202

Background
Guide
 Agenda
Reviewing international mechanisms of resolving
border and territorial disputes with special focus on
right to self-determination of non-state actors.
 I. Letter from the
Executive Board
My name is Parth Bansal, and I will be serving as the Chairperson of United Nations
Security Council at the People’s Conference 2023.

I have attended a total of over 30 Model United Nations Conferences as a delegate

and have won several awards including an unbeaten top 3 streak in college MUNs. I
have served on the Executive Board of over 30 Model United Nations Conferences
and have also served as the President of the PES MUN Society and the Secretary
General of the People’s Conference 2021. I sincerely hope that every one of you
enjoys and appreciates the work my team and I have put into this committee, and I
look forward to an exciting committee full of innovate ideas and solutions,
encompassed in intellectual debate. 

Remember, delegates, that this background guide is where you start your research
but by no means where you end it- a committee such as this requires both technical
and general research that should not be restricted to this study guide. The Executive
Board recommends that delegates do research in co-ordination with your country’s
foreign policy, as violation of foreign policy would be counter-intuitive to what you may
wish to achieve as a delegate in committee. This agenda is such it will evoke opinions
and stances from every country in committee as the ramifications of the discussion
will affect the international community in its entirety, hence we expect contribution to
debate from each delegate that will be present in committee. 

I look forward to interacting with you and chairing this committee.

Regards,

2023
Parth Bansal Sahit S Bangre Saarth Vardhan
Chairperson Co- Vice-Chairperson Co- Vice-Chairperson

For any queries: parthb7@gmail.com

 II. Use of the Background

Guide

Study Guides are, contradictory to popular belief, not supposed to contain all the

information on a certain topic. A good study guide consists of information that a delegate

can use to gain basic information on the issue at hand and the links for further research that

they must use to prepare for the final conference. All the information given in this guide is from

an unbiased perspective and we have refrained from making judgments as much as possible if

none has been made by the United Nations.

This study guide is divided into sections to permit a delegate to comfortably understand the

implications of various aspects of the issue. The first section is about the committee and most

probably the most fundamental of all. The functions and powers of all councils and committees

are outlined by their mandate, which also defines the scope of debate in council. The mandate

also defines what kind of actions can be taken by the committee and how it is separate

from the actions taken by other councils.

The second section is a very practical and integral aspect of being a delegate in this Council. It

will also help you in future MUNs. It clearly marks out the sources that will be accepted as

proof/evidence in Council. There are two important things to be kept in mind regarding this

section. Firstly, that in situations where the Executive Board asks a delegate for proof/evidence

to back up their statements, no other sources will be accepted as credible besides those

2023
mentioned here. Secondly, these are the only sources which will provide you with correct facts

as they themselves follow strict monitoring and checking while reporting or collaborating data.

Research can be done from any source as such, but make sure you cross-check your

statements and speeches with these sources to be on a safe side.





The category titled QARMA outlines the scope of debate in the council. What a delegate must

understand is that this issue is not being discussed in the committee for the first time, and

therefore, debate must take place on current problems rather than historical incidents and

issues.
The last category provides links for further research that cannot be used as proof/evidence in
council, but explain some issues better than the verified sources can because they are more
analytical or use simpler language. An advised pattern of research is the followin

Understanding of the UN and the Committee – Mandate, etc

Research on the allotted country, especially with respect to the agenda, policies or actions
taken
Understanding the Foreign Policy of the allotted country by studying past actions, their
causes, and consequences
Reading the Study Guid
Researching further upon the agenda using the footnotes and links given in the guid
Prepare topics for moderated caucuses and their content
Assemble proof/evidence for any important piece of information/allegation you are going to
use in committee
Keep your research updated using news websites given in the Proof section.

202
3
 III. Evidence or Nature

of Proof 

1. News Sources:

i. REUTERS – Any Reuters article which clearly makes mention of the fact or is in contradiction
of the fact being stated by a delegate in council. (http://www.reuters.com/ )

b. State-operated News Agencies – These reports can be used in the support of or against
the State that owns the News Agency. These reports, if credible or substantial enough, can be
used in support of or against any Country as such but in that situation, they can be denied by
any other country in the council. Some examples are:

i. RIA Novosti (Russia) http://en.rian.ru/

ii. IRNA (Iran) http://www.irna.ir/ENIndex.htm

iii. BBC (United Kingdom) http://www.bbc.co.uk/

2. Government Reports: These reports can be used in a similar way as the State Operated
News Agencies reports and can, in all circumstances, be denied by another country. However,
a nuance is that a report that is being denied by a certain country can still be accepted by the
Executive Board as credible information. Examples are,

i. Government Websites like the State Department of the United States of America http://

www.eng.mil.ru/en/index.htm
2023
www.state.gov/index.htm or the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation http://

ii. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of various nations like India (http://www.mea.gov.in/ ), People‘s 

Republic of China (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/), France(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/),

Russian Federation(http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/main_eng)

iii. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations Reports http://www.un.org/en/

members/ (Click on any country to get the website of the Office of its Permanent
Representative).

iv. Multilateral Organizations like the NATO (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm ),

ASEAN (http://www.aseansec.org/ ), OPEC (http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/ ), etc.

v. Please note that Xinhua(Government news agency from China will not be accepted as a
credible source)

3. UN Reports: All UN Reports are considered are credible information or evidence for the
Executive Board of the Security Council.

i. UN Bodies: Like the SC(http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/ ), GA(http://www.un.org/en/ga/ ),

HRC(http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx ) etc.

ii. UN Affiliated bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org/ ),
World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org/ ), International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/
external/index.htm ), International Committee of the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/eng/
index.jsp ), etc.

iii. Treaty Based Bodies like the Antarctic Treaty System (http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm ), the
International Criminal Court (http://www.icccpi.int/Menus/ICC ) Under no circumstances will
sources like Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ), Amnesty International (http://
www.amnesty.org/ ), Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/ ) or newspapers like the
Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ ), Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ ),
etc. be accepted.

202
3
 IV. Mandate

The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the

Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and

security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened. According to

the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:

to maintain international peace and security

to develop friendly relations among nations

to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights

and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security

Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states,

only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then

obligated to implement under the Charter.

Maintaining International Peace and Security: 

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council’s first action is

usually to recommend that the parties try to reach an agreement by peaceful means. The

Council may

set forth principles for such an agreement

undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases

dispatch a mission

appoint special envoys; o

2023
request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the

dispute.

When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as

soon as possible. In that case, the Council may

issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict

dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate

opposing forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures, including

economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and travel bans

severance of diplomatic relations

blockade

or even collective military action.

A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or practices
condemned by the international community while minimizing the impact of the measures taken
on other parts of the population and economy.

Practices, Procedures and Working Methods:

Article 30 of the Charter stipulates that the Security Council shall adopt its own rules of
procedure, and in 1946 the Council adopted its Provisional Rules of Procedure (S/96).
Subsequently, the Provisional Rules of Procedure were modified on several occasions; the last
revision was made in 1982 (S/96/Rev.7) in order to add Arabic as the sixth official language, in
conformity with General Assembly resolution 35/219 of 17 December 1980.

Repertoire of Practice:

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/repertoire/structure

The Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council provides comprehensive coverage of
the Security Council’s interpretation and application of the United Nations Charter and its own
Provisional Rules of Procedure.

Provisional Rules of Procedure: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/provisional-rules-

procedure

Article 30 of the Charter stipulates that the Security Council shall adopt its own rules of
procedure, and in 1946 the Council adopted its Provisional Rules of Procedure (S/96). 

Working Methods Handbook:  

https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/working-methods-handbook 

202
This Handbook is designed both for insiders as well as the public at large. It contains an
introduction which places the Security Council in the larger context of the United Nations and
how it operates.

3
 V. Introduction to Agenda
To assess international mechanisms of resolving territorial disputes, delegates must first
determine who is capable of delineating borders. Simply put, if two recognized institution/
populations are claiming the sovereignty of a single piece of land, all the convoluted
legislation involved in the process of determining the result of this conflict is centered
around whether the institution/population is capable of delineating territory. In most
contemporary cases, a majority population of previously mandated territory is the only
party capable of delineating territory.

Before moving on to the next section of this guide, it must be noted that there are three
types of territorial disputes. The first kind involves a certain population attempting to
determine their own political status by invoking the fundamental right to self-determination.
The second type is where there are two populations that already have a determined
territory and claim a certain territory that is currently not recognized as their land. The third
type of territorial dispute is where territory is acquired by a nation during war, and the
claimant utilizes the peremptory norm of prevention of acquisition of territory during norm.

The next section will determine the contemporary interpretation of both principles
highlighted in the above paragraph. Peremptory norms of International Law have a special

2023
importance in the conflict resolution process, primarily because conflict is often refueled by
their violation, since it results in one of the parties being left with the ability to recognize
themselves as the victim of the peace negotiations. Hence, the implementation of these
norms is said to be immune to variations in the political dynamics of a conflict. The
relationship between this variation and peremptory norms, however, is quite blurry in the
context of the determination of the territorial sovereignty of a nation. While peremptory
norms are often disregarded in the periodic peace negotiations between the states, they
are also at the heart of almost every official document published by the ministry of foreign
affairs of either state, and of course, the United Nations and the International Court of
Justice.

Main Contentions and Principles

To assess the legislation involved in most contemporary cases of territorial disputes, there
are two peremptory norms to be kept in mind. The first one is the democratic principle of the
right to Self-determination by a majority population in previously mandated territory. Since
the substantive legislation in relation to the right to self-determination has changed since its
first use in 1922, its modern utilization and interpretations associated with it will be used in
addressing this dispute and subsequently determining its applicability in the context of the
Palestinian population. The reason for the utilization of the contemporary concept of self-
determination is the structural principle of tempus regit factum. The most popular
enunciation of this doctrine, as Judge Huber of the ICJ puts it in the Palmas arbitration, is as
follows:

“a juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it,
and not of the law in force at the time when a dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be
settled”

Through the above doctrine, the contemporary utilization, and the subsequent interpretation
of the right to self-determination varies from the purpose of its formation in 1922, and hence
determines that a direct parallel cannot be drawn between a case as old as Burkina Faso v.
Mali and the current conflict.

The second peremptory norm that plays a key role in the understanding of these conflicts is
the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war. By way of example, In June 1967,

2023
during the Six-day war, Israel took complete control of, and sent armed forces to Gaza, the
Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Sinai. Following what could only be
described as acquisition of territory through force, Security Council Resolution 242 was
drafted to provide a platform for initiation of peace negotiations and propose a subsequent
framework for them. The resolution did, however, highlight in Article 1(i) that only a complete
withdrawal of armed forces by Israel, and its acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the
acquired territory would be recognized as fulfillment of the principles of the Charter of the
United Nations.

This resolution, however, was adopted under and through Chapter VI of the Charter of the
United Nations, and hence was merely recommendatory.

Resolution did, however, highlight in Article 1(i) that only a complete withdrawal of armed
forces by Israel, and its acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the acquired territory would
be recognized as fulfillment of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.





This resolution, however, was adopted under and through Chapter VI of the Charter of the

United Nations, and hence was merely recommendatory




The final authoritative element of this agenda is the existence of advisory opinions of the

International Court of Justice that provide both an authoritative and a contemporary

interpretation of the principles highlighted in this section. This was emphasized in the

Western Sahara advisory opinion of 1975 by Judge Gros, who’s precise words read:

“I shall merely recall that when the Court gives an advisory opinion on a question of law it

states the law. The absence of binding force does not transform the judicial operation into a

legal consultation which may be made use of or not according to choice. The advisory

opinion determines the law applicable to the question put; it is possible for the body which

sought the opinion not to follow it in its action, but that body is aware that no position

adopted contrary to the Court’s pronouncement will have any effectiveness whatsoever in

the legal sphere.”




The purpose of this section is to understand the contemporary interpretation of principles

surrounding territorial disputes, primarily because contemporary international law, in the

context of territorial sovereignty is moving from a Grotian to a positivist model.

202

3
 VI. Right to Self-
Determination
Introduction
The right to self-determination is the “right of a people to determine their own destiny in regard
to their political status and economic, social, and cultural development.” While international law
is clear that the right to self-determination belongs to all peoples, in practice there is not an
agreed definition of what this right entails. The right is well established in the case of peoples
under colonization, peoples living in dependent or non-self-governing territories (NSGTs), and
peoples living in racist regimes. Additionally, the claims of several groups to cultural autonomy,
that is the ability to develop and practice laws and customs central to a particular group’s
culture, separate from the majority culture, are often recognized. On the other hand, the claims
of groups that desire independence from their host state, and that are not under colonial
occupation or living in racist regimes are rarely recognized. The challenge of determining
which groups’ claims of self-determination are legitimate is further complicated when it comes
to defining exactly who or what can classify as “peoples.” However, the United Nations (UN)
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report International Meeting of
Experts on further study of the

2023
concept of the rights of peoples (1989) provides a definition: “peoples” are defined as a group
of people with “common historical tradition, a racial identity, a shared culture, linguistic unity,
religious unity, a territorial connection and a common economic life.” Yet, the fact that a group
need not have all these common aspects, but rather, at least one, allows for many groups to
possess a claim to self-determination.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) recognize the right of self-determination.
However, the exact meaning, application, and which groups of peoples can claim self-
determination is unclear, as evidenced by the two leading interpretations on the right to self-
determination. One interpretation holds that the right to self-determination applies only to
states to safeguard their sovereignty. The other holds that the right to self-determination allows
distinct ethnic, linguistic, religious, and other nationalistic groups separate from the dominant
culture the right to secede from their host state.

Despite these differing interpretations, the position of most Member States and peoples
exercising their right to self-determination is that recognition of this right is more important
than whatever outcome results from this right. That is, the process for exercising self-
determination is more significant than the outcome, which could include cultural autonomy,
self-government, or even independence. This issue is made more complex in the twenty-first
century, since the rise in sea level will have significant implications to the territorial integrity
and self-determination of small island developing states (SIDS). Thus, the development and
application of the right to self-determination is a complex subject, which will require Member
States and the UN system to continue discussions on their role in enabling peoples to
exercise their right to self-determination.

International and Regional Framework

The Charter of the United Nations (1946) states in Article 1, Section 2, that the UN is “based
on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” The
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1961) was
among the first international instruments to identify the right of all peoples to self-
determination as a direct result of growing anti-colonial movements following World War II.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples stated
that colonization, domination, and exploitation are contrary to the Charter, and violate
fundamental human rights. An important result of the declaration is the assertion that
inadequate political, economic, social, and/or educational institutions should not circumvent
the independence of colonized peoples.78 Succeeding human rights instruments, including
both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant

2023
on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, also acknowledged the right to self-determination
in common Article 1.Condemning in the strongest terms the subjugation, domination, and
exploitation of peoples, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations (1970) further reaffirms the importance of the right to self-determination.
Additionally, subsequent international human rights declarations have included other cases
of self-determination, including those of indigenous peoples and peoples in the former
Soviet Republics. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2008), for example,
outlined the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, and, in Article 26,
recognized their right to the lands, territories, and resources in the area where they reside.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, however, did not clarify if indigenous
persons could seek independence from their host state, providing only cultural autonomy or
self-government as outcomes of the exercise of self-determination.

Most recently, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015) asserted the right to
self-determination as necessary for the successful implementation of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) for peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation.
Furthermore, the General Assembly has adopted several resolutions concerning the right to
self-determination, including resolution 55/153 on “Nationality of natural persons in relation
to the succession of States,” (2001) which provides several guidelines for Member States to
address the nationality of peoples who form their own state or integrate into their host state.
General Assembly resolution 71/183 on the “Universal realization of the right of peoples to
self-determination” (2017) further recognizes the right to self-determination for many
peoples under colonial, foreign, and alien domination, which includes the Occupied
Palestinian Territories, among others. Subsequently, General Assembly resolution 71/184 on
“The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” (2017) reaffirmed the international
community’s position on this matter, and further included their right to independence.

Role of the International System

Established as one of the main organs of the UN in 1960, the Trusteeship Council oversaw
the administration and independence of territories that have been placed in trust with the UN
by their former administrating Member State (Trust Territories).88 It maintains the official list
of NSGTs, or territories that are administered by another country, including Western Sahara,
Gibraltar, and Guam. Since 1994, after the independence of Palau, the committee suspended
its meetings and only meets occasionally as required, or by request of most of its members.
A group that continues to meet regularly, however, is the Special Committee on
Decolonization, which is a significant actor regarding the right to self-determination.
Founded in 1961 by the General Assembly, it is tasked with observing the implementation of
the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It

202
reviews the list of NSGTs, organizes meetings regarding the political, economic, and social
conditions within NSGTs, and provides recommendations to further decolonization efforts.
Recently, in June 2017, the Special Committee approved a draft resolution urging the United

3
States to provide a means for Puerto Rico to fully exercise its right to self-determination.
While Puerto Rico is not listed as a NSGT, speakers at a meeting of the Special Committee
urged its members to consider the situation of Puerto Rico and to add it to the list of NSGTs.
Including Puerto Rico on this list would not only confirm Puerto Rico as a colonized territory,
but also legally obligate the United States to address its decolonization. At the Caribbean
Regional Seminar on Decolonization in May 2017, the Secretary-General of the UN
emphasized furthering decolonization in the Caribbean, which also entailed considering the
situation of Puerto Rico.

The UN Secretary-General submits reports on the “Right of peoples to self-determination” to

the General Assembly upon request. Moreover, several human rights bodies contribute to
the work of the General Assembly, such as the Office for the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR), which is particularly concerned with human rights issues involving
indigenous peoples, cultural minorities, and civil and political rights. It provides substantive
support to the Human Rights Council (HRC), one of the subsidiary bodies of the General
Assembly, which adopts recommendations on human rights issues including the right to self-
determination. The General Assembly receives reports from HRC, incorporates its findings in
its resolutions, and can request HRC to give attention to certain issues, as it did with
resolution 71/183 regarding the universal right to self-determination. In 2016, HRC adopted
resolution 31/33 on the “Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” and resolution
31/34 on “Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem,” both of which reaffirmed the Palestinian peoples’ right to self-determination and
called upon Israel to end its occupation of their territory. Additionally, in 2016 the Open
Working Group on Mercenaries, established by HRC, provided a report to the General
Assembly on the situation in the Central African Republic (CAR). It noted that the ongoing
armed conflict in CAR is exacerbated by the presence of mercenary forces aiming to
destabilize the country, and that these forces encroach on CAR’s right to self-determination.
The report estimated that mercenary forces have led to the internal displacement of
380,000 people, and forcibly recruited 10,000 children as child soldiers. To address this, the
General Assembly adopted resolution 71/182 on the “Use of mercenaries as a means of
violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-
determination,” (2017) which condemns the use of mercenaries to perpetuate armed conflict
and exploitation, fight against national liberation movements, or overthrow governments.

2023
One of the leading international non-governmental organizations (NGO) that represents
groups of indigenous peoples and unrecognized or occupied territories seeking their right to
self-determination is the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO). At the
1993 Conference on Self-Determination in Relation to Individual Human Rights, Democracy
and Protection of the Environment held in The Hague, Netherlands, UNPO brought together
representatives of several of its members, including Abkhazia, East Turkestan, Iranian
Kurdistan, Ogoni, and Taiwan. A few of the subjects discussed included the importance of
management and protection of the natural environment as part of the right to self-
determination, and participants agreed that environmental degradation and denial of land
rights violated the right to self-determination. Further, Liechtenstein presented a proposal to
the conference for an international convention on implementing the right to self-
determination, which would outline a peaceful process for the exercise of the right to self-
determination.

One critical advantage of the proposal was its recognition of the legitimacy of claims to self-
determination, which could allow peoples to pursue the right to self- determination without
legal repercussions from their host state. However, some participants that currently face the
destruction of their culture, language, and even their lives, claimed that the process in the
proposal was too slow, and believed that “justice delayed [was] justice denied.”
Nevertheless, the conference and ensuing proposal generated important dialogue between
Member States and peoples alike, aiming to clarify the right to self-determination.

Violence, Armed Conflict, and Self-Determination

Violence and armed conflict pose a threat to peoples’ right to exercise self-determination
and the full enjoyment of human rights. Violence during the struggle for self-determination is
well documented, for example with the situations of former Soviet Republics, South Sudan,
and Palestine. Many of these cases stem from either the denial of the right to self-
determination, or the oppression, discrimination, and arbitrary detainment by the host state
of peoples claiming self-determination. Such acts by Member States only further marginalize
groups claiming self-determination, and increase the likelihood of hostilities, if not outright
violence and armed conflict. Without a legitimate process that recognizes peoples’
expression of their right to self-determination, the frustrations of a few groups of people can
lead to tensions and even conflict.

The Situation in the former Soviet Republics

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, several former Soviet Republics, including
Georgia, Estonia, and Lithuania, claimed self-determination and moved to gain recognition

202
as sovereign states. As a result, intra-state conflicts developed across several areas,
including Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. In the Fall of 1990, South
Ossetia, nestled within the borders of Georgia, declared itself a sovereign republic. The
Georgian Parliament abolished the autonomy granted to South Ossetia and declared a state

3
of emergency to curb what the Georgian government saw as efforts by separatists to
undermine Georgian territorial sovereignty. This began several years of conflict between
South Ossetia and the Georgian government, and resulted in several casualties before a
ceasefire was enacted in 1992. The situation is similar with Abkhazia, an autonomous region
with peoples of distinct ethnic backgrounds from Georgia, who had long suffered from
discrimination and harmful policies of assimilation by the Georgian government. In 1992, after
Abkhazia declared its right to be independence, Georgia took part in yet another conflict in
the region that ended in 1994 with the implementation of a UN Observer Mission through
Security Council resolution 881 (1993).

While most decisions on the conflicts in the region have been made by the Security Council,
the General Assembly has recently addressed the plight of internally displaced persons and
refugees with resolutions 62/249 (2008) on “Status of internally displaced persons and
refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia” and 63/307 (2009) on “Status of internally displaced
persons and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia,
Georgia.” However, these decisions rarely discuss the right to self-determination for
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not even in the most recent decision by the General Assembly
on the issue, resolution 71/290 of June 2017. Today, the General Assembly continues to
remain vigilant of the situation of displaced persons and refugees and calls upon Georgia to
ensure their right of return but has yet to directly discuss the implications the conflicts have
on the groups’ right to self-determination.

Self-Determination as a Right to Independence

Questions of secession and independence by groups pursuing their self-determination

highlight the contradiction between a peoples’ right to self-determination and Member
States’ right to territorial integrity. On the one hand, the right to self-determination granted to
peoples safeguards their political, economic, and social development; on the other hand,

Member States have a right to maintain territorial integrity, and prevent not only external
threats to their sovereignty, but also internal, separatist threats. The Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, for example, proclaims the
right of all peoples to self-determination, while at the same time stating that attempts at
disrupting the territorial integrity of a Member State are incompatible with the Charter.
Similarly, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations
and Co- operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

202
states that any efforts meant to “disrupt the territorial integrity of a state or country or its
political independence are incompatible with the principles of the Charter of the United
Nations.” While some movements exercising their right to self-determination can be seen as

3
legitimate in their cause, the governments of some Member States can and do use both
declarations to delegitimize such movements. As such, the right to secede from a Member
State has had varying responses by the international community.

For example, in the case of Tibet, which has claimed to be under foreign occupation by the
People’s Republic of China (PRC), the outcome the Tibetan population desires is
independence to restore their autonomy. While the PRC maintains that Tibet has always
been a part of China, the Tibetan people believe themselves to be a sovereign state before
the PRC occupied their territory in 1950. The Tibetan people believe they possess the right
to self-determination under the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples and other international laws.

In support of the Tibetan people, the General Assembly adopted several resolutions
recognizing and reaffirming their right to self-determination, including resolutions 1353
(1960), 1723 (1961) and 2079 (1965) on the “Question of Tibet. ” However, these decisions
primarily support Tibet’s right to have their religious and cultural life respected, and avoid
mentioning their right to independence. What makes the case of Tibet perhaps more difficult
to resolve are the geopolitical challenges of affirming Tibet’s claim to self- determination.
This poses a difficulty for the UN and the General Assembly Third Committee in particular,
because, as consensus-building bodies, neither can significantly resolve issues of self-
determination without the participation of the Member States in question. The prevailing
position for many international law scholars and most Member States in regards to questions
of independence and secession is that the right to self-determination is not a right to secede.
A right to independence is generally seen as legitimate under the right of self-determination
in cases where groups of peoples are denied the right to participate in democratic decision-
making, and/or in cases of serious human rights violations, which, for example, has been the
case for South Sudan.

Climate Change and the Right to Self-Determination

A result of climate change, sea-level rise has contributed to the erosion of several SIDS, and
has contaminated supplies of clean drinking water due to seawater intrusion. The projection
that, by the next century, some SIDS will be underwater, poses a grave threat to the territorial
integrity of those Member States. In a statement by Rupert Colville, a spokesperson for
OHCHR, he stressed that climate change will not only undermine the ability of SIDS in the
Pacific to provide for their peoples, but also their right to self-determination. The very right of
self- determination, as conceived by international human rights instruments, is based on

202
ownership of territory by a group of peoples. As of today, no recourse or framework exists in
international human rights law that provides the right to self-determination for peoples that
no longer have territory to claim a sovereign right upon. The disappearance of some SIDS as
a result of sea-level rise may also result in climate change refugees that may no longer

3
belong to an existing Member State.

The Paris Agreement on climate change, adopted in 2015, did not include any mention of
how Member States could address the rights of climate change refugees. Moreover, the
pressing questions about what constitutes self- determination will require the collective
efforts of Member States and the UN to be resolved, especially since the peoples of several
SIDS may not possess the time to deliberate on the issue. While it is not clear when SIDS
may face complete inundation from sea level rise, a 2007 report by the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) lists various issues SIDS will face, including loss of
ecosystem and soil fertility.

Additionally, to cope with rising sea levels, some SIDS have begun considering buying land

from other Member States for their people to be able to relocate to, should conditions

worsen. However, this situation will require SIDS, the UN, and the international community to

develop new frameworks and guidelines for preserving the right to self-determination.

Despite this, many SIDS have begun to look at adaptation measures and ways to improve

their resilience to the effects of climate change, viewing migration only as a last resort.

Cognizant of several of these challenges, the General Assembly has made efforts to assist

SIDS for several years, including through the Mauritius Strategy for the Further

Implementation for the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of

SIDS(2005). The resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 2012, “Follow up to and

implementation of the Mauritius Strategy,” reaffirms the commitment by the UN and the

international community to assist SIDS in overcoming challenges to sustainable

development, which requires safeguarding the right to self-determination. These efforts

highlight the approach that the UN has taken to address the implications of climate change

on human rights, including the right to self-determination

202
3
 Case Studies - A Few
Recent Territorial Disputes
1. The Israel-Palestine conflict
The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the longest and most complex territorial disputes in the
world. It has its roots in the early 20th century, when the Zionist movement began to advocate
for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In 1948, Israel declared independence,
and the subsequent Arab-Israeli War led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians.

The conflict has been ongoing ever since, with both sides claiming the right to self-
determination. The Palestinians seek to establish an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza
Strip, and East Jerusalem, while Israel maintains that it has the right to secure borders.

The international community has been unable to resolve the conflict, and it remains a major
source of instability in the Middle East.

2. The South China Sea dispute

202
The South China Sea dispute is a territorial dispute between China and several other
Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei. China
claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea, based on a nine-dash line that it first

3
drew on a map in the 1940s.

The other countries involved in the dispute also claim parts of the South China Sea, based on
historical and legal grounds. The dispute is complex and has led to tensions and skirmishes
between the countries involved.

The South China Sea is a strategically important region, as it contains vital shipping lanes and
is believed to be rich in oil and gas reserves. The dispute has raised concerns about freedom of
navigation and the security of the region.

3. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over
the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The region is de facto controlled by the self-proclaimed
Republic of Artsakh, which is recognized by no other country.

The conflict dates back to the early 1920s, when the Soviet Union incorporated Nagorno-
Karabakh into the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. However, the region has a majority
Armenian population, and tensions between the two ethnic groups have persisted ever since.

In the late 1980s, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict erupted into a full-blown war, which lasted
until 1994. The war resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the displacement
of millions more.

A ceasefire has been in place since 1994, but the conflict remains unresolved. The two sides
have engaged in negotiations over the years, but they have been unable to reach a lasting
agreement.

202
3
 Conclusion

While the outcomes for many groups seeking their self-determination are mixed, the right to

self-determination is nevertheless recognized under international law for all peoples. The

Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has made clear

that all peoples have a right to pursue their political, social, economic, and cultural

development. As such, organizations like the UNPO recognize the right to self- determination

as a process, rather than as a right to some specific outcome such as full independence Self-

determination can take several forms, ranging from cultural autonomy to political autonomy,

and

sometimes independence. Even though the exercise of the right to self-determination has

been complex and difficult for the peoples in Abkhazia, South Sudan, Tibet, and many others,

the General Assembly and the UN remain committed to ensuring the peaceful

implementation of the right to self-determination. In the future, as reported by the Secretary-

General in his 2017 report on the “Right of peoples to self-determination,” greater efforts by

Member States and the UN will be required to address the challenges of the right to self-

determination.

202

3
Questions a Resolution Must Answer

1.Is the interpretation of the highlighted contemporary interpretations subject to deviation in

the next decade due to the rise in the number of territorial disputes?

2.How is the interpretation going to be altered, and by which authoritative international

tribunal?

3.Is there adequate interplay between tribunals, organizations, and governments to maintain
a common authoritative interpretation?

4.What possible repercussions can countries that are dominant in the international
community face due to their evident violation of jus cogens?

5.How can the international community prevent border and territorial disputes from
escalating into violence, particularly in cases involving non-state actors?

6.How can the international community better support the right to self-determination of non-
state actors in the context of territorial disputes, while also respecting the territorial integrity
of states?

202
3