Iván Salas Maldonado S041243 - Self-Determination: Africa

Changing African Perspectives on the Right of Self-Determination in the Wake of

theBanjul Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

Date
THURSDAY 28 DECEMBER 2023

Author(s): S. Kwaw Nyameke Blay

Source: Journal of African Law , Autumn, 1985, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 147-
159

Published by: School of Oriental and African Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/745365

In the last half century, after the Second World War, the principle of self-determination was
defined in the article in the first paragraph as the “principle by which a people freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.” Started to be incorporated in the United Nations members and became a
very important concept in the post-colonial African countries that significate a new phase in
their internal and external relationships. In this paper I will focus on the political, cultural,
and social problems related to the implementation of the concept of self-determination in
independent African countries and how this has affected its boundaries, ethnic groups, and
international relationships, supported by different arguments, evidence and real case life,
described in the article, to exemplify the different situations and have a complete analysis
of the history, the conditions and feasibility of the Self-determination in Africa.

In the period after the decolonization, the process of self-determination has occasioned
several conflicts since then, like the cases of Katanga and Biafra in the 1960s and more
recently Southern Sudan and Eritrea& Ethiopia, all related to the fast propagations of Self-
determination in the African Government and nationalist ideals without a consensus of
what this concept should be defined, the main concern was based on interpret it as a
concept limited to the decolonization or should consider as well the relations between the
community and ethnic groups. (LL.B. (Ghana) LL.M. (Aust. Nat. Uni.) Ph.D. (Uni. ofTas.),
Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania.) My analysis of this situation is that the way to
interpret this concept was determined by the interest of the modern African states, On one
hand, some of these states benefitted from maintaining the boundaries established by
European countries after their independence to obtain some stability and avoiding future
conflicts with other African countries wanting to claim territories and start creating a new
self-determination keeping the status quo. On the other hand, other states were more
interested in the claim of new territories with the justification that the integration of ethnic
groups that used to form a united territory before the colonial era would impulse the
development of the self-determination ideal, such is the case of Morocco and Mauritania in
the conflict of Western Sahara. (The Western Sahara Opinion, 1975 f.C.J. Reports, 162)

Anyways, if we consider both ways of view on this concept of self-determination and

contrast with past cases like in Bangladesh or Biafra, can realize that international law does
not necessarily have a position over the claims or denials on this concept in the context of
post-independence and doesn’t support or condemns secede acts from the ethnic group
from their original state, and keeping a neutral position in this subject. Besides this, the
tendency in most of the modern African states, except the cases of Morocco and
Mauritania, have adopted an international policy to reject independence claims of self-
determination and officially established in the Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) in 1963. (Vol. 29 No.
2 The Right of Self-Determination in the Banjul Charter (1982) 21 Int'l Legal Materials,
59)

The main purpose of the O.A.U charter was not necessarily to refer to the Self-
determination dilemma, but to avoid post-independence territorial claims and anarchy of
tribal conflicts as is established in its Article II “"defend the territorial integrity and
independence of member state pursuance of this objective.” The problem with this
international government law for the state members was the limitations that have to deal
with the political actions that can lead to territorial changes when session movements are
supported by other states for national interest, such is the case of the session of Ogaden in
Ethiopia. To meet the provisions of the O.A.U. of defending the territorial integrity of each
other, the state members needed to respect their unity by not supporting secessionist
movements or giving them recognition of their legitimacy. (R. K. Badal, "The Rise and
Fall of Separatism in Southern Sudan", in The Politics of Separatism, Collected Seminar
Papers, University of London Institute of Commonwealth Studies, 1975, 85-99, particularly
at 90.)

The two main arguments against Self-determination in Africa were that this ideal was just
incompatible with African Unity and represented an anachronism that could cause the rise
of ethnic and state conflicts, and the other reason is that self-determination could result in a
Domino effect in all the continent. The weakness of the first argument was the
misunderstanding of considering the existence of various states as the main problem for the
unity of Africa, when is not even related to it, instead of focusing on overcoming the
language barriers, economic integration and collaboration, political instability, etc. as the
main problems. The problem with the second argument is that minimizing and reducing all
the self-determination claims as the same thing, ignoring the individual characteristics and
conditions of every case and the changes of the past over the present days, the best
examples to prove that the failure of one case not necessarily disincentive other movements
to arise is the failure of Katanga or South Sudan secession that didn’t stop the attempt in
Biafran, Eritrea and Ogaden secession. 33 P. Lyon, "Separatism and Secession in the
Malaysian Realm 1948-65", in The Separatism, op. cit., n. 1

In conclusion, the self-determination in Africa has been a core concept that involves
different conceptions, interpretations, interest, and objectives for different post-colonial
African nations in the last half-century. The paper presents a thorough analysis of the
political, cultural, and social challenges linked to implementing self-determination in
independent African countries. The exploration of historical cases like Katanga, Biafra,
Southern Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia reveals the complexities tied to interpreting and
applying self-determination. These different approaches of self-determination had made
significant changes and impact in the international relations and politics in Africa, while
some states prioritize stability by maintaining colonial-era boundaries, others seek
territorial changes to integrate ethnic groups. International legal perspectives, as seen in the
Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the O.A.U. Charter, generally
discourage secessionist movements, emphasizing the defense of territorial integrity. I
personally consider that the historical and contemporary dynamics surrounding self-
determination in Africa demonstrate the need for new approaches, considering the unique
circumstances of each case. The work through self-determination remains a complex and
evolving process in the integration of the modern states of Africa.