It seems a peculiarity of modern capitalist civilisation, that wherever one looks one sees
squares everywhere! Just as this piece of paper, the screen and keys it was typed on are
square, so are the borders of countless states around the globe, cutting through
autochthonous communities separating cultures or forging them into a state [society]
often lacking their prior consent. It is not without fateful irony that, for instance, the table
on which the fate of the African people was decided during the Berlin conference in
1884-85 at which the [still prevailing] borders of colonial Africa were demarcated was:
Square! Square people with square minds made square decisions. However,
contemporary claims of many indigenous peoples who are as diverse and irregular as the
world they exist in continue to challenge the plane polygon geometry of the arbitrary and
artificially constructed artefact of territorial sovereignty by demanding recognition of
their, partial or full self-determination. Thus questioning the moral legitimacy of
sovereign states and the international society [of states].
Table of Contents
I. Introduction: Definitions & Methodology
II. An unfinished journey: From fourteen points to forty-five articles
III. Moral legitimacy of a social construct: Or the lack thereof?
IV. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Themes
The primary research objective is to examine the moral legitimacy of the modern sovereign state system in relation to the self-determination claims of indigenous peoples. The work questions the monopolization of self-determination by sovereign states and argues that current international frameworks often serve to preserve statist interests rather than provide true autonomy to indigenous groups.
- The conceptual evolution of self-determination within the international legal system.
- The critique of the sovereign state as a modern social construct.
- The tension between capitalist-materialistic state ideologies and indigenous cultural identity.
- Case studies on the moral ambiguity of statehood regarding land rights and sovereignty (e.g., Australia and Botswana).
Excerpt from the Book
II. An unfinished journey: From fourteen points to forty-five articles
Self-determination as a concept has taken an almost century long journey to extend and include indigenous claims within the international [legal] system. As the following section will elaborate it has, as Kirgis notes, ‘a great many faces’. While Kirgis focused on the United Nation era, the conception of self-determination in the international realm can be traced back even further. In addition, three evolutionary stages of conceptualisation can be identified and will be outlined below.
Woodrow Wilson was unfortunately mistaken when he in his famous Fourteen Points speech before the US congress in 1918 remarked, that ‘the day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by’ as fascism only twenty years later disproved his hope when nazism colonized in the name of a racist-nationalistic search of lebensraum. He however introduced the notion of self-determination to the international community when he asked for the establishment of an international association with ‘the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike’. The following year, as Mayall notes, self-determination was elevated ‘to the apex of political values’ at the Paris Peace conference when Wilson’s brainchild the League of Nations was established. While the rest of the people in the colonial world were not of particular concern to the parties present at the peace conference, they however did ‘provide for the protection of national minorities’ within Europe.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Definitions & Methodology: This chapter introduces the core argument that modern state borders often cut through indigenous communities and that current definitions of self-determination are wrongfully monopolized by sovereign states.
II. An unfinished journey: From fourteen points to forty-five articles: This chapter traces the evolution of self-determination from the post-WWI era through the UN framework, identifying three distinct stages: pragmatism for stability, bounded independence, and limited concessions.
III. Moral legitimacy of a social construct: Or the lack thereof?: This chapter analyzes the state as a social construct, arguing that its formation based on capitalist-materialistic values leads to the alienation of indigenous peoples and undermines its own moral legitimacy.
IV. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, asserting that self-determination must be decoupled from rigid, statist interpretations to allow for a more progressive and morally just world.
Keywords
Self-determination, Indigenous People, Sovereign State, Sovereignty, International Society, Moral Legitimacy, Social Construct, Decolonization, Capitalism, Human Rights, Minority Rights, Identity, Political Autonomy, Globalization, Cultural Relativism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores the ethical and political status of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination within the context of the modern, international system of sovereign states.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The work focuses on the evolution of international law, the moral critique of the sovereign state, the imposition of capitalist-materialistic frameworks, and the ongoing struggle for indigenous autonomy.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to assess whether sovereign states possess moral legitimacy when their concepts of statehood and identity marginalize or actively suppress the self-determination claims of indigenous groups.
Which scientific method is applied in this study?
The author employs a constructivist and postmodernist framework to critique the social construction of the state and evaluates historical legal developments from the early 20th century to the present.
What is the primary focus of the main body chapters?
The chapters cover the historical timeline of self-determination as a legal concept, the philosophical critique of the "state" as a construct, and the specific ways indigenous peoples' rights are challenged by national identity policies.
Which terms best characterize the core of this work?
Key terms include self-determination, state sovereignty, moral legitimacy, indigenous rights, and the critique of social constructs.
How does the author view the United Nations in relation to indigenous peoples?
The author suggests that while the UN provides a platform for indigenous claims, it remains fundamentally an institution of sovereign states, which limits its ability to fully detach self-determination from statist agendas.
What specific example does the author provide regarding state policy in Botswana?
The paper highlights the relocation of the Basarwa from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, illustrating how states use "development" as a pretext to impose unified identities and silence dissenting indigenous voices.
What role does the "Mabo decision" play in the author's argument?
The Mabo decision is used to illustrate how state legal systems have historically relied on "legal fictions" like *terra nullius* to maintain territorial control, further highlighting the alienation felt by indigenous populations.
- Quote paper
- Jan Lüdert (Author), 2006, Ethics and Culture: Indigenous People and the concept of selfdetermination, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/90022
