SELF-DETERMINATION - By Dr W.Phares

Written By Nnamdi Ihekwumere

(NOT REFERENDUM)

Walid Phares, a foreign policy expert, explains the UN Charter's Article 1(2) right to self-determination, noting it applies to peoples for either separation (e.g., Czechoslovakia, South Sudan) or unification (e.g., Germany) without any superior overriding principle.

“Self determination

The right for self-determination is one of the most fundamental rights peoples have in the UN Charter. Article One paragraph two provides the right of self-determination or autodetermination to all countries, communities and ethno groups.

But self-determination can go in all directions: either separation like Czechoslovakia, Sudan or East Timor, or unification like West and East Germany.

There is no right above self-determination. The issue is about mechanisms not about principles. Bureaucrats can be mandated to oversee the processes but not to block this fundamental right.

Last, the right of "auto determination" only condition is to avoid mass violence and insure a minimum agreement on resources.” - DR.PHARES

Note that this specific post by Dr.Walid Phares does not use the word “referendum.”

It frames self-determination under UN Charter Article 1(2) as a fundamental right available to peoples and ethno-groups, operable either as separation (examples given: Czechoslovakia, Sudan, East Timor) or unification (West and East Germany), with the practical conditions limited to avoiding mass violence and reaching minimum agreement on resources.

Mechanisms may be overseen, but the post states they should not be used to block the principle itself.

Referendums function in practice as agreed procedural tools inside existing constitutional unions that already accept the possibility of exit under their own rules, such as the 2014 Scottish vote (enabled by the Edinburgh Agreement with the UK government) or certain EU-related consultations.

They are not a universal legal prerequisite under the Charter text cited in the post, nor under general international practice for every claim of separation.

Outside colonial or mutually agreed contexts, international law continues to treat the territorial integrity of recognized states as the default, with no settled general right to unilateral secession; outcomes have instead depended on negotiated processes, effective control, and subsequent recognition.

The 1933 Montevideo Convention supplies criteria for whether an entity qualifies as a state once it exists—a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states—under the declarative view that statehood follows from meeting those factual conditions rather than from prior permission.

It does not itself prescribe the method (referendum or otherwise) by which a people exits an existing state.

For example, Nigeria’s claims of amalgamation without consent have not produced widespread recognized UNION.

The 16th century Biafra Kingdom predates Nigeria and it people have continued to exist and organize themselves as a nation even without recognition.

This self determination right guides the restoration of a separate Biafran state under Montevideo standards or UN practice.