Sheria inasemaje kuhusu kuundwa kwa nchi nyingine ndani ya moja

Sheria inasemaje kuhusu kuundwa kwa nchi nyingine ndani ya moja

Zuleykha

Zuleykha

JF-Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2016
Posts
1,247
Reaction score
1,815
Habari zenu wanajamvi
Nimepata shida sana katika kulijua hili na bado sijalijua vyema.Kama nchi inataka kujigawa na kuunda nchi nyingine hufuata sheria gani?Na ni mambo yapi yatakayozuilia nchi hiyo ishindwe kuunda nchi nyingine?
Naombeni sana mnisaidie katika hili .
Shukran
 
Mbona simple tu,hata wewe na kafimilia kako waweza amua kukaita nchi,halafu kama sikosei wewe utakuwa mchagga.
 
okonkwo jr said:
Mbona simple tu,hata wewe na kafimilia kako waweza amua kukaita nchi,halafu kama sikosei wewe utakuwa mchagga.
Click to expand...
Acha mambo ya ajabu mbona mnatunyanyasa sana cc watu was kaskazi
 
Yani kidigo Kilimanjaro.Arusha.Ila ndio kwa makamanda
 
Zuleykha said:
Habari zenu wanajamvi
Nimepata shida sana katika kulijua hili na bado sijalijua vyema.Kama nchi inataka kujigawa na kuunda nchi nyingine hufuata sheria gani?Na ni mambo yapi yatakayozuilia nchi hiyo ishindwe kuunda nchi nyingine?
Naombeni sana mnisaidie katika hili .
Shukran
Click to expand...

Hilo swali umeulizwa wapi?
Nieleweshe nikusaidie!
 
Zuleykha said:
Naam hilo swali ni swali.
Na ningefurahi kupata jibu lake kwasababu linansumbua.
Click to expand...

Samahani makosa ya kiuandishi,
Nilimaanisha swali umeulizwa wapi?
Kwenye Human Rights, Political theory au International law?
 
ivi huwezi enda kutafuta kisiwa mahali ukapaita jina lako uka anzisha nchi nyingine
 
Zuleykha

Let me start with a basic question,
Breaking of a nation to form another nation is very possible and it is ultimately guided by the customary Principle of Self Determination.
Since time immemorial people have always wished to have a control over their lives, states ,politics and resources. It is an inherent human trait to desire more freedom.

Under Public international law the principle of self determination is a binding norm and recently it has acquired customary legal status; henceforth it binds upon all states.
Tracing the origin of this principle in the contemporary age, it would be better if we probe a bit of the European history especially during the time of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire founded on February 2, 962 A.D was a non-secular state under the patronage of the Pontiff and the Catholic Church. The empire ruled a vast portion of Europe but as the time went on it was to be cascaded by a wave of protestant reformation. Many people and rulers tried to go out of the periphery of the Catholic Church but they were either imprisoned or killed: Since the ideas of Europe were built on religion, thus no body could go against the wishes of the Pope who was deemed to be the divine ruler of Europe.

The war broke out in Europe between the protestant controlled territories and Catholic controlled territories of Europe. It was devastating since it lasted for thirty years and it took a toll for both sides of the war. Having discovered the impending danger ahead the rulers of the belligerent nations chose a peace passage: This was no other than a famous Peace of Westphalia of 1648. It was called a peace treaty but in reality it just stopped war and the Roman Empire Chose to allow the nations to choose their own path.
This act laid a foundation for the principle of self determination which later on became prevalent through out Europe.

Under public international law the principle of self determination is Janus-Faced (Two sided) since;
  1. Claims involving a formation of a new state.
  2. Claims not-involving a formation of a new state.
On the first is what was seen during the post world war two period. Whereby colonies of Africa, Asia and Latin America started to demand freedom against foreign domination. Some used armed struggle while some used peace.
Tanganyika our is a good example, TANU solely invoked the principle of self determination during the crusade for independence. Furthermore some members of the state may choose to separate themselves from the pre-existing state and form a new state. A good example can be seen from a secession of Biafra from Nigeria 1967, Secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan 1971 and Cession of the Crimea into the Russian Federation in 2014.
 
On the second aspect, people may invoke the principle of self determination without intending to form a new state. It could on the grounds such as going against oppressive regimes; rejecting foreign interference in domestic affairs; demanding more autonomy in some parts of the state; and even forcing a regime change. In Tanzania the claims made by the Zanzibar people fall under this category. On the broader spectrum what happened in Libya and what is happening now in Syria are the tenacious consequences of self determination.

Legally speaking it is the UN Charter Under Article 1(2) explicitly speaks about the principle of self determination without leaving any reservation to it: It reads as follows " To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace".
Now the important element in the principle of self determination is ascertainment of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. No nation is allowed to speak arbitrarily on the principle of self determination on behalf of the population of another country. This may amount to encroachment into domestic affairs of the other nation.

But if at all people who need to change a regime or form a new state prove that their claims are legitimate some foreign nations may interfere to aid secessionist movement. This is because the UN Charter demands that nations do what is necessary to protect human rights and ensure world peace and stability. This can be seen when U.S.A and other states interfered in the Korean War of 1950-1953 to aid South Korea to separate itself from the Communist North Korea, also during the Vietnam War of 1955-1975 the U.S.A interfered in South Vietnam to aid the Secessionist movement which wanted to go away from the North Vietnam. And recently The C.I.A and MI6 covertly aided the Chechen guerillas who wanted to make Chechnya a new state out of Russian Federation, and in 2014 Crimea with the aid of the Russian Federation broke away from Ukraine.

CC: Zuleykha
 
Under International law forming a new state may be valid but treasonable under the domestic laws of the state.
No nation on the planet can stand idly and allow some ragtag movement try to vitiate its stability on the basis of international law. That's why when rebellions and revolution fails people are tried for treason and may be subjected to capital punishment, which in countries like Tanzania and U.S.A is death.

So you can form a new state by virtue of the Customary International law and The UN Charter, but again your claims need to be very valid in case you wish to procure international support from the United Nations Security Council and other states.
If your claims are not valid nations are not allowed to aid rebels who work against the interests of their nation.
This can be seen from the case of Nicaragua V United States of America, whereby the International Court of Justice was of the opinion that: Interference in domestic matters through aiding rebels and sending armed bands may amount to an act of aggression under International law.

Nadhani utakuwa umepata mwanga kidogo.
Zuleykha
Soma vitabu vingi utaelewa vizuri kabisa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register