Self Determination
What is a small state?
Classic definition: those 'that can do little to influence the system-wide forces that affect them, except in groups which are so large that each state has minimal influence and which may themselves be dominated by larger powers'. (Keohane) Today: Small states must adapt to the environment, rather than influence it. Seek influence through organisations. Today being a small state is easier. Global interdependence makes the distinction between large and small states less relevant (depends on the trade regime, not the territory)
WW1
(1914-1918) SD's role to trigger the war: Nationalism was a powerful cause of the conflict - The Habsburg Empire was a multi-ethnic country. SD's role during the war: Both the Allied and Central powers used promises of SD to compete for allies during the war. Germans - assistance to Flemish secessionists Allies - promised statehood to the Czechs, Slovaks and Poles during the war in return for abandoning the Central Powers SD's role after the war: Before the end of the war Wilson gave a statement (the 14 points) before the US Congress where he advocated for a "peace without victory" - a fair new world order where SD had to play a role Postwar structure: disintegration of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires - establishing bounderies 2 main objectives: contain German expansionism + stabilize Central Europe SD considered for nations within the territory of the defeated empires - % demands of the peoples, unless they were consistent with the interests of the Great Powers German colonies: SD was never thought to apply to overseas territories Article 22 of the LofN treaty: tutelage entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility Summary: SD was a (political) principle that emerged for the first time in history in the end of WW1. Was implemented in a very partial way - only to be used in Europe (not worldwide) by those territories in the hands of the defeated powers
Atlantic Charter
(1941) SD is appearing in relevant documents (Churchill + Roosevelt) Implicit reference to SD - it is not valid to make territorial changes, unless it is the wish of the people
United Nations Charter
(1945) The UN Charter does not provide a right to SD - it is a principle The principle of SD is only mentioned twice (art. 1(2) and 55) in the Charter of the UN - in the context of developing "friendly relations among nations" and in conjunction with the principle of equal rights of people Non-self-governing territories (art. 73) - Colonial powers have a clear obligation to inform the Secretary General of economic, social and educational conditions Beyond this, the rest of the obligations are very vague and imprecise - obligation to promote well-being of the inhabitants and develop self-government Trust territories (art. 76) - colonies not acquired but received recently - link not that close. For the first time possibility of independence but it is very vague, as it depends on the "particular circumstances"
SC Advisory Opinion on Quebec
(1998) The SC admits that: There is no constitutional provision addressing secession → rejects the right of Quebec to secede unilaterally under Canadian Constitution and international law → this would require a constitutional amendment. The Court identified 4 underlying constitutional principles that is the basis for Canadian constitutionalism 1) Federalism: Grants power to provincial governments → due to the diversity that existed → was reconciled with unity → central theme of the constitution 2) Democracy: Fundamental value → political system of majority rule → a functioning democracy requires continuous process of discussion and negotiation. Despite a clear referendum, Quebec could not invoke a right to SD → not matter the strong majority, the democratic vote could not push aside the principles of federalism and rule of law → democratic rights cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. 3) Constitutionalism and the rule of law: Constitutionalism: Laws must be consistent with the constitution → all government action must comply → requires enhanced majority to amend. Rule of law: One rule for all → the law is supreme over acts of government and private persons → regulates relationship between state and individual 4) Protection of minorities: Product of historical compromises. The SC encourage discussions and negotiations to sort out the political conflict → a functioning democracy requires a continuous process of discussion → a right to negotiate does not automatically imply a right to secede The decision developed a constitutional doctrine to accommodate a political tension. 2000 Clarity Act → The idea of clarity and the constitutional duty to negotiate → difficulties in regard to another referendum Summary: A right to secession only arises under the principle of SD of peoples at international law where "a people" is - Governed as part of a colonial empire - Subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation - Denied any meaningful exercise of its right to SD within the state of which it forms a part. In other circumstances, peoples are expected to achieve SD within the framework of their existing state. A state whose government represents the whole of the people, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of SD, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity.
ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion
(2010) Provisions 79-84 are important → Regard whether the declaration of independence in 2008 was in accordance with international law → Serbia was convinced that Kosovo had acted in violation of international law State practice → "During the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were numerous instances of declarations of independence [...]" There is a right to SD, but basically only for colonies → "During the second half of the twentieth century, the international law of self-determination developed in such a way as to create a right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing territories" Also state practice in present/90s → Many new States have come into existence as a result of the right to SD → however, also instances of declarations of independence outside this context. The principle operates only in the international level → not with people within their own state. Evolution of SD → Unclear status of remedial secession → An international right that appears when at society in a already established state suffers human violations. Court of Justice: No consensus/agreement on the meaning/existence. Conclusion: The Court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence → the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate general international law
The Baltic States (The Soviet Union)
(Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) 1940: Forced incorporation in the Soviet Union → violation of international law → the states continued to exist after WWII 1980: Nationalist movements demanding independence and democracy 1990: Fair elections won by popular movements → declarations of independence. Soviet's response: small-scale armed intervention. Western response: calls for dialogue and negotiation. 1991: Referendum → support in favor of independence. Soviet fall seemed irreversible → The West welcomed the "restoration of the sovereignty" only after the Soviet Union had collapsed ("restoration" = the right of SD does not appear out of nothing - it is a restoration of the former independence). Gorbachev's successor (Yeltsin) did not oppose the secessions → rapid international recognition → the UN General Assembly voted to admit the Baltic States. An act of constituent power.
Northern Ireland
1922: Irish independence → Northern part (protestant majority/Unionists) remained part of UK → Catholic minority/Nationalists promoted integration with Ireland. 1968-1998: 30 years of conflict between Catholics and Protestants. 1998: Good Friday Agreement (GFA) → British Government is constitutionally obliged to permit right to secede (unlike case with Scotland) under certain conditions (which are hard to meet) → people of Northern Ireland are entitled right to SD upon majority vote. Requirement: Only referendum if the UK Government is convinced that it will be won by those wishing to secede from UK (clear majority → hard to achieve SD). Conclusion: NI has a constitutional recognition of a right to SD → but this right is monetarized by the UK government → demos divided → UK must be convinced. Brexit Majority voted to remain part of EU → establishment of new customs checks is likely (today transparent border) → effects of Brexit will stir the debate of secession → but current polls showed majority in favor of current devolution → deeply divided society. Unclear future.
East Timor
1975: Former Portuguese colony → Indonesia occupied the territory (violent occupation) 1999: Indonesia, Portugal and the UN signed agreements authorizing the people of East Timor to choose between autonomy within Indonesia and independence through a popular referendum. Result: Rejected autonomy within Indonesia and wanted independence → Indonesia protested the results and attacked. 2002: Finally achieved independence. Conclusion: Not a case of secession → already admitted as a non-self-governing territory with the right to SD in the 70's (delayed colonialism)
President Wilson's Fourteen points
A tool to justify withdrawing of borders - A new world order with world peace. Point 1: Open covenants - no private international understandings Point 3: Global trade - no economic barriers Point 5: A free impartial adjustment of all colonial claims - based both on the interest of the populations and the governments claiming entitlement Point 9: Readjustment of the frontiers of Italy depending on nationality - However does not offer the possibile the instrument to decide Point 10: Austria-Hungary - "freest opportunity of autonomous development" Refers to the idea that the borders have to be redesigned and nationalities should be able to decide who they would refer to Points 7 (Belgium - sovereign), 12 (Turkish empire - sovereign) and 13 (Poland - independant) promised self-determination
Constitutional law and secession
Almost no constitutional text addresses the issue of secession. This does not mean that they exclude secession (but rarely any case law). Discussion Sunstein: a right to secede should not be placed in a founding document → would reduce the prospects for political compromises → degrade day-to-day politics → create risk of blackmail (% long-term commitments) → raise emotional stakes. Other authors (e.g. Weinstock): a constitutional secession clause would force secessionists to make a cost/benefit analysis, engage in a debate that refers to their own destiny. Symbols matter → right to secede would take away minorities' dissatisfaction that they are not allowed to decide whether to stay or go. It can control the process as it would go uncontrolled if not constitutionalized → secessionist politics will occur no matter what.
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
An example that EU has not promoted the idea of secession - Reluctant as it would create uncertainty and undermine the territorial integrity. Cyprus = former British colony - declared independent in 1960 - divided island. South: Greek-speaking Orthodox community. North: Turkish-speaking Muslim community. 1974: The Greek dictatorship extended to the island, which provoked Turkish invasion 1983: Turkish unilaterally declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ('TRNC'). The EC profoundly regrets and rejects the unilateral declaration of independence - not recognized. The UN SC also deplores the declaration - considered legally invalid. 2004: Referendum - sharing of sovereignty between the two communities. Rejected by the Greeks: 1) Was an internationally recognized state 2) prospects of EU membership - not willing to share sovereign status. A divided Cyprus joined the EU - Turkish were left outside the EU.
Czechoslovakia (The Soviet Union)
Created out of the Versailles Treaty → Two culturally and linguistically similar groups → but Slovaks became a minority within their own country. 1960s: Slovaks demanded national equality. 1990, 1992: Growing nationalist tensions in the government → Czechoslovakia was peacefully dissolved by parliament 1993: Czechoslovakia formally ceased to exist. Two new countries emerged (Czech Republic and Slovak Republic). Peaceful, negotiated process → EU recognized the independence. There were many territory changes in the eastern region. Doubt as to whether it is SD. No referendum where a political community freely decides its destiny.
Yugoslavia (The Soviet Union)
Federation of six republics and two autonomous provinces → six major ethnic populations and significant minorities. Minorities scapegoats for economic worsening → ethnic tensions. 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence → Not recognized by the European states → war with Serbia → Brief conflict in Slovenia, lasted longer in Croatia. EC attitude seemed more inclined to accept Yugoslav disintegration (excessive use of force) → aiming for peaceful negotiated change of frontiers → a new situation (referring to internal SD) Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declared their independence. The EC MS set certain requirements for recognition → respect for international law and unbreakable frontiers. Macedonia and Slovenia: Conditions met → only Slovenia was recognized. Croatia: concerns about the large Serb community. Recognized. Bosnia: referendum was required. Recognized. First big failure of the EU foreign policy → EU not able to prevent secessions. Politics prevailed. Acts of SD, but no exercise of the right to SD.
Aland Islands
Finland: influence of Sweden - ceded to Russia. Finland became independent (1917) Aland Islands: also ceded to Russia - Swedish influence had been bigger here Petition for secession from Finland and integration with Sweden (1919) - 95% in favour Finland declined and offered autonomous status - dispute submitted to LofN LofN advisory opinion: The principle of SD is only a political principal. Must respect the sovereignty of every state. Secession would destroy the order and stability within states.
Hong Kong
Former British Colony. Administered by the UK since 1842 after the first Opium war. China claims that British occupation was illegal and based on the imposition of unequal treaties. Expiration in 1997 of the 99 years lease over 90% of HK. "One country, two systems". HK had been under a democratic development - China allowed HK more freedom. The umbrella revolution (2014) - wanted free elections. Not a successful revolution - the government made no concessions.
South Sudan
Former British colony: It was decided to unite North and South Sudan against the will of the people. 1957: Independence → divided country → South was not a homogenous people. 1960's: Unsuccessful independence war fought by the South. 2005: Peace agreement signed between North and South → ended a 22-year civil war. Autonomy in the South. 2011: Referendum for SD → overwhelming majority voted for independence. Quick incorporation into the international community. Conclusion: The secession did not change anything in international law. The independence process was consensual. Can be argued as a case of late colonialism. Long history of atrocities committed by the state. Today: Ongoing civil war since 2013
Western Sahara
Former Spanish colony 1975-1979: Morocco and Mauritania both had sovereignty claims. The Green March - mass demonstration by the Moroccan government, to force Spain to hand over WS. WS was divided into two territories. Polisario (resistance movement) created SADR and started guerrilla war against Morocco and Mauritania → refugees in Algeria (still live there today). Mauritania renounces to sovereignty claims. The war continues with Morocco. 1991: Ceasefire. UN establishes MINURSO to organize a referendum with option between secession and integration with Morocco (main issue: voter elegibility). 2001: Baker I plan - disagreements on voter eligibility (Morocco demanded the inclusion of all people now living in the territory). Morocco accepted the plan, but Algeria and the Polisario front rejected it. 2003: Baker II plan - Polisario accepted it as a basis for negotiations. Morocco rejected the plan, saying that it would no longer agree to any referendum that included independence as an option Today: Still a non-self-governing territory - has not exercised self-determination.
Canada
Half of the 18th century: British began to rule over territory that had been settled by inhabitants with French origins. Divided territories → Upper = English, Lower = French → self-perception of Quebecers as founding people → central position of the principle of federalism. Late 1950s: Quebec separatism began → liberal government committed to a change. 1980 and 1995: Sovereignty referendums → organized without opposition as it was in the hands of the federal states (Quebec had the competence). It is not clear wording whether the referendums regarded independence → sovereignty, but economic association/partnership. Majority not in favor of sovereignty (but tight results in 1995). Canadian government sends reference case to SC → to obtain advisory opinion on the legality of the Quebec government's secession plans
SD in the 90s
How was SD read in Europe? ECHR (the European Convention of Human Rights - 1950): Contains no provision regarding SD The 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 Charter of Paris: Refer to the right to SD, but emphasize the need to implement it in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant norms of international law (including territorial integrity of States) Europe turned its eyes to the concept of internal SD by promoting pluralistic democratic societies where minority rights are protected and promoted (basically limited to colonies). The Council of Europe has never recognized a right to secede to minorities However, 90s was a decade were people came to rethink the principle. The rhetoric of SD had an impact in legitimizing the independence of Baltic States, the reunification of Germany, the separation of the Yugoslav republics etc.
Kosovo
Kosovo is mainly inhabited by ethnic Albanians, but Serbs consider it the historical starting point of their nation. EU was committed to the maintenance of the territorial integrity of former Yugoslav republic. 1989: Serbian Parliament introduced amendments to Serbian Constitution abolishing federal status of Kosovo. 1991: Kosovo held an "underground referendum" → 99% in favor of independence. Serbs in the region (10%) boycotted it → still declared its independence. Only Albania recognized Kosovo as a new independent country - declared illegal by Serbia and the Badinter Commission. 1998: armed rebellion initiated → large areas of Kosovo becoming controlled by KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) → Serbia responded to KLA by taking control over the territories. Many Albanians killed. 1999: The Contact Group (US, EU and Russia) initiated peace talks (wanted a state union) → representatives of Kosovo signed an agreement → FRY (Yugoslavia/Serbia) refused to engage. Continuing ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. NATO engaged (air force) → unlawful in regard to international law → but "massive humanitarian catastrophe" → SC established UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo). 2005: UN Special Envoy shall lead the negotiations to decide final status of Kosovo 2007: the UN Special Envoy concluded that "the only viable option for Kosovo is independence" → an agreement is not possible 2008: Declaration of independance 2010: ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion
USA
Mid-19th century: Debate on whether the constitution permitted a state to secede unilaterally. The American Civil War was the final settlement of the debate → states do not have the right to secede unilaterally → the sovereignty is with the citizens, not the states Attempted secession of Texas: (Texas v White) Texas had become part of an indestructible Union. Renders unilateral secession illegal and leaves it open for constitutionally legal secession to take place. Lincoln: Advanced the idea of federal sovereignty instead of state-sovereignty → the constitutional order is not an agreement from which parties can unilaterally withdraw → democratic government = will of a majority limited by the riles that the people has given itself. Today: There is not a right to secede under American constitutional law. Secession is no longer an issue → no strong independence movements.
Montenegro (part of Serbia)
Montenegrins and Serbians share the same religion and language → No history of conflict. Joined together in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992 1999: West sanctions on Serbia because of Kosovo → Montenegro sided with NATO in the 1999 Kosovo war → Division among the population, but the President favored independence. 2001 elections: pro-independence parties taking the lead. EU opposes any unilateral step which could run contrary to the stability of the region 2005 the Serbs had resigned themselves. EU cooperate to make sure that the Venice Commission criteria were fulfilled. 2006: referendum - requirements regarding turnout and majority met → in favor of independence of Montenegro (not overwhelming part) → acknowledged by EU Can be seen as an act of SD - not overwhelming majority, but followed the constitutional provisions
Liberalism/nationalism
Origins of SD Natural outgrowth of the two discourses of the 19th century Liberalism: Focuses on the individual. No interventions of the state. Revolutions for "democratic" governments in England, France and the Unites States Nationalism: Ideal where every nation has its own state - every state its own nation. Has the right to develop own political institutions unrestricted by outside influences. France: the rational will of living together due to common characteristics Germany: a people who shares characteristics (language, traditions, culture, ethnic origin)
Remedial Secession
Philosophical debate: Scholars - Consensus, that if there are gross human rights violation, there is a right to succeed as a remedy First mentioning International law → Paragraph 7 in UNGA 2625. Seems to recognize a last resort option for the legitimacy of secession under certain circumstances outside the colonial context. If a government does not represent the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour → this would legitimate breaking the territorial integrity. What is remedial secession? Legal debate → UNGA 2625 is the only international document clarifying the term. Some commentators maintain that it is narrowly worded and provide very little real basis for secession (racial regimes). Other commentators interpret it more broadly → a wider rationale for secession → SD legitimate if there have been serious violations of fundamental human rights. Threshold? Exceptional circumstances → not only lack of representativeness of a government, but only if the fundamental right to survival is in danger (genocide, massive ethnic cleansing). State practice → very reluctant to accept such reasoning → no court has yet granted the right to remedial secession. Status today is unclear Not yet hard law → Only found in a separate opinion → gaining support among international judges → no judicial body has accepted a right to unilateral secession as a (qualified) right to unilateral secession.
Remedial secession and democracies
Q: Is there a right to remedial secession within a country considered a well-functioning democracy? Quebec: 1998 Supreme Court Opinion on Quebec → Not any reason that anything would trigger a right to secede → cannot be said to be denied access to government. EU: It cannot be argued that there is a right to remedial secession in a well-functioning EU. Art. 7 TEU → provide respect for democracy, rule of law, protection of minorities.
Catalonia
Second half of 19th century: Catalanism (demand for Catalan self-government) → due to Renaixenca, concerns by bourgeoisie (upper class) of economic decline, federalists Transition towards democracy: Law passed by Franco regime to initiate democratic transition, former Catalan president returns home, Don Juan renounces the throne, democratic elections, Spanish constitution 1978: Spanish Constitution → the Spanish model = "Autonomous State". Today: highly decentralized state. Since 2012: Government of Catalonia has tried to organize a referendum → Spanish government has challenged the attempts → declared contrary to Spanish constitution → in order to achieve SD there is needed very large consensus (constitution shall be amended). Reason for opposition: Referendum would admit the national and sovereign character of Catalonia → threaten sovereignty of the Spanish people as a whole. Art. 1.2. of Spanish Constitution: National sovereignty cannot be divided → an autonomous community cannot unilaterally call a referendum of SD → requires constitutional amendment. 2015: Resolution to begin democratic disconnection from Spain → no longer bound by central government → but contrary to constitution. 2017-2018: Catalan Parliament passed 2 laws on referendum on SD and Juridical Transition → clearly against Spanish Constitution → immediately suspended. Despite this, referendum was organized (90% in favor, but turn out low with 40%). King urges to restore constitutional order. Companies move legal headquarters to other parts of Spain. First massive demonstration in Barcelona in favor of Spanish unity. Spanish government triggers art. 155 SC → may take all measures necessary to compel the community to meet obligations → Catalan government and top officials are sacked. Half of Catalan government in exile → criminal proceedings and arrest warrants. New government in Spain → seems more willing to reach compromises.
Public law conclusions
Since 2010 ICJ Advisory Opinion (Kosovo) → international law does not prohibit secession (unilateral declarations of independence could be considered not in violation of international law) → but the principle of territorial integrity must be respected. Outside colonial context and theory of remedial secession there is no recognition of a unilateral right to secede based merely on majority vote → does not qualify for a right to SD, as not within the well-established category of non-self-governing territories or remedial secession. No international mechanisms to regulate the right to secession → primary right theories, but no international documents or case law.
Primary right theories
Some scholars conceive the right to secede as a general right → the withdrawal of consent to a political arrangement serves as sufficient grounds for secession → a majority voting in a referendum or in democratic elections could be enough Not enforced by international law → territorial integrity is a key principle → can only accept breach if there are strong justifications
Puerto Rico
Spanish colony until 1898 - ceded to the US (the Spanish-American war) 1917: the Jones Act granted US citizenship to Puerto Ricans. 1952: Commonwealth was created - no right to vote in US presidential elections. 2011: PR has a right to SD (UN Decolonization Committee) Referendums (2012 + 2017) - Granted opportunity for SD, but the answer is not clear/not overwhelming. Either results (majority) not clear or turnout very low. It is an unincorporated territory of the US - neither sovereign nation, nor a US state. Unclear whether the US unilaterally can change its status - allow SD.
What is a people?
The term "People" have been used in many legal documents regarding SD (African Charter on Human and Peoples' rights; Indian reservation) However, there is not a clear definition 1919-1945: A people living entirely within a state ruled by another people A people living as minorities in various countries without controlling a state of their own A people living as a minority group in a state but understanding themselves as forming part of the people of a neighbouring state A people dispersed (spread) throughout many separate states A people who constitute a majority in a territory under foreign domination (colonies) Post-1945 decolonization: The primary definition of "peoples" was that of non-European of former colonies. No regard to objective characteristics - Territory, not "nationhood", was the determining factor. The international community was not interested in opening the discussion of the colonial borders again - create instability
Scotland
Timeline Since 1707: Union (international treaty) between Scotland and England → acceptance of Scottish right to decide own destiny. 2nd half of 20th century: Devolution of autonomous party. 1979: Referendum to re-establish Scottish Parliament failed (small turnout). 1997: Another referendum → the Scotland Act was passed. 2012: UK Government presented a statement named "Scotland Constitutional Future" → result of negotiations between British and Scottish government → referendum of independence easily agreed upon (England would not stand in the way). Deciding on date, wording of the question, rules on campaign etc. → not on the required majority 2014: Referendum → majority voted no to independence Notes British constitutionalism: No constitutional legal order → but no absence. Parliamentary sovereignty: Parliament can change the law of the land with enactment of primary legislation → no superior form of law than primary legislation → provides constitutional flexibility (can enact whatever as long as it does not cross with EU law). Key issue: Scottish Parliament is limited → Scotland Act: Cannot enact laws on reserved matters, hereunder the Union and the constitution → this means, that Scotland does not have competence to legislate for independence or hold referendum (Westminster must agree). When reaching agreement on referendum, UK Government opted for legislating to give Scottish Parliament power to deliver the referendum (amending the Scotland Act → but ad hoc → approval from Westminster must be obtained if second referendum). Requirements regarding clear and direct (two responses). Conclusion: Even a so flexible constitutionalism has made sure that Scotland cannot exercise a unilateral right to secede. Brexit makes it unclear whether another referendum will be agreed upon.
UNGA Resolutions
UNGA Res 1514 (1960) and UNGA Res 2625 (1970) unanimous adoption - clear proof of customary international law For the first time, it defined the scope and meaning of the right to self-determination. (Not just principle) Who is entitled? The right reserved for the 'non-self-governing territories': territories geographically separated from the metropolitan State, ethnically distinct and politically subordinated to the referred State However, it exists for peoples under colonial or alien domination - does not accept the right of all peoples to SD - national unity/territorial integrity prevail Vehicle for decolonization - not an authorization of secession What is the right? All peoples have the right freely to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development - Integration within the colonial power: The territory becomes part of the state and loses most or all of its separate status and personality under international law. Definitive choice. (UNGA 1541) - Free association agreement: A territory voluntarily renounces some aspects of its sovereignty while reserving the right to reconsider the decision (UNGA 1541) - Independence: The mechanism chosen by the majority of the old colonies (UNGA 1541) Emergence into any other political status (UNGA 2625)
Decolonization in Africa
US and Soviet Union support decolonization in order to undermine French and British position as global powers Renewed confidence among indigenous population - African leadership (liberal ideas) Free choice is the essence of decolonization, but sometimes independence was granted against the will of the population: Mauritius in 1965 (favoured free association with the UK, but instead forced to Independence) Can also mean choice for colonial subordination rejection of self-determination