In the last decade, we have seen the birth of two new countries, East Timor and Kosovo; both of which gained their independence not through negotiations but through internal processes of referendum where people sturdily asserted their call for independence with the active support and lobbying efforts of the international community. On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia in 2008 did not violate international law. By doing so, the International Court of Justice has re-established the democratic principle of creating new states – through the will of the people.
In the last ten years, the international community has borne witness to the continuing failure of a number of critical peace negotiations, some of which have entirely collapsed and returned to war, while others are on the brink of resuming armed confrontation after having reached an impasse. A number of peace processes around the world which had been projected as possible 'road maps' by the international community have failed miserably to find a solution; and are now being seriously questioned. The important point therefore is: Are negotiations an effective method to solve political conflicts? The last ten years have proved otherwise. Rather the approach of seeking the will of the people by way of a referendum or plebiscite has been successful in modern politics; and the process of exercising one’s will is consistent with values of democracy.
While the art of negotiations are an essential component of diplomacy, the dynamic of international politics has failed to empower and enable negotiation processes to become an effective means of conflict transformation. One of the drawbacks of negotiations is the disturbing fact that very often the ownership of the process and the outcome is taken out of the hands of conflicting parties who are in negotiation. Real politik and state control are the contributing factors that create deadlocks in negotiations and often do not encourage the process to provide out-of-the box options. Naturally such a limited approach only causes further distrust and polarization and rather than resolving the issue, it only further complicates them.
Keeping in mind the consistency in which negotiations have only ended in renewal of political violence or an impasse that stubbornly refuses to think and act outside of the conventional point of view, the need for alternative ways to address protracted conflicts of a political nature has become fundamental to conflict transformation. It is in this light that the question of referendum as a means to break the impasse cause by protracted negotiations has become affective in creating new and viable options for political solutions. The relevance of referendum in conflict transformation has been proved the legal legitimacy as pointed out by the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the Kosovo situation affirms this point.
Nelson Mandela has been proved right when he stated that “only free men can negotiate;” and perhaps in an irony twist of fate, the referendum may prove to be the most effective way to resolve political conflicts in modern history.
