magnify
Home Economic Development The Revived Debate over Development and Human Rights: Economic Self-Determination, Sovereignty, and Non-Discrimination in State Policies

2 Responses

  1. John R Morss

    Many thanks for this timely and thought-provoking piece. But perhaps “self-determination” as a “subsist[ing]” “right … vested in the people” (as per Thurer and Burri) is a double-edged sword. It would be sophistry to deny that Trump was properly elected according to the particular arrangements of the USA — popular electoral preference is not determinative — so that acts of the Trump administration have (regrettably) a good claim to represent “the people” (or at least a better claim than anything else); and while Putin is hoist with his own petard in respect of the Crimea invasion, his quoted remarks are I think in many ways sound. Are we really so confident that we can distinguish “self-determination” from nationalism and from what used to be called “tribalism”? Perhaps every sense of “self-determination” is ideological; on the left as in early Soviet geopolitics; on the right as in neo-liberalism; or somewhere in the middle as in the postcolonial/democratic reading of “the will of the people.” Perhaps a parallel universe lacking this right would not be so very different from our own: the population of Palestine would still be suffering oppression…

  2. Raj Krishna

    Indeed a thought provoking article. However, I too agree with John R Morss that “Self-Determination” is indeed a double-edged sword. Apart from that it would be quite difficult to distinguish self-determination from nationalism. Further in countries like USA and India the government has been selected by a procedure established by law. Hence, the governments in both the countries can claim themselves as the true representatives of the people and state, thus justifying their respective actions. But, once again I will say its a brilliant and thought-provoking article.