“…weight must be given to the right of self-determination of the people of Belize manifested in their acquisition of independence in 1981… ‘Guatemala has recognised the right to self-determination of the people of Belize…’”
– Summary, Joint Opinion of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE, QC, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel,
Professor Shabtai Rosenne, and Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña, pages 4 and 7
BELIZE CITY, Tues. Dec. 23, 2008
In principle, the peoples across the world should have the right to choose their own form of government, without interference from outside powers. Colonization and the enslavement of Africans did not acknowledge that universal right, and did not respect the supremacy of the will of the people. However, the principle of self-determination was one of the key arguments used by proponents of decolonization, citing the right of a people to exist as a separate state. It is a right now acknowledged in international law, despite continued violations across the globe.
In the years leading up to Belize’s independence, the member countries of the United Nations affirmed the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, and therefore to independence. Closely connected with these rights is the right to preserve intact one’s territorial integrity. Yet, despite Belize’s independence in 1981, Guatemala continues to stake a claim to its territory – a direct challenge to the right of Belizeans to self-determination and the right to inviolability of their territory.
The Legal Opinion on Guatemala’s Territorial Claim to Belize by Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge Stephen Schwebel, Professor Shabtai Rosenne and Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña, takes an in-depth look at the right to self-determination, recognizing it as a highly pertinent aspect of customary international law.
“The insistent reiteration by Guatemala of its claim to the ‘restoration’ of Belize notwithstanding the clearly expressed wishes of the people of Belize to the contrary, runs completely counter to the obligation of Guatemala to respect their right to self-determination,” says the legal opinion. “In 1981 Belize became independent and was admitted to membership of the United Nations, against the express objection of Guatemala based on its claim that Belize formed part of its territory. The vote was 144-1 (Guatemala), with no abstentions. This was preceded by a unanimously adopted recommendation of the Security Council.”
(The UN countries could not have meant that the people of Belize have the right to self-determination, but not the land under their feet.)
The right to self-determination is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV), which stated that: “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to self-determination.”
There were times during the decades of negotiations with Guatemala that Belize was on the verge of compromising its right to self-determination, by considering proposals to give Guatemala control over certain internal affairs of Belize – such as defense and foreign relations (The Webster Proposals).
Most recently, proposals have been put on the table to give the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction to make its determination of where the boundaries of Belize and Guatemala lie, with respect to each other, and to determine what territory belongs to Belize and what territory belongs to Guatemala.
The ICJ itself has dealt with the issue of self-determination, in making its decisions. In its advisory opinion (not binding on the parties) regarding the construction of a wall in Palestinian territory by Israel, the ICJ, in July 2004, spoke of the “principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the territory.” The ICJ told Israel that it was interfering with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, and Israel was breaching its obligation to respect that right.
The opinion sated that, “Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”
It is this same principle of self-determination that guides the obligation of both Belize and Guatemala to submit any proposed settlement to the Belize-Guatemala dispute to their people, via a referendum or process of popular consultation – a process through which the people would be asked decide whether to grant jurisdiction to the ICJ to determine what is the extent of their boundaries and territories.
By extension, the very principle of self-determination reinforces the right of people on either side of the border to say “NO” to the ICJ process. (A “YES” vote would mean that the full determination would lie squarely within the hands of the ICJ.)
Reinforcing the value of the right to self-determination and its relevance to the broader spectrum of human rights, a statement by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (dated three years after Belize’s independence) says it “…is of particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights….
“By virtue of that right they freely ‘determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’ …States must refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other States and thereby adversely affecting the exercise of the right to self-determination.”
The ICJ has pronounced that (in East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) – 1995) that the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes, meaning “toward all” – obligations owed to the international community as a whole, and breaches, such as a failure to recognize that right, injures not just one party but the wider world community.