Territorial integrity and sovereignty represent one of the main characteristics of the national countries. Integrity implies a territorial wholeness of a country and its indivisibility. Sovereignty represents a capacity of a legitimate government to have a supreme authority on a certain territory, which includes its power over certain people that live there. On the other side, the self-determination is usually connected to a claim for independence. Sometimes the independence can be achieved through an agreement, that is, by having a referendum which has been approved by the government. An example of it is the agreement between the England and Scotland. Another example is when Montenegro separated from Serbia. That kind of separation is legal, since both sides agreed on that option. While on the other side, secession can be self-proclaimed, as Kosovo did that in 2008, when it separated from Serbia. Serbia is claiming that that kind of secession is illegal and that it is violating the territorial integrity of Serbia. The right to self-determination is not consistent on the international scene, and it can be interpreted in many ways.
Advocates of the territorial integrity cannot advocate at the same time the right of self-determination. One is excluding the other. A good example of this case is Kosovo. Looking at that case, it can be noticed that the Albanians from Kosovo are promoting the right of self-determination, while Serbia on the other hand is claiming a protection of its territorial integrity. As I said earlier, sovereignty is connected to integrity, and in this case, Serbia does not have any power, nor control over Kosovo. By not having that, it means that Kosovo, at least from the political view point, is not a part of Serbia any more. Here I am not going to talk about historical and cultural aspects of the claims. In this case big powers, such as the US had a major impact, since the US is the biggest supporter for Kosovo. There are many cases in the world, when it can be seen that the US decides differently if the people has a right to self-determine. An example of it is Crimea where the US says that secession of it is violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Another example is Texas. Texas is a state in the US, which has claims for independence. But the US does not allow it to secede, by claiming that it would violate its territorial integrity. Based on these cases it can be seen that the right of self-determination is used in various cases – arbitrarily.
Territorial integrity is not only important for a country to function, but it is also important for a democracy. In every democratic constitution wholeness is mentioned as one the crucial elements. Without it democracies would not be able to function properly because they would constantly be under the risk of instability. Countries that are acting arbitrarily in cases that are concerned with the problem like this are protecting their own territorial wholeness and integrity in their backyard; while on the international level they are enforcing that principle in an opposite direction; since it’s in their interest.
The Charter of the UN makes things in this case complicated. Charter I, article 1, point 2, says that one of the functions of the UN is to promote good relations between countries based the respect of the equal rights and the self-determination of peoples. While on the other side, Chapter I, article 2, point 4, says that territorial integrity is an element that should not be violated by the others. This confusion represents a pretext for countries to interpret in their own way. It can be seen that these two points are opposing one another. Free interpretation of these points leads to a confusion on the international scene. It is also a pretext for a country to invade others.
Those who are fighting for the right of the self-determination have a noble wish, but they do not see that it might lead to bigger problems in the world, rather to the benefits. In most of the countries there are certain national minorities which are concentrated on a part of other countries. In case when the principle of self-determination would be literally enforced the chaos would arise and there are just few countries in the world that would not be affected by this. That principle can go on and on, since that inside of the territory where the minority which wants to be independent lives, there is often some other minority which could also ask for independence. The case of Kosovo is the same. Serbs on the north of Kosovo represent a minority now, and in case of a literal enforcement of the rule, then they would also have the right to self-determine. Also, the instability would not only be immediate. There are some territories that are more or less homogeneous. But as the world is constantly on the move, and if there is a small minority right now, it does not mean that it will not become a bigger one in the future. By enforcing the rule, on each fifty years the borders would change, since the bigger minorities would constantly request independence. By having that rule applies, the stability would not exist, without stability there is a bigger probability for conflicts, and that leads to smaller chances for the consolidation of democracies. If we are trying to promote a democracy, we should promote stability and the rights of minorities. Minorities should be given autonomy if they request it, but at the same time the minorities should try to integrate with the country they live in.
