Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights

Introduction

INTRODUCTION The scope of arrangements which provide for some degree of "autonomy " is almost unlimited, and the case studies which follow furnish a glimpse of some of the many unique structures which have been developed to respond to geographic, political, ethnic, linguistic, or other differences within a single sovereignty. The examples are historical and contemporary, successful and unsuccessful, but most evidence creative legal and constitutional thought. Even though classifications of rights or political status rarely contribute to problem-solving or provide automatic answers to complex issues, a certain degree of categorization may make analyses more meaningful . The structures summarized in the following studieshave therefore been grouped into three very broad categories. The first group, of federal or quasi-federal arrangements, includes situations in which cultural or ethnic differences provided one of the motivating factors for the adoption of a federal, confederal, consociational , or similar structure. Thus, the classic federations of Australia and the United States (information about which may be easily found elsewhere) are not discussed, as ethnic divisions played little role in their formation. With the exception of the former Danish colony of Greenland and the Netherlands Antilles, which exist in a context which might be more appropriately described as devolution rather than classic federalism , it is notable that federations tend to be created only in the early stages of independence; there are no examples of an essentially unitary state dividing and then reintegrating as a federation (although the regional autonomy developing in Spain, discussed in Chapter 13, exhibits some of the characteristics of a federal system). The second group consists of "internationalized" territories or territories of particular international concern. While there has not been direct international or multilateral participation in the actual government of each of the entities surveyed, there was a greater international component in situations such as the Saar, Memel, Danzig, Aland Islands, Trieste, and in the process of decolonizing New Zealand's former colonies than was the case where structures were developed to respond to almost entirely internal concerns. Many of these "international" entities also involved competing claims or conflicting political concerns of two or more states. Even within this category, however, one should not search too closely for consistency: for example, Eritrea is discussed with other federal or quasi-federal arrangements, even though its short-lived autonomous status was based on a United Nations resolution. INTRODUCTION The scope of arrangements which provide for some degree of "autonomy " is almost unlimited, and the case studies which follow furnish a glimpse of some of the many unique structures which have been developed to respond to geographic, political, ethnic, linguistic, or other differences within a single sovereignty. The examples are historical and contemporary, successful and unsuccessful, but most evidence creative legal and constitutional thought. Even though classifications of rights or political status rarely contribute to problem-solving or provide automatic answers to complex issues, a certain degree of categorization may make analyses more meaningful . The structures summarized in the following studies have therefore been grouped into three very broad categories. The first group, of federal or quasi-federal arrangements, includes situations in which cultural or ethnic differences provided one of the motivating factors for the adoption of a federal, confederal, consociational , or similar structure. Thus, the classic federations of Australia and the United States (information about which may be easily found elsewhere) are not discussed, as ethnic divisions played little role in their formation. With the exception of the former Danish colony of Greenland and the Netherlands Antilles, which exist in a context which might be more appropriately described as devolution rather than classic·federalism , it is notable that federations tend to be created only in the early stages of independence; there are no examples of an essentially unitary state dividing and then reintegrating as a federation (although the regional autonomy developing in Spain, discussed in Chapter 13, exhibits some of the characteristics of a federal system). The second group consists of "internationalized" territories or territories of particular international concern. While there has 'not been direct international or multilateral participation in the actual government of each of the entities surveyed, there was a greater international component in situations such as the Saar, Memel, Danzig, Aland Islands, Trieste, and in the process of decolonizing New Zealand's former colonies than was the case where structures were developed to respond to almost entirely internal concerns. Many of these "international" entities also involved competing claims or conflicting political concerns of two or more states. Even within this category, however, one...