Self-Determination of Peoples, Autonomy

""In late 2014, the devolved SNP Government in Scotland has stated its intention to hold a referendum on whether the political will exists supporting the independence of the territory from the United Kingdom. This paper considers the international legal rules that inform on the effects of such a referendum, and furthermore draws upon the previous experiences of other secessions, ranging from the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) & the former Yugoslavia, the 2011 emergence of South Sudan, and the most direct analogy of Québec/Canada separation efforts.

By considering the current international legal framework, and conducting the referendum within this context, it is suggested that any future independence recognition by other states will be contingent upon adherence to these rules. Further to this, any future membership of a sovereign Scottish state in international organisations must necessarily rely upon external recognition, and should be perceived as the only means for discussing whether Scotland could be a viable small state in the international system, or whether, as part of the United Kingdom, enjoys a privileged representation otherwise impossible to fathom.""

Bu yazının amacı, İsrail’in vücut bulmasından bu yana Filistin topraklarının kalbi olan Kudüs’te
ortaya çıkan fiili durumun, yani Kudüs’ün statüsünün uluslararası hukuk açısından
değerlendirilmesidir. Öncelikle, Kudüs’ün Batı ve Doğu olarak ikiye ayrılmasına sebep olan tarihsel
sürece genel hatlarıyla değinilecek ve Kudüs’ün statüsünü etkileyen kırılma noktaları tespit
edilecektir. Devamında bu kırılma noktalarının uluslararası hukuk açısından Kudüs’ün statüsünü nasıl
etkilediği tartışılacaktır. Sonuç bölümünde ise önceki bölümlerdeki tartışmalar ve tezler ışığında
günümüz Kudüs’ün statüsü tartışmalarında vurgulanması gereken noktalara değinilecektir

Michael Walzer argues that except in cases involving genocide or mass slaughter, humanitarian intervention is unjustified because "citizens get the government they deserve, or, at least, the government for which they are 'fit.'" Yet, if people are autonomous and deserve the government that rules over them, then it would seem that they are responsible for the government's actions, including their nations' wars of aggression. That line of thought undermines the doctrine of non-combatant immunity, which is perhaps the most important of Walzer's jus in bello principles. In this way, the concept of self-determination frustrates Walzer's attempts to keep jus ad bellum and jus in bello considerations separate.