The Right to Self-determination of Non-Burman Ethnic Nationalities in Burma

By Khaing Aung Win

Introduction In1914, at the outbreak of the world war I, nearly 90 percent of the worlds land surface was colonized by half a dozen of European nations including Russia. In their colonization, the European colonial powers integrated separated nations or peoples into a uniting state for their administrative, economic and military purposes. However, those separate nations or peoples possessed different languages, ethnicities, religions and common heritages or cultures. Between 1945 and 1960, when nationalism arose and decolonization accelerated through violent or non-violent means in a colonized and integrated state in Asia or Africa, the European colonial power transferred power to the one of the nations or peoples, which seemed to be dominant of other nations or peoples in a colonized and integrated state , leaving other nations or peoples to be colonies of the dominant nation or successor to the former European colonial power on decolonization. This allowed exploitation of subordinate nations or peoples by the dominant nation or successor to the former European colonial power on decolonization. Those subordinate nations or peoples who are still subjected to extreme national oppression, political domination and economic exploitation by the successor nations to the former European colonial powers , are Hidden Colonies. ( In the context of Burma, the Burman nation is a dominant nation or successor to the former British colonial power and the subordinate nations or peoples as Arakan (Rakhaing), Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon, and Shan are Hidden Colonies in the so-called Union of Burma.) When the nations or peoples of the Hidden Colonies claim the right to selfdetermination , the successor to the former European colonial power oppresses them, violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms of them, suppresses their cultures, religions, languages and other attributes of the identity valued by them under the pretext of the so-called national security, sovereignty , integrity and non- disintegration of the so-called Union.

Self-determination in International Law (1) The Charter of the United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations, which was established in San Francisco on 26 June 1945, contains the right to self-determination of peoples. Article 1(2) of the Charter states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.. The article 55 instructs the UN to promote higher standards of living, solutions to health and cultural problems, and universal respect for human rights with a view to the creation of condition of stability wellbeing which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relation among nations on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples. The framers of the Charter of the United Nations, thus, identified selfdetermination as one of the purposes of the UN organization. Moreover, although they did not construct the Charter in a manner that would serve an effective means for the use and expansion of the principle itself, they did identify self-determination as a major objective of the new world organization. (2) The United Nations Covenants on Human Rights

The UN Covenants on Human Rights the International Covenant on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were concluded on 16 December 1966. They entered into force on 3 January 1976 and 23 March 1976, respectively. The first article of the two Covenants is identical. Paragraph 1 of Article (1) of each reads: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. If one analyzes the above article, one finds that the right of self determination includes the following elements: 1) The freedom to determine political status; 2) The freedom to pursue economic development; 3) The freedom to pursue economic development; 4) The freedom to pursue cultural development.

According to paragraph 1 of Article(1), all peoples are entitled to freely determine their political status, and economic, social and cultural development. In other words, every people or nation is free to establish its own political institutions, to develop its own economic resources, and to direct its own social and cultural development, without the interference of other peoples or nations. A people or nation that is not free from colonial or domestic oppression cannot exercise its inalienable right to freely determine its political status and freely pursue its economic, social and cultural development.

(3)

Declaration on the Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

The UN General Assembly made a Declaration on 14 December 1960 (Resolution No.1514(XV) entitled, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples : The Assembly had considered the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples, the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the such peoples, the needs for putting an end to colonialism, the irresistibility and irreversibility of the process of liberation, the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and the historical fact that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and integrity of their national territory. After solemnly proclaiming the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, the General Assembly declares that: 1) The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. 2) All peoples have the right to self-determination ; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 3) Inadequacy of political, economic , social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4) All Armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence; and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. 5) Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to peoples of those territories, without any condition or reservation, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinctions as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom. 6) Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 7) All states shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality , non-interference in the internal affairs of all states, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity. This Declaration fostered to accelerate the decolonization movements in Asia and Africa. Till June, 1945, the UN had fifty members against one hundred and eighty four in early 1994; the additional one hundred thirty four member states emerged as independent countries during the past four and half decades as a result of national liberation movements and the de-colonization processes, which had been either constitutional or militant in various colonial or semi-colonial territories of the world. The break-up of former Soviet Union into fifteen indepent states, similar process in Yugoslavia have legitimized national resurgence on a grand scale. Czech and Slovak nations followed the suit in quick succession peacefully. Chechnya, conquered by Russia in 1864 declared independence on 6 September and 23-25 November, 1990 from Russia, but Russia government does not accept it. There has been massacres in the tiny land of a few lakhs . A fragile peace agreement has been reached on 30 July, 1995 between the two belligerent parties. Chechnya contests the annexation by way of conquest in the remote past. The1960 UN Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples affirmed peoples right to freedom from colonial rule.

4) The Declaration on Friendly Relations

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter the United Nations (GA Resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970) contributed to the formation of a set of general rules concerning the right to self-determination. There was however a split among commentators with regard to the legal standing of the right proclaimed in the Declaration. However, it seems that there is consensus about the binding character of those provisions on which a broad measure of substantial and unreserved agreement was provided. These are 1) peoples under colonial or alien domination have a right to self-determination, i.e. to attain the status of sovereign states or any other political status freely determined by themselves; and 2) people under racist regimes have the right to internal and external self-determination either by achieving selfgovernment or seceding from the racist state. A number of international law authorities have asserted that the right to self-determination may ground a right to unilateral secession in a third circumstance deriving from an interpretation of paragraph 7 of the Declaration , which reads as follow: Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of selfdetermination and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or color. Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state or country.

Despite the formulation of this provision in the form of a saving clause, it connotes the recognition of the right to self-determination also to peoples within existing states, as well as the necessity for governments to represent the governed. The latter outcome is reached by an a contrario

reading of paragraph 7. It is therefore read in light of the states duty to promote respect for an observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with paragraph 3. Thus, if peoples within existing States are treated in a grossly discriminatory fashion by an unrepresentative government, they can claim self-determination without concern that arguments about territorial integrity will defeat their claim. The underlying rationale of the Saving Clause of the Declaration is that when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to selfdetermination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise this right by secession.

5) The Vienna Declaration

The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action that was adopted in 1993, by the UN Conference on Human Rights ( which uses virtually the same language as the Declaration on Friendly Relations) recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination states that, this shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind. This paragraph imposes a requirement of legitimacy on a state invoking the principle of territorial integrity against a self-determination claim which threatens that integrity. This means that a state that oppresses, destroys or unduly exploits a people or community instead of protecting it or representing its interests has no legitimate right to invoke the principle of territorial integrity against that people or community. A state that gravely violates its fundamental obligations to its citizens loses the legitimacy to rule over them. This also applies with respect to a states obligations towards a distinct people or community within its boundaries.

Internal and External Self-determination

By internal self-determination is meant participatory democracy: the right to decide the form of government and the identity of rulers by the whole population of a state and the right of a population group within the state to participate in decision making at the state level. Internal selfdetermination can also mean the right to exercise cultural, linguistic, religious or ( territorial) political autonomy within the boundaries of the existing state. By external self-determination is meant the right to decide on the political status of a people and its place in the international community in relation to other states, including the right to separate from the existing state of which the group concerned is a part, and to set up a new independent state.

The Holders of the Right to Self-determination

The international legal instruments on self-determination grant the right of self-determination to a people. The UN Commission on Human Rights still decline to define the word a people, the term acquires more precision in the Charter of the United Nations. But it was thought that the term a people should be understood in its most general sense and that no definition was necessary. Indeed, formulating a wholly satisfactory definition of a people for the purpose of determining a groups right to self-determination is by no means a simple task. Several factors must be considered in order to make a fair judgment. The primary considerations would seem to be that: (a) a people must be seen as a contingent of two elements. The objective element is that there has to exist an ethnic group of persons linked by common history. A random group of persons, lacking any common tradition, cannot be categorize as a people. There is also a subjective basis to a people for it is not enough to have an ethnic link in the sense of past genealogy and history. It is essential to have a

present ethos or state of mind. (e.g. the will to live together and to continue common tradition. (b) A group must possess a focus of identity sufficient for it to attain distinctiveness as a people. (e.g. language, religion, and culture) (c) A group must demonstrate close connections to a particular territory. There could be no effective right of self-determination without a place in which it can be exercised. (d) Denial of a groups claim for the right to self-determination would cause great harm to the group. The International Commission of Jurists proposed the following elements to identify who a people is in dealing with the secession of East Pakistan ( present day Bangladesh) from Pakistan in 1970 : (a) a common history; (b) racial or ethnic ties; (c) cultural or linguistic ties; (d) religious or ideological ties; (e) a common territory or geographical location; (f) a common economic base and (g) a sufficient number of people.

In 1989, the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples identified a people as: A group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features: (a) a common historical tradition; (b) racial or ethnic identity; (c) cultural homogeneity; (d) linguistic unity; (e) religious or ideological affinity; (f) territorial connection; (g) common economic life. The UNESCO experts further stated that the group as a whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people, the key subjective element common to other legal definition of peoples. The people must be of a certain number, which need not be large but must be more than a mere association of individuals within a state, according to those experts, who considered the existence of

institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity to be of importance.

The Case Study

( The plight of non-Burman ethnic Nationalities in Burma) Historically, there had never been a Burma state when the British conquered Kingdom of Arakan in 1826. As noted by Furnivall and others, Kingdom of Burman co-existed and frequently waged wars with the Kingdom of Arakan, Kingdom of Mon and with the Shan Princes and Kings ( See J.S Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice, Cambridge University Press,London,1948 p.p 12).After final colonization in 1886, the British colonial power created a State of Burma, bringing Kingdoms of Arakan, Burman , Mon and other separate nations as Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah and Shan to form a single unit i.e. State of Burma. More specifically, the British had created a State of Burma bringing Burma Proper and the territories of non-Burman ethnic Nationalities in 1930s. Before the independence of Burma in 1948, there was crucial problem of redefining the relation between the Burman and non- Burman nations such as Arakanese ( also known as Rakhaing), Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan whether the territories of non-Burman nations were to be incorporated in a united Burma, and if so under what conditions of regional autonomy, or whether the territories of non-Burman nations were to be accorded the Right of Self-determination, and of separation as independent states. On 12 February 1947,General Aung San, the Burman leader of the independence struggle in Ministerial Burma and the leaders of nonBurman nations met at Panglong Conference in Shan State. General Aung San promised that the separate ethnic homelands in the Frontier Areas be joined to Ministerial Burma as equal partners in a Union of Burma to hasten the process of achieving independence from the British. Thus, they reached an agreement known as Panglong Agreement, which recognized the equality, voluntary association, and the right to selfdetermination of non-Burman ethnic nation-states and the Burman nationstate in the Federal Structure as Nation made up of nations, and provided the basic principles for the establishment of future Federal Union.

On 19 July 1947, General Aung San was murdered together with most of the cabinet ministers of Interim Government of Ministerial Burma, and U Nu took the leading role of the Burmas politics in the place of General Aung San.However, U Nu-led AFPFL betrayed the fundamental principles for the true Federal Union laid down by the General Aung San and leaders of non-Burman ethnic nationalities at the Panglong Conference, and adopted a constitution which was favorable to the hegemony of the Burmans over non-Burman ethnic nationalities. According to the 1947 constitution adopted by the U Nu-led AFPFL, non-Burman ethnic nations as Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan lost their right to self-determination. The so-called Union of Burma formed by the U Nu-led AFPFL was, in reality, unitary and colonial in structure. Therefore, when the so-called Union of Burma gained independence from the British on 4th January in 1948, the Burmans completely monopolized legislative, judiciary and administrative powers and run the whole machinery of government of the so-called Union of Burma, reducing the non-Burman ethnic nationalities to colonies. For non-Burman ethnic nationalities, independence of the socalled Union of Burma means substitution of the Burmans domination in the place of the Britishs domination. In 1958,the right of Shan and Kayah ethnic nationalities to secede from the Union after 10 years of independence of the so-called Union of Burma guaranteed in the 1947 Union constitution was denied to them. As a precaution, U Nu, the then Prime Minister of the so-called Union of Burma, invited General Ne Win, the commander-in-chief of Army, to form a caretaker government to restore law and order for a period of two years in 1958. In his campaign for general election of February 1960, U Nu had promised Arakan and Mon nations the right to form autonomous States within the Union.(however his promise was never fulfilled). From 1948 to 1962 , in the parliament debates, the MPs of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities demanded to amend the sham Union Constitution to be genuine so that non-Burman ethnic nationalities could enjoy their right to selfdetermination as the promise made to them before independence of Burma by General Aung San and the Burman AFPFL leaders. Moreover, on 25 February 1962, the leaders of non-Burman ethnic nationalities at the historic Taunggyi Conference in the southern Shan State, and unitedly demanded to return to the spirit of Panglong Conference to amend the 1947 constitution so that disintegration of the

Union could be prevented. However, highly chauvinistic Burman military officers led by General Ne win took over the state power by staging a military coup on 2 March 1962. The coup leaders dissolved the democratically elected government and Parliament, arrested and jailed the president of Union, the Cabinet members and the leaders on non-Burman ethnic nationalities who were attending the Taunggyi Conference . They revoked political freedom and all democratic rights, and abolished the 1947 constitution. General Ne Win justified his act of military coup by alleging that the Union of Burma was being torn apart by the non-Burman ethnic nationalities, and the military seized the state power to save the Union from disintegration. The nonBurman ethnic nationalities take the view that this act abolished the legal instrument that bound their homelands to the Union, and they still consider their homelands and their peoples to be independent nations and peoples annexed by the Burman State by use of force. (i.e. aggression). In 1974, a new constitution was adopted by BSPP regime controlled by the Burman military led by General Ne Win , but without consent of nonBurman ethnic nationalities. A lot of political leaders of non-Burman ethnic nationalities were arrested and put in the jails for long term in order to implement the new constitution of 1974 without the will of non-Burman ethnic nationalities. The 1947 constitution also denied internal selfdetermination of non-Burman ethnic nationalities. In 2008, after holding the Burman military-manipulated National Convention for about 15 years without participating democratically elected MPs of NLD and UNLD, who were elected in the May 1990 general elections, the Burman military one-sidedly adopted a constitution which allows the Burman military to perpetuate its stay in power. According to the 2008 constitution designed by the Burman military( SPDC ),the nonBurman ethnic nationalities were denied their right to internal selfdetermination. Continually denial of the right to internal self-determination of nonBurman ethnic nationalities by the successive Burman military regimes is a major cause of long lasting civil wars in Burma. By continually denying the right to internal self-determination of non-Burman ethnic nationalities , the Burman military dictators are the instigators of the civil wars in Burma. The non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma have been suffering untold miseries since the independence of Burma from the British in 1948 under the successive Burma regimes policies of racial oppression and economic

exploitation. Their native languages were outlawed almost became extinct. Their religious freedoms were denied. All forms of their political movements for their right to internal self-determination were crushed and are still being crushed through the military and police apparatus. After 1988 democracy uprisings in Burma, the military junta allowed formation of political parties in Burma. In the May 1990 general elections, the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD) ,umbrella political organization of non-Burman ethnic nationalities won 67 parliamentary seats. The UNLDs policy stood on democratic rights for all citizens, political equality of all ethnic nationalities , and the right to selfdetermination of non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma. It was the second largest political organization in Burma after NLD led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The UNLD and its member political parties of non-Burman ethnic nationalities were dissolved and declared illegal by the military junta of Burma in 1992. The natural resources and economic bases in the territories owned by the non-Burman ethnic nationalities are exploited for the interest of the Burman military forcing millions of the people of non-Burman ethnic nationalities to live in a condition of absolute poverty. When the peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities claim the right to self-determination established in the UN Charter and international law, the Burman military oppresses them, violates the Human Rights and fundamental freedoms of them, suppresses their cultures, religions and other attributes of identity valued by them under the pretext of the so-called national security and nondisintegration of the Union.

The successive Burman military regimes claim to save the country from disintegration accusing the non-Burman ethnic nationalities of seeking separation or secession from the Union. In reality, the non-Burman ethnic nationalities have never claimed any right to separation or secession from the Union. They claim for only internal self-determination within the framework of authentic Federal Union. They want to exercise themselves executive, legislative, and judicial powers of their own peoples while remaining within the authentic Federal Union. The peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities do not want to live in a country where the relation of the Burman to non-Burman ethnic nationalities is that of master to slave. They do not want to live in slavery and subjection. They want to enjoy everything other nations or peoples enjoy. They want to pursue their political , social, economic and cultural

development. They want to enjoy their right to self-determination embodied in the UN Charter and the rights prescribed in the two other major international covenants: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which both entered into force in 1976. The inability of the UN to involve itself in the situation of Burma has allowed a continuance of civil wars and Human Rights violations in Burma. This inability of the UN can be attributed to the weakness of the right to self-determination established in the UN Charter and International Law. The right to self-determination established in the UN Charter and International Law is still disputable and not applicable to the small nations as non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma and many other oppressed nations and peoples in the world. There are approximately one hundred and fifty national liberation movements in the world today. Their aim is national self-determination for their peoples, who seek varying degrees of political autonomy within (i.e. the right to internal self-determination) , or outright independence from the respective sovereign States. The right to self-determination established in the UN Charter and International Law should be replaced by more rational and fairer ones that take into account the needs of oppressed nations and peoples like non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma and other Hidden Colonies. The UN and international system should also be democratized to maintain Peace and Security in this world. On 9th January 2007, the United States submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. The draft resolution called on the military government of Burma to begin substantive dialogue with all political leaders and national ethnic groups. It also called for the release of political prisoners including democracy leader and Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent more than a decade under house arrest. Nine members voted in favour, three abstained and three , including China and Russia , voted against the motion. But ultimately the vetoes by China and Russia failed the resolution from being adopted. The vetoes by China and Russia have allowed continuance of conflicts and injustice in Burma. The undemocratic right to veto in the UN system should be abolished in order to promote peaceful implementation of the internal right to self-determination of the oppressed nations and to maintain peace and security in the world. The non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma have been undergoing a continuous process of oppression by the successive Burman military regimes since 1948, and are being deprived and denied of any meaningful

exercise of their right to internal self-determination commensurate with the relevant provisions of international conventions. The main features of the successive Burman military governments policy pursued in the territories of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities are: 1) a total blockage of the peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities from a meaningful realization of their political, economic, social and cultural development; 2) systematic discrimination and the commitment of gross Human Rights violations; 3)systematic commitment of crimes against humanity or war crimes. { see the progress report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar ( Burma) presented to the 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council ( UNHRC) by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar (Burma), Tomas Ojea Quintana.}

Conclusion
Each of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma ( Arakan, Chin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan) has its own distinct characteristics such as language, ethnic identity, culture and historical tradition. Each group has its own territory. Before the colonization of the British, they were separate independent nations with different administrative systems. Arakan and Mon were kingdoms, and Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah and Chan were emirates. The British , during its colonial rule, created a State of Burma, bringing Kingdoms of Arakan, Burman, and Mon, and other emirates as Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah and Shan together to form a single unit in 1930s.

It is obvious that the non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma ( Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan ) are the holders of the right to self-determination stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations and International Law . Each group is entitled to both internal and external self-determination respectively. However, Their right to internal selfdetermination has been denied by the successive Burman regimes since 1948.

Nowadays, they are subjected to extreme racial discrimination and oppression under the rule of the Burman military regimes ( SPDC).Under its oppressive rule, Burma holds the worst record of Human Right violations on earth. The peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities have been victims of extra-judicial killings, widespread arrest , torture, forced

labour, forced relocation, mass refugee movements, incommunicado detention, denial of the right of freedoms and unfair trials.

The successive Burman regimes have oppressed the definable groups (Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan) as peoples, violated their Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, excluded their representations from decision making on matters of well-being and security of them, suppressed their culture, religion, language and other attributes of the identity valued by them, and denied their right to internal self-determination since 1948.

In all these situations, the definable groups ( the non-Burman ethnic nationalities of Burma) as peoples are entitled , as a last resort, to the right to external self-determination ( secession) respectively , and the ruling Burman military regime ( SPDC) has no legitimate right to invoke the principle of territorial integrity against the non-Burman ethnic nationalities according to the International Law ( see the Declaration on Friendly Relations, 1970). Khaing Aung Win Member The Board of the Patrons Arakan National Council 19 1 2011

References 1) J.S Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice, London: Cambridge University Press,1948,pp.12. 2) The Implementation of the Right to Self-determination as a Contribution to Conflict Prevention: Report of the International Conference of Experts held in Barcelona from 21 to 27 November 1998; Organized by the

UNESCO Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace and the UNESCO Center of Catalonia. 3) N.Sanajaoba, Right of Oppressed Nations and Peoples, Omsons Publications, New Delhi,1996. 4)Dajena Kumbaro, The Kosovo Crisis in an International Law Perspective: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and NATO Intervention (Final Report), Contact Information: Rr Pjeter Bogdani, No.7.Katirana, Albania, Tel/Fax 00355 4258215;250206, <Email:kumbaro@unhcr.ch> 5) Maya Abdullah, The Right to Self-determination in International Law(Scrutinizing the Colonial Aspect of the Right to Selfdetermination),Department of Law, University of Goteborg, May 2006. 6) Galina Starovoitova, Sovereignty After Empire: Self-determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union, United States Institute of Peace, Peace works No.19. First published November 1997. 7) Castellino Joshua, International Law and Self-determination: The Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession with Formulations of PostColonial National Identity, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, The Hague, 2000. 8) The Charter of the United Nations 9) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 10)The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 11)Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples; General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV), 1960. 12) The General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 2625(XXV),1970.