Ett folkrättsligt dilemma eller inte? Konflikten om Nagorno-Karabach - territoriell integritet mot rätten till självbestämmande
(2021) LAGF03 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Today, a conflict is raging over the Nagorno-Karabakh area, with roots in the early 20th century, between Armenians and Azeris. The area is today a self-proclaimed republic without international recognition. The conflict is characterized by two opposing principles of international law, the principle of a people's right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, which each party to the conflict invokes.
The purpose of the essay was to find out which of these two principles weighs the most and thus should have priority in the conflict. The essay deals with, among other things, how and in what ways it is possible for a people or a region to become independent and work for secession, what is required for the formation... (More) - Today, a conflict is raging over the Nagorno-Karabakh area, with roots in the early 20th century, between Armenians and Azeris. The area is today a self-proclaimed republic without international recognition. The conflict is characterized by two opposing principles of international law, the principle of a people's right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, which each party to the conflict invokes.
The purpose of the essay was to find out which of these two principles weighs the most and thus should have priority in the conflict. The essay deals with, among other things, how and in what ways it is possible for a people or a region to become independent and work for secession, what is required for the formation of a new state and the meaning of the said principles.
In writing the essay, a legal dogmatic method has been used, which is about analyzing the various parts of the doctrine of legal sources so that it reflects applicable law or how a legal rule should be perceived in a concrete context, ie to describe what a certain solution looks like in a concrete problem.
The essay concludes that a state's territorial integrity trumps the principle of people's right to self-determination. The principle of people's right to self- determination has two sides, an external and an internal. The external side is mainly aimed at a right to secession and that according to international law it mainly applies to colonized people and people who have been subjected to occupation, submission and exploitation. Under current law, there is no right to secession for minorities, if anything their right to self-determination should be achieved through internal self-determination, ie they are guaranteed their identity within the state in which they are located.
International law is cautious about if there is a right to secession for minorities because it would infringe on the territorial integrity of the existing state, which means, among other things, that states have exclusive jurisdiction over their population and territory. The principle of a people's right to self- determination has been developed with respect for the territorial integrity of states. In parallel with statements about the principle of the people's right to self-determination, there are statements that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to the territorial integrity of an existing state. However, some international law scholars believe that it may still be possible for minorities to work for secession if there is extreme oppression and total denial of these rights. In the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is difficult to determine whether there are such extreme circumstances that secession is legitimized under international law. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Idag pågår en konflikt om området Nagorno-Karabach, med rötter i det tidiga 1900- talet, mellan armenier och azerier. Området är idag en självutnämnd republik utan internationellt erkännande. Konflikten präglas av att två folkrättsliga principer ställs emot varandra, principen om ett folks rätt till självbestämmande och principen om territoriell integritet, som respektive part i konflikten åberopar.
Syftet med uppsatsen var att utröna vilken av dessa två principer som väger tyngst och därmed torde ha företräde i konflikten. I uppsatsen behandlas bland annat hur och på vilka sätt det är möjligt för ett folk eller en region att göra sig självständig och verka för secession, vad som krävs för att en ny stat ska bildas och innebörden av sagda... (More) - Idag pågår en konflikt om området Nagorno-Karabach, med rötter i det tidiga 1900- talet, mellan armenier och azerier. Området är idag en självutnämnd republik utan internationellt erkännande. Konflikten präglas av att två folkrättsliga principer ställs emot varandra, principen om ett folks rätt till självbestämmande och principen om territoriell integritet, som respektive part i konflikten åberopar.
Syftet med uppsatsen var att utröna vilken av dessa två principer som väger tyngst och därmed torde ha företräde i konflikten. I uppsatsen behandlas bland annat hur och på vilka sätt det är möjligt för ett folk eller en region att göra sig självständig och verka för secession, vad som krävs för att en ny stat ska bildas och innebörden av sagda principer.
Vid författandet av uppsatsen har rättsdogmatisk metod använts, som handlar om att analysera de olika delarna i rättskälleläran så att det speglar gällande rätt eller hur en rättsregel ska uppfattas i ett konkret sammanhang, det vill säga att beskriva hur en viss lösning ser ut på ett konkret problem.
Uppsatsen kommer fram till att en stats territoriell integritet trumfar principen om folks rätt till självbestämmande. Principen om folks rätt till självbestämmande har två sidor, en extern och en intern. Den externa sidan tar främst sikte på en rätt till secession och att det enligt folkrätten främst gäller kolonialiserat folk och folk som utsatts för ockupation, underkastelse och exploatering. Enligt gällande rätt så finns ingen rätt till secession för minoriteter, om något ska deras rätt till självbestämmande främst uppnås genom internt självbestämmande, det vill säga att de garanteras sin identitet inom ramen för den stat de befinner sig i. Folkrätten är försiktig till frågan om det föreligger en rätt till secession för dessa eftersom det skulle inkräkta på den befintliga statens territoriella integritet som bland annat innebär att stater har exklusiv jurisdiktion över sin befolkning och sitt territorium. Principen om ett folks rätt till självbestämmande har utvecklats med respekt till staters territoriella integritet. Parallellt med utsagor om principen om folks rätt till självbestämmande återfinns utsagor om att utövandet av en sådan rättighet måste vara tillräckligt begränsad för att förhindra hot mot en befintlig stats territoriella integritet. Vissa folkrättsjurister menar dock att det kanske ändå är möjligt för minoriteter att verka för secession om det föreligger extremt förtryck och total förnekelse av deras basala rättigheter. Inom ramen för konflikten om Nagorno-Karabach är det svårt att avgöra om det dock föreligger sådana extrema omständigheter att secession kan legitimeras enligt folkrätten. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9046033
- author
- Nyberg Eiroff, Gustav LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt, Rätten till självbestämmande, Territoriell integritet, Nagorno-Karabach
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9046033
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-29 16:39:11
- date last changed
- 2021-06-29 16:39:11
@misc{9046033,
abstract = {{Today, a conflict is raging over the Nagorno-Karabakh area, with roots in the early 20th century, between Armenians and Azeris. The area is today a self-proclaimed republic without international recognition. The conflict is characterized by two opposing principles of international law, the principle of a people's right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, which each party to the conflict invokes.
The purpose of the essay was to find out which of these two principles weighs the most and thus should have priority in the conflict. The essay deals with, among other things, how and in what ways it is possible for a people or a region to become independent and work for secession, what is required for the formation of a new state and the meaning of the said principles.
In writing the essay, a legal dogmatic method has been used, which is about analyzing the various parts of the doctrine of legal sources so that it reflects applicable law or how a legal rule should be perceived in a concrete context, ie to describe what a certain solution looks like in a concrete problem.
The essay concludes that a state's territorial integrity trumps the principle of people's right to self-determination. The principle of people's right to self- determination has two sides, an external and an internal. The external side is mainly aimed at a right to secession and that according to international law it mainly applies to colonized people and people who have been subjected to occupation, submission and exploitation. Under current law, there is no right to secession for minorities, if anything their right to self-determination should be achieved through internal self-determination, ie they are guaranteed their identity within the state in which they are located.
International law is cautious about if there is a right to secession for minorities because it would infringe on the territorial integrity of the existing state, which means, among other things, that states have exclusive jurisdiction over their population and territory. The principle of a people's right to self- determination has been developed with respect for the territorial integrity of states. In parallel with statements about the principle of the people's right to self-determination, there are statements that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to the territorial integrity of an existing state. However, some international law scholars believe that it may still be possible for minorities to work for secession if there is extreme oppression and total denial of these rights. In the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is difficult to determine whether there are such extreme circumstances that secession is legitimized under international law.}},
author = {{Nyberg Eiroff, Gustav}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ett folkrättsligt dilemma eller inte? Konflikten om Nagorno-Karabach - territoriell integritet mot rätten till självbestämmande}},
year = {{2021}},
}