Critical analysis on use of the right of self determination under international law Case of South Sudan

Abstract

Self-determination is a process that does not end with a declaration of independence and

recognition of a new state, and the stance of the UN in a self-determination case is context- dependent, with ‘context’ explicitly including the events in the newly created country but also

the composition of the UN itself and the expectations and ideas of its individual staff. The

present research examined the property of South Sudan after getting the right to self- determination. Self-determination is closely linked to decolonization and a call for shared

sovereignty can easily be understood as an attempt to keep a population under the thumb of either a foreign power or internal forces, and thus as re-colonization. Further, there is a vast literature about the problems that arise when external actors engage in state-building. Nevertheless, South Sudan is but one example of self-determination that was followed by violent conflict; consequently, this has led to long-term engagements of foreign powers, which have subsequently hindered self-determination, as past elites have been exchanged for new ones. At least, clear terms and conditions seem more honest than the international community de facto running a newly independent state. The authors discussed exhaustively the legal challenges connected to the right to self-determination under international Law. Further issues arise as the principle itself displays a certain degree of vagueness. It is not defined who possesses the right to self-determination and as the consequence of such a claim is often secession, the right to self-determination in principle threatens an existing state’s territorial integrity. It is not a rare occurrence that self-determination is followed by violent conflict and this begs the question of if there is a way to cope with self-determination to solve or prevent such situations. Shared sovereignty or trusteeships have been proposed. With reference to a people who want to decide their fate, this seems unreasonable; still, in cases of potentially weak, new states in conflict or in danger thereof, there might be a point in question. In South Sudan, self-determination was guaranteed only to have it violated by external powers. These interferences did not help overcome the conflict; instead, they caused ongoing mistrust and problems between the actors involved. Further research might clarify if agreements about shared sovereignty or a trusteeship with mutually agreed clear guidelines on such points as the partners’ responsibilities, complaint mechanisms, and length of the agreement might be better

policy tools to overcome or prevent violent conflict and help new states on their way to self- determination. It is found that in the present research despite the self-determination of South

Sudan, there is still a long way to go in terms of self determination by South Sudanese.