Self-determination of peoples: the reality

Perhaps you've heard the term a lot lately, but you still might not be clear on what it's about. The self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle of international law. It is recognized in the United Nations Charter and in covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which allows a people to freely decide their political, economic, social, and cultural status, without external interference.

However, when a minority establishes a dictatorship or authoritarian regime in a country, this principle is severely compromised. It is even used as a weapon of legitimization by the oppressors.

Below, I analyze the topic in a balanced way, based on legal, historical, and ethical perspectives. And I consider both principles: respect for sovereignty and the protection of human rights. Although these issues are debated and depend on specific contexts, I leave the debate served with my analysis.

Attacks on the Self-Determination of Peoples

The internal violation of popular sovereignty is the most frequent attack on self-determination. In an authoritarian regime, a minority (single party, military elite, or charismatic leader) imposes its control, suppressing free expression, dissent, and genuine democratic elections.

This contradicts the essence of the self-determination of peoples, as it not only refers to external independence (against colonialism or foreign occupation), but also to internal self-determination. That is, the right of the people to choose their government and system without coercion.

Dictatorships often simulate democratic processes (manipulated elections or controlled referendums) to legitimize and shield themselves from the international community. As a result, they denounce any action to protect human rights as interference, while internally punishing dissent and denying the people their real sovereignty.

Analysts argue (and I agree) that a government cannot invoke external self-determination if it violates the internal one, since the principle is to protect peoples and minorities, not the regime.

This brings consequences such as the oppressed facing repression, poverty, forced migrations, and massive human rights violations. And often the guilty go unpunished. In indigenous or minority contexts, this aggravates marginalization, limiting their right to cultural self-determination.

As historical evidence, we have regimes like apartheid in South Africa or the various dictatorships in Latin America.

Action of the International Community

International law attempts to balance non-intervention (Article 2.7 of the UN Charter, which prohibits interfering in internal affairs) with the protection of universal human rights. Since 2005, the doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) establishes that each State has the primary responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If the State fails or is the perpetrator, the international community must act, first with peaceful measures (diplomacy, sanctions) and, as a last resort, with military intervention authorized by the UN Security Council. R2P does not justify unilateral interventions or regime changes for political motives, but only to prevent mass atrocities.

However, in practice, the international consensus system is broken, and geopolitical interests outweigh the well-being of oppressed peoples. The vetoes by the US against resolutions opposing Israel, or those by China and Russia protecting their allies, limit the scope of action to apply R2P.

Nevertheless, there are positive examples such as the UN intervention in East Timor (1999) against the Indonesian occupation, or in Sierra Leone (2000) to stop an authoritarian civil war.

Non-intervention, aka. leaving the oppressed to resolve it alone, ignores power inequalities where dissidents lack resources to rebel. It also prolongs suffering.

On the other hand, interventions without consensus are often used as a pretext to satisfy geopolitical interests, exacerbating conflicts or installing unstable regimes. For example, the US invasions in Iraq (2003) or Afghanistan (2001) and Russia in Ukraine (2022).

The recommended approach suggests that the international community should prioritize non-coercive measures first: targeted sanctions, support for dissidents, mediation, and human rights monitoring. Leaving military intervention only as a last resort, with a multilateral mandate and a post-conflict plan. Although, as we see, this is rarely fulfilled.

What is clear is that leaving everything to the oppressed can prolong suffering, in addition to being a failure as human beings, but carrying out interventions without legitimacy erodes the international order.

Final Thoughts on the Self-Determination of Peoples

In summary, under an authoritarian regime, self-determination becomes an illusion, as the people lose the real capacity to exercise it. In these cases, the international community faces an ethical dilemma: intervene riskily to protect, or respect sovereignty at the cost of lives and human suffering.