Answer: Because the feel like in there self right and its there self deteremination that allows them to feel like their own soverighn independent state.
Explanation:
Many conflicts around the world today are between the central government of a given state and ethnic groups within that state. The ethnic groups demand independence or autonomous rule, while the central government refuses to concede to such demand. How should the international community treat this kind of ethnic conflict? That is, by which standard should the central government’s position and a particular ethnic group’s demand for independence or autonomy be evaluated? How absolute is the central government’s claim to preserve territorial integrity? Moreover, do ethnic groups inherently have the right to claim independence or self-rule to begin with?
There are no clear-cut answers to these questions. However, discussions about self-determination and secession have become active in recent years, especially in view of the many cases of resolving ethnic conflicts that erupted after the Cold War that have impacted on the way to think about self-determination. This paper attempts to offer a way to understand the claims of ethnic groups in the context of recent developments.
Self-determination is act of a particular people or an ethnic group to exercise its sovereign right to become an independent state and to decide on the form of state (including the system of government). The former, regarding independence, is called external self-determination and the latter regarding choices of the form of the state system internal self-determination.
The genesis of principle of self-determination as a concept in international relations can be traced to World War I; more precisely the “Fourteen Points” made by US President Woodrow Wilson in his speech to Congress in 1918. 1 Wilson had in mind to allow for independence to the separate nations in the Balkans who had been victims of the politics of balance of power that dominated European international relations. However, the application of the principle of self-determination was not consistent. It was only applied to those nations within the former Austro-Hungary and Ottoman empires that were defeated in the war, and the Asian and African colonies of the victorious powers were left as colonies.
However, there are two important points we need to recognize. One is the idea of international guarantee of self-determination. The principle of self-determination was conceived as a notion of global governance to guarantee those nations who did not have the power themselves to become independent. The other is the nature of self-determination as a social contract. Wilson advocated that the self-determination of the Balkan nations should be carried out along the lines respecting the historically formed “allegiance and nationality”. The underlying view was that a nation should be defined less as a naturally or objectively defined ‘characteristics’ as a nation than as a body with the will to independence shaped through the course of history.
After World War II, the notion of global governance to guarantee self-determination evolved further. Article 3 of the UN’s “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” of 1960 stated: “Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence”. This meant that that conditions for the formation of a state need not be all met in order for independence to be recognized. With the two international covenants on human rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) of 1966 that declared in Article 1 that, “All peoples have the right of self-determination”, the notion of self-determination developed in to a right.
