The united nations and the evolving right to self-determination

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 537-572

  Quane, Helen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013405947     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300062175     Document Type: Article

References (239)

1. Cf. the General Assembly debate on “The effective realisation of the right of self-determination through autonomy” in 1993: A/48/PV.36.
2. R. Higgins, Problems and Process. p. 111, commenting on some of the interpretations of the Charter principle of self-determination.
3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art.31.
4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, An32.
5. This Committee had the task of drafting the Preamble to and the Purposes and Principles of the Charter. On the committee structure at the San Francisco Conference, see L M. Goodrich and E. Hambro, Charter of the linked Nations: Commentary and Documents, pp. 12–18.
6. Documents of the UN Conference on International Organisation, Vol. VI, p.296.
7. Idem, p 300.
8. Idem
9. Idem, p.704.
10. Idem
11. Idem
12. Idem, p.700.
13. Idem, p.32A.
14. Idem, p 396.
15. Idem, Vol.XVII, p.142.
16. Idem
17. Idem
18. Idem, Vol.XVIII, p.658.
19. Idem, p.657.
20. Idem, Vol.XVIl, p.143.
21. Idem
22. Idem
23. Idem, Vol.X, p.441.
24. R. B. Russell and J. E. Muther, A History of the United Nations' Charter, p.831. The Soviet proposal was dropped in response to a US threat to veto proposals on the composition of the Trusteeship Council.
25. Documents, A History of the United Nations', at Vol.X, p.453.
26. A History of the United Nations'
27. Cf. idem, p.497, Vol.III, p.146 and Vol.X, pp.446,562.
28. Idem, Vol.X, pp.453–454.
29. Idem, p-562.
30. Idem, p.497.
31. Idem
32. Idem
33. H. Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations: A Cruical Analysis of its Fundamental Problems, p.53.
34. Higgms. The Law of the United Nations: A Cruical Analysis of its Fundamental Problems, at p. 112.
35. Cf. D. W. Bowett, “Self-Determination and Political Rights in the Developing Countries” (1966) 60 P. A.S.I.L. 129, 134
36. J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, p.91
37. A. Cristescu, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, The Right to Self-Determination: Historical and Current Development on the Basis of United Nations Instruments, p.39
38. M. Lachs, “The Law in and of the United Nations” (1961) 1 Indian J.I.L. 429,43–431
39. and R. Sureda, The Evolution of the Right to Self-Determination, p. 101.
40. Lachs, The Evolution of the Right to Self-Determination
41. Idem, p.432.
42. Idem, pp.432–433.
43. Y. Z. Blum, “Reflections on the Changing Concept of Self-Determination” (1975) 10 I.S.L.R. 509,511
44. A. Cassese, “Political Self-Determination-Old Concept and New Developments”, in A. Cassese (Ed), UN Law/Fundamental Rights, p.138
45. Y. Dinstem, “Self-Determination and the Middle East Conflict”, in Y. Alexander and R. A. Friedlander (Eds), Self-Determination: National, Regional and Global Dimensions, p.245
46. J. E. S. Fawcett, “The Role of the United Nations in the Protection of Human Rights-Is It Misconceived?”, in Eide and Schou (Eds), International Protection of Human Rights, p.95
47. L. Gross, “The Right of Self-Determination in International Law”, in M. Kilson (Ed.), New States in the Modem World, p.139
48. A. Kiss, “The Peoples' Right to Self-Determination” (1986) 7 H.R.L.J. 165, 173–174
49. and M. Pomerance, Self-Determination in Law and Practice, p.9.
50. Cassese, Self-Determination in Law and Practice
51. L. C. Buccheit, Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination, p.74.
52. P. J. Kuyper and P. J. G. Kapteyn, “A Colonial Power as Champion of Self-determination: Netherlands State Practice in the Period 1945–1975”, in H. F. Panhuys (Ed.), International Law in the Netherlands, Vol.111, pp.159,214.
53. France, Portugal and Spain also adopted the position that either some or all of their overseas territories were part of the metropolitan territory and not colonies: 15 G.A.O.R. 1259,1019.
54. Cf. Cristescu, G.A.O.R., at p.6
55. and H. Gross Espiell, UN Special Rapporteur, Implementation of United Nations Resolutions Relating to the Right of Peoples Under Colonial and Alien Domination to Self-Determination, p.117.
56. Res.637(VII) refers to the “principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations”: 7 G.A.O.R. 26.
57. An American amendment affirming the universality of the principle was rejected by 28 votes to 22, with 5 abstentions: idem, p 374.
58. To expedite the process of decolonisation and to reinforce the Charter obligations concerning colonial peoples cf. 15 C.A.O.R. 1001–1002,1042,1060,1103,1234,1074,1136, 1152 and 1266.
59. The emphasis throughout the debate wis on decolonisation; cf. 15 G.A.O.R. 996.
60. Only seven delegations, out of a total of 72 who made statements, referred to a more expansive definition of “peoples”: cf. idem, pp.1138,1249,1136,1200,1283,1104 and 1073.
61. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which was established in 1961 to oversee the implementation of Res. 1514(XV), has dealt exclusively with NSGTs, Trust Territories and other dependent territories: cf. Res. 1542(XV) and 1747(XVI1).
62. This interpretation has also been adopted by the Assembly in a series of resolutions on the implementation of Res. 1514(XV): cf. Res.40/56 of 2 Dec 1985.
63. Res.66(I): 1 G.A.O.R.Supp.20,pp.l24–126
64. Res.567(VI):6 G.A.O.R.Supp.20,p.61
65. Res.648(VII): 7 G.A.O.R. Supp. 17, p 34
66. Res.742(Vm): 8 G.A.O.R. Supp. 17, p.22
67. and Res.1541(XV).
68. Cf. 15 G.A.O.R.1255.
69. Cf. 15 G.A.O.R. 1251,1153,1271,1276,1277 and 1139.
70. Cf. 15 G.A.O.R. 1047,1102,993,1153 and 1042.
71. This is reinforced by Res. 1541(XV), Principles VI, VII and IX, which was adopted within 24 hours of Res, 1514(XV).
72. On the legal status of G.A. resolutions, see Cheng, “United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space Law. ‘Instant’ International Customary Law?” (1965) 5 Indian J.I.L. 23
73. Mac-Gibbon, “Means for the Identification of International Law”, in Cheng (Ed.), International Law: Teaching and Practice, chap.2
74. and Mendelson, “The Legal Character of General Assembly Resolutions: Some Considerations of Principle”, in Hussain (Ed.), Legal Aspects of the New International Economic Order, Vol.1, p.92.
75. Cf. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep.1986,14,para.l93
76. and Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)
77. Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1971, 16, para.114.
78. Cf. Nicaragua, idem, para.188
79. and the TOPCO case (1978) 17 I.L.M. 3, paras.85–86.
80. Cf. Nicaragua, idem, para.203
81. and TOPCO, idem, paras.87–88.
82. 15 G.A.O.R. 1274.
83. Cf. North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1969,3, para.73
84. and TOPCO, I.C.J. Rep., at paras.85–86.
85. Cf. Nicaragua, I.C.J. Rep., at para.188.
86. Cf. 15 G.A.O.R. 993,997,1071 and 1098.
87. 15 G.A.O.R. 1003,1035,1059 and 1256.
88. Cf. the case of Mayotte, which unsuccessfully attempted to exercise the right separately from the rest of the Comoros: G. A.Res. 47/9 adopted by 126 votes in favour, one against and 40 abstaining.
89. See also the General Assembly's approach to the Banabans on Kiribati (Gilbert Islands): Decolonization, No.15, p 36.
90. The General Assembly has consistently condemned any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the territorial integrity of colonial territories: cf. resolutions adopted between 1965 and 1974 concerning several small territories m the Caribbean, Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans: Decolonization, No.12, p.16.
91. The Trusteeship Council initially expressed concern about the break up of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands but ultimately decided that it was “for the Micronesians themselves to decide upon their future relations with each other”: Decolonization, No.16, p.41.
92. Cf. G.A.Res.51/430 (Gibraltar) and 46/406 (Falkland Islands).
93. Cf. G.A.Res.2353(XXlI).
94. Cf. G.A.Res. 51/430, 48/422, 47/411, 46/420 and 43/411 on Gibraltar, which were m identical terms and adopted without a vote, and G.A.Res. 46/406 and the resolution adopted by the Committee on Colonial Countries on 29 July 1992 (A/47/23) on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
95. Cf. the series of G. A, resolutions calling on the administering powers to foster awareness among peoples of the “possibilities open to them in the exercise of their right to self-determination” (emphasis added): Res.43/36–43 of 22 Nov. 1988; 44/91–99 of 11 Dec 1989 and 45/23,27–29,31–32 of 20 Nov. 1990.
96. Puerto Rico, Greenland, Cook Islands, Niue, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. The UN has recognised these decisions although its position on Puerto Rico has evolved over time: cf. Res. 2064(XX) (Cook Islands) and Res-3285(XXlXXNiue).
97. The UN's acceptance of the Compacts of Free Association with the US entered into by the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau is implicit in its termination of the trusteeship agreement concerning these territories: see Far East and Australasia, p.757.
98. Cf. Decolonization,Vol.II,No.6,pp.l9,20,21,22
99. and G.A.Res 39/30 of 5Dec 1984 concerning the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
100. Cf. Res.994(X) (British Togoland)
101. 10 G.A.O.R. Supp. 19, p.24.
102. Cf. Decolonization, Vol.11, No.6, pp.20,21.
103. Cf. the 1973 report of a Visiting Mission to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands reminding the US “which had refused to discuss independence as a possibility except under prior conditions, that ‘it is implicit in the Charter and in the Trusteeship System that the goal is eventual independence unless agreement is reached on some other status acceptable to the people of the Territories through an act of self-determination’ ”: Decolonization, No.16, p.40.
104. Res.1541(XV), principles VIII and IX. See also Res.l608(XV) (British Cameroons)
105. Res-504(XXIV) (West Irian)
106. Res.39/30 of 5 Dec 1984 (Cocos (Keeling) Islands)
107. and Res. 2163(XLIII) (the Mariana Islands).
108. Res. l541(XV), principle VII.
109. See also Res. 2064(XX) (Cook Islands). Recognition of the Marshall Islands' change of status is implicit in Res.46/2 of 17 Sept. 1991 admitting the territory to UN membership.
110. Namibia case, Res., at para.52.
111. Res., at p.39.
112. The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations, pp.104, 106.
113. Idem, pp.91–104.
114. Idem, at p.113.
115. Cf. Sureda, Idem, at pp. 105–106
116. Gross Espiell, Idem, at p. 15
117. R. Emerson, “Self-Determination” (1971) 65 A.J.I.L. 459,463
118. and Crawford, A.J.I.L., at pp.92,94.
119. A.J.I.L., at p.14.
120. Pomerance is not alone in adopting a wide definition of peoples based on the references to alien domination. A similarly broad approach is adopted by Gross Espiell, A.J.I.L., at p.9
121. and M. Koskenniemi, “National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice” (1994) 43 I.C.L.Q. 241, 247.
122. The territories listed in Res. 66(I). Spanish and Portuguese overseas territories, Rhodesia and New Caledonia.
123. Cf. Higgins, Res., at p. 104
124. Emerson, Res.
125. Pomerance, Res., at p.18
126. and Sureda, Res., at p.216.
127. Cf. Cristescu, Res., at p.26
128. Emerson (1966) 60 P.A.S.I.L. 135, 138
129. and idem, p.464
130. Gross Espiell, idem, at p. 19
131. and Thomberry, “Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights:A Review of International Instruments” (1989) 38 I.C.L.Q. 867, 874–875.
132. I.C.L.Q., at p. 19.
133. Pomerance, idem, p.20, cites the cases of Hyderabad, Kashmir, Goa, West Irian, Ifni and Western Sahara.
134. E.g. the General Assembly affirmed the right to self-determination of the people of Ifni but dispensed with the need to hold a referendum in the territory: Res.2229(XXI), 21 G.A.O.R. Supp. 16, p.73.
135. The territory is listed in a UN document as being “Returned to Morocco”: Decolonization, Vol.11. No.6, p.49.
136. Goa was invaded by India. No action was taken by the UN although it is now listed in a UN publication as being “Nationally united with India”: Decolonization
137. Decolonization, at p.216.
138. See also M. A. Sanchez, “Self-Determination and the Falkland Islands Dispute” (1983) 21 CoIJ.Trans.L. 557,562–563.
139. Sureda. idem, p 155.
140. See also K. N. Blay, “Self-Determination versus Territorial Integrity in Decolonization Revisited” (1985) 25 Indian J.I.L. 386,405.
141. A colonial enclave is defined as “usually a small territorial unit which is surrounded by an independent State on all frontiers except where it is limited by sea”: Indian J.I.L.
142. Sureda, idem, p 217.
143. idem text accompanying nn.77–79.
144. Note also, that the issue of the status of the West-em Sahara was referred to the ICJ by the UN General Assembly albeit without prejudice to the application of Res. 1514(XV): Res. 3292(XXIX).
145. Cf. Res. 43/35–44 of 22 Nov. 1988.
146. Cf. Res. l743(XVI) (Ruanda-Urundi).
147. Higgins, Res., at p.114
148. Pomerance, Res., at pp. 25,26.93–94
149. Sureda, Res., at pp. 261,273
150. Crawford, Res., at p. 102
151. Dinstein, Res., at p.251
152. C. Eagleton, “Excesses of Self-Determination” (October 1952-July 1953) XXXI Foreign Affairs 592,598
153. Bowett. Foreign Affairs. at pp. 134–135
154. Cristescu, Foreign Affairs, at p.49
155. Emerson, Foreign Affairs, at p.470.
156. S. M. Fmger and G. Singh, “Self-Determination: A United Nations Perspective”, in Alexander and Friedlander, Foreign Affairs, at p.337
157. Gross, Foreign Affairs, at p. 136
158. and Gross Espiell; Foreign Affairs, at p.65.
159. Sureda, idem, p.261.
160. The ICESCR entered into force on 3 Jan. l976.By 1992there were 106partiestoit: M. J. Bowman and D. J. Harris, Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current Status (9th Cum. Supp.), p.181. The 1CCPR entered into force on 23 Mar. 1976. By 1994 there were 124 parties to it; CCPR/C/2/Rev.4.
161. Cf. Kiss, Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current Status, at p. 174.
162. Cf. Cassese. Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current Status, at p. 142.
163. Cf. the comments cited in M. J. Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Priparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, pp.44–45,32.
164. Some States did claim that the right was confined to colonial peoples: cf. the references in C Eagleton, “Self-Determination in the United Nations” (1953) 47 A.J.I.L. 88,90–91
165. and Cristescu, A.J.I.L., at p.8.
166. Indian proposal cited in Bossuyt, idem, p-32.
167. Soviet proposal cited in idem
168. Yugoslavian proposal cited in idem
169. Cited in idem
170. Cf. statements by Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Greece, the Soviet Union, India, France, Afghanistan. Ecuador, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Syria and New Zealand that the draft article was “not concerned with … the light of secession”: Bossuyt, idem, p 27.
171. See also the opposition of the US and Australia to the deletion of the term “nations” from the article on the grounds that it might encourage separatist movements within States: idem, p.35.
172. India made a declaration when ratifying the ICCPR that Art. 1 does not apply to “sovereign independent States or to a section of a people or nation”: CCPR/C/2/Rev.2, p.22.
173. The Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands objected to the declaration: CCPR/C/2/Rev. 2, pp.37, 38.
174. The Soviet Union has consistently opposed the application of the principle to independent States: cf. Cassese, “The Helsinki Declaration and Self-Determination”, in T. Buergen-thal and J. R. Hall (Eds). Human Rights. International Law and the Helsinki Accord, p.98.
175. Bossuyt, Human Rights. International Law and the Helsinki Accord. 117, at p.34
176. Human Rights. International Law and the Helsinki Accord
177. AD v. Canada (1989) 79 I.L.R. 261.
178. AD v. Canada, I.L.R., at p.265
179. and Kitock v. Sweden, I.L.R.
180. Cf. A. Cassese, in L. Henkin (Ed), The International Bill of Rights, at pp.94–95
181. Hig-gins. The International Bill of Rights, at pp.114–121
182. Crawford, “Outside the Colonial Context” in W.J.A. Macartney (Ed), Self-Determination in the Commonwealth. pp.3–6
183. and B. Kingsbury, -Claims by Non-State Groups In International Law” (1992) 25 Cornell I.L.J. 481.
184. Cassese, I.L.J.
185. I.L.J.
186. Idem, p.95.
187. Bossuyt, Idem, at pp 32,34.
188. Idem, at p. 101.
189. Cassese does not cite any State practice in support of these conditions and there is no reference to these conditions in many of the records of the drafting history of the 1CCPR: cf. Bossuyt, Idem
190. and Cristescu, Idem
191. Res 2625(XXV) is somewhat unusual in that a Special Committee on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States was established to draft the declaration.
192. For a history of the drafting of the declaration, see 25 G.A.O.R. Supp. No.18.
193. Idem,p.41.
194. Cf. idem, pp.91
195. (France),88(ltaly), 104(Australia), 122(US).XXV G.A.O.R. A/C6/SR.1182
196. and Corr.l, para.4 (Portugal), para.28 (Spain), and XXV G.A.O.R. A/PV.1860.5–6 (representative of the “‘African Group”).
197. Only one State ruled out the possibility that it could apply to independent States: 25 G.A.O.R. Supp. No.18, p.110 (India).
198. Cf. R. Rosenstock, “The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations: A Survey” (1971) 65 A.J.l.L. 713,731, in support of this proposition.
199. Cf. Cassese, A.J.l.L., at p. 144, who questions this interpretation.
200. States which set out their understanding of para.7 did so in general terms: cf. 25 G.A.O.R. Supp. 18, p. 100(Poland), p.103 (Czechoslovakia)
201. and Buccheit, G.A.O.R., at p.82 (Ireland). There was no express reference to Southern Rhodesia and South Africa in connection with para.7.
202. Cf. 25 G.A.O.R. Supp.18, p.73 (Chile)
203. 25 G.A.O.R. A/C.6/SR.1182 and Corr.l, para.60(Kenya); A/C.6/SR.1178, para.20 (Yugoslavia), para.42 (Lebanon); A/C.6/SR.1180, para.6 (Iraq); AVC.6/SR.U81, para.3l (Greece); and A/C6/SR.I182 and Corr.l. para.40 (Turkey).
204. Cf. the statements made at the time of its adoption by the representatives of the East European Group, 25 G.A.O.R. Supp.l8, p.6
205. Asia Group, idem, p.9
206. and Africa Group,idem, p.8.
207. Idem.p.51.
208. The Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic voted to dissolve Czechoslovakia with effect from 31 Dec. 1992. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist on 1 Jan. 1993 and was replaced by the Czech and Slovak Republics. The Conference on Peace and Democracy which assembled all the relevant political and social actors in Ethiopia recognised the right of the inhabitants of Eritrea to determine their political status: see (1993) U.N. Yearbook 265.
209. In the former Soviet Union, the constituent republics agreed to dissolve the Soviet State and form separate independent States: Agreement establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States concluded on 8 Dec 1991 by the Republic of Belarus, the RSFSR, and the Ukraine, and the Protocol to the Agreement establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States concluded on 21 Dec. 1991 by the Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the RSFSR and the Ukraine. The remaining republics, Georgia, Estonia. Latvia and Lithuania, had previously declared their independence but did not join the CIS. For a different interpretation of events in the former Soviet Union, see A. Cassese, “Self-Determination of Peoples and the Recent Break-up of USSR and Yugoslavia”, in R. SL J. Macdonald (Ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya (1994), pp.131, 133–134.
210. Secretary-General's Report, Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya
211. Reproduced in (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1486.
212. Cf. President Wilson's speech at the Supreme Council of Principal Allied and Associated Powers, 31 May 1919, reproduced in Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (US Government Printing Office, 1942), Vol.1, pp.405–408.
213. According to President Clemenceau, it was a principle of “public law of Europe” that when a State was created or concessions of territory made, joint and formal recognition should be accompanied with the requirement that the State should comply with certain principles of government; letter dated 24 June 1919 from President Clemenceau on behalf of the Supreme Council to the Polish leader, M. Paderewski, reproduced in H.W.V. Temperley, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (1921), Vol.1 V, pp.432–437.
214. Cf. Security Council Res. 1036 (1996) on Georgia, preamble, para J.
215. See, contra, R. Mullerson, “Self-Determmation of Peoples and the Dissolution of the USSR”, in Macdonald, Security Council Res., at pp.567, 570–573, who argues that the international response to the independence of the Soviet republics was based on the colonial character of the Soviet Union and the willingness of the new States to adopt a democratic system of government and respect human rights.
216. Cf. statements by the Latvian and US representatives in the General Assembly in Dec. 1992: A/47/PV.72 (provisional record). On the legality of the integration, see further, S. Blay, “Self-Determination: A Reassessment in the Post-Communist Era” (1994) 22 Denv. J. Int'l Law & Pol'y 275, at pp.292–293
217. and Cassese, Denv. J. Int'l Law & Pol'y, at pp.133–134.
218. Cf. the statement on the Baltic Republics issued on 26 Apr. 1990 by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, discussed in Cassese, Denv. J. Int'l Law & Pol'y, at pp.136–137.
219. See further Denv. J. Int'l Law & Pol'y text accompanying nn. 150–156.
220. Buccheit, Denv. J. Int'l Law & Pol'y, at pp.169–170.
221. (1970)7 UN Monthly Chronicle 36.
222. Alexander and Friedlander. UN Monthly Chronicle, 318.
223. The idea of a carence de souveraineté was alluded to by India in debates within the UN. It stated that as a matter of international law conditions are suitable for independence when the “mother State has irrevocably lost the allegiance of such a large section of its people … and cannot bring them under its sway”: cited in Buccheit, UN Monthly Chronicle, at.p.210.
224. Pakistan expressed puzzlement over this theory: UN Monthly Chronicle
225. Cf. Crawford, The Concept of Statehood, p.116
226. and Kingsbury, The Concept of Statehood, at p.487.
227. Buccheit, The Concept of Statehood, at pp. 127,208–209,213, refers to a range of factors which influenced the international community, notably the diplomatic relations between the parties, political expediency and the violation of human rights in East Pakistan. The fact that East Pakistan was able to secede physically, albeit with Indian assistance, was also undoubtedly a factor.
228. This is reinforced by the fact that the international community rejected Biafra's secession even though one could argue that Biafra was a distinct geographical/political unit’ subject to a carence de souveraineté. The requirement of a carencedesouveraineti was arguably satisfied by the killing of 10,000 Ibos by government forces between May and Sept. 1966: see S. K. Panter-Brick, “The Right to Self-Determmation: Its Application to Nigeria” (1968) 44 International Affairs 254,262.
229. For a detailed discussion of events in the former Yugoslavia, see M. Weller, “The International Response to the Dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” (1992)86 A.J.1.L.569.
230. Cf. statements made within the UN Security Council: S/PV.3009 (provisional record). See also Weller, idem, p.570.
231. Cf. the paper presented by the Chairman of the EC Conference on Yugoslavia at its meeting on 18 Oct 1991: (1991) U.N. Yearbook 216
232. and the Declaration of the European Community on 8 Nov. 1991: UN S/23203, annex, p.3 (provisional record).
233. UN text accompanying nn. 150–156.
234. On the formation and functions of the Commission see (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1488
235. and Welter, I.L.M., at p.589.
236. Opinion No.1 (1992)31 I.L.M. 1494.
237. In Opinion No.8 it stated that the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia was complete: idem, p. 1521.
238. Opinion No.3: ;idem, p. 1499.
239. For a more detailed critique of the Commission's reasoning, see H. Hannum, “Rethinking Self-Determination” (1993) 34 VaJ.I.L. 1.54–55.