I have come to appreciate the notion that every generation enters into a contract with notions of justice, dignity, peace, and existence. Perhaps it is through this idea of generational contract that we come to understand the perpetual changing realities, which are now beginning to define the future as well. Take state boundaries for example, and how the old boundaries consistently manifest itself in different ways with newer challenges.
Just today, we are witnessing how the old-boundaries of Europe are breaking down as the European Commission implements the freedom of movement, which they proclaim as the “main rights of human beings.” The Schengen Treaty zone now facilitates free movement of people through 24 sovereign states, with only a Schengen visa, thus altering the concept of state frontiers and territorial integrity. It is hard to imagine that just a generation ago these old-boundaries were the symbols of division; and that countless wars had been fought to establish them.
Indeed a new sense of pragmatism is beginning to define the manner in which old-problems are being addressed. Yet, on the other hand, the case of Kosovo presents the flip side of pragmatism. Kosovo a political nation seeking to be independent from Serbia, which ironically got its independence only after the break down of former Yugoslavia, has become a pawn of old-politics, or in other words a victim of the remnants of the cold-war. In this case, the old argument of state territorial integrity is being held as a justification to withhold Kosovo’s independence.
The rationale of state territorial integrity however is being put to its ultimate test. With the unfolding events in Europe where traditional notions of territorial integrity are being redefined and transformed into less rigid lines of control, it is becoming quite apparent that the principle of territorial integrity is conditioned to the right to self-determination. This is to suggest that in cases of conflict between territorial integrity and self-determination, the right to self-determination should prevail. The concept and value of self-determination is not only a broader concept, but is a source that gives birth to the idea of sovereignty itself.
The denial of the right to self-determination has now inspired the Lakota nation to reclaim and reassert their freedom from the United State of America. It was specifically the fear of such demands by the indigenous peoples that the United States of America had earlier this year objected to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples; which recognizes the right to self-determination. The declaration to withdraw from the United States and to establish its freedom once again brings the right to self-determination in a direct collusion course with the principle of state territorial integrity.
International Law is very clear on such matters. The principle of territorial integrity is not the end, neither is it absolute in itself and according to international law, such a principle is to ensure that the interests of the people of a given territory are safeguarded. Consequently, the rationale of state territorial integrity is applicable and meaningful only so long as it continues to fulfill that purpose. No state can claim to safeguard the interest of the people unless the people have themselves expressed their consent and will to be part of it. This dual condition needs fulfillment when the principle of territorial integrity is invoked.
The limitation of territorial integrity is best illustrated by Judge Hardy Dillard in the International Court of Justice case on Western Sahara, when he said, “it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.” The transformation of old-boundaries in Europe should be a case in point on how political conflicts can be negotiated peacefully. The Kosovo case is a tragic irony precisely because while Serbia was formed on the basis of the right to self-determination, it now denies the same right to the Kosovars.
This irony however is being played and replayed in numerous cases in former colonies in Asia and Africa. The greatest irony however is that while former colonial powers have moved on from its past, even to the extent of breaking down old-boundaries, former colonies continue to rigidly hold on colonial boundaries. And unless the burden of this history is healed, its yesterday will remain the same as today, because it is a future with no tomorrow.
