational autonomy entails making your own decisions but it cannot be done solely in isolation. Cooperative rational interactions are required to both develop and exercise our ability to live in a world with others. Kant argued that morality presupposes this autonomy German : Autonomie in moral agents, since moral requirements are expressed in categorical imperatives. An imperative is categorical if it issues a valid command independent of personal desires or interests that would provide a reason for obeying the command.
It is hypothetical if the validity of its command, if the reason why one can be expected to obey it, is the fact that one desires or is interested in something further that obedience to the command would entail. The hypothetical command not to speed on the freeway is not valid for you if you do not care whether you are stopped by the police. The categorical command is valid for you either way. Autonomous moral agents can be expected to obey the command of a categorical imperative even if they lack a personal desire or interest in doing so.
It remains an open question whether they will, however. The Kantian concept of autonomy is often misconstrued, leaving out the important point about the autonomous agent's self-subjection to the moral law. It is thought that autonomy is fully explained as the ability to obey a categorical command independently of a personal desire or interest in doing so—or worse, that autonomy is "obeying" a categorical command independently of a natural desire or interest; and that heteronomy, its opposite, is acting instead on personal motives of the kind referenced in hypothetical imperatives.
In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals , Kant applied the concept of autonomy also to define the concept of personhood and human dignity. Autonomy, along with rationality , are seen by Kant as the two criteria for a meaningful life. Kant would consider a life lived without these not worth living; it would be a life of value equal to that of a plant or insect.
Human actions are morally praise- or blame-worthy in virtue of our autonomy. Non- autonomous beings such as plants or animals are not blameworthy due to their actions being non-autonomous. Brainwashing or drugging criminals into being law-abiding citizens would be immoral as it would not be respecting their autonomy. Rehabilitation must be sought in a way that respects their autonomy and dignity as human beings.
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about autonomy and the moral fight. This can be interpreted as influenced by Kant self-respect and Aristotle self-love. For Nietzsche, valuing ethical autonomy can dissolve the conflict between love self-love and law self-respect which can then translate into reality through experiences of being self-responsible. Because Nietzsche defines having a sense of freedom with being responsible for one's own life, freedom and self-responsibility can be very much linked to autonomy.
The Swiss philosopher Jean Piaget believed that autonomy comes from within and results from a "free decision". It is of intrinsic value and the morality of autonomy is not only accepted but obligatory. When an attempt at social interchange occurs, it is reciprocal, ideal and natural for there to be autonomy regardless of why the collaboration with others has taken place. For Piaget, the term autonomous can be used to explain the idea that rules are self-chosen.
By choosing which rules to follow or not, we are in turn determining our own behaviour. Piaget studied the cognitive development of children by analyzing them during their games and through interviews, establishing among other principles that the children's moral maturation process occurred in two phases, the first of heteronomy and the second of autonomy:.
Rules are objective and unchanging.
Related Declarations of Independence: Encyclopedia of American Autonomous and Secessionist Movements
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved