The right to self determination is a fundamental principle of international law, which aided many African countries to secure independence. Its post-colonial history, however, dwelt on secessionist bids, not good governance. This history changed in November 2010 when mass uprisings erupted in Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. These uprisings pose serious challenges for the African Union regarding its non-interventionist policy in the domestic affairs of states. This paper examines the implications of the Arab uprisings on governance-based struggles for self determination in Africa. By positing that human rights are the flipside of legitimate resistance, it justifies the uprisings on an emerging struggle approach to good governance and attempts to identify the elements required to legitimize future struggles. It suggests that the AU’s relevance will be undermined by its non-interventionist approach unless its peace and security system is structured to accommodate future uprisings.
International law lacks the coherence that domestic law has. There is no world parliament, and judicial decisions, albeit binding, are not always respected. States seem to largely enjoy the discretion to shape international law according to their volition. Yet, quite paradoxically, and albeit not confined by any outer restraints, states feel inherently limited in their actions.
The present article would like to trace these inherent limits of international law. In order to do this, the article will use a paradigm that constitutes the awarding platform for all other human rights: the right to self-determination.
The article will examine the restrictions imposed to self-determination quests, comparing in the realms of the Arab spring, the stance of the international community towards Libya and Syria. Activist in the first case, more passive in the second, the recoil of the international community in assisting people to achieve their quests for internal self-determination is a direct consequence of international law’s inherent limits. Tracing them, the article will then focus on the practical implications these limits’ cognizance has for international law and international thematic constitutionalism.
Many expected the Arab uprisings to strengthen official and popular Arab support for Palestinian self-determination, and, for a time, they did. Since then, internal strife, the return in several Arab states of the ancient regime, and an intensified regional Cold War have left the Palestinians isolated and vulnerable. But historical precedent as well as existing tendencies counsel against despair.