本來以為Kosovo事情很簡單,但看多了有種很亂的感覺。大體上來說事件可以從法律,歷史和政治三個層面去分析。之前聽一個律師朋友說在法律方面這事並不會有很大的implications,政治方面我以為self determination應該能夠下一個定論,而歷史方面我是完全留空了。今天和朋友聊起這個問題時才發現自己思考上有很多不完整的地方。結果整個晚上都在研究National Self determination和Balkans history.

看完大量資料都,暫時我打算把事件分成三篇文章:

1. 南斯拉夫分裂的問題 – 種族和領土 The terrible aftermath of Yugoslavia break-up – ethno and territorial disputes

這篇主要會集中在歷史背景.簡單講一下南斯拉夫分裂後所引致的種種問題。我主要會用網上的資料拼湊出來

2. 民族自決的權力 - 科索沃獨立有理? The right to national self determination – does Kosovo have it?

Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It 一書中關於self determination一chapter中提到 Trusteeship system Article 76中指trusteeship的目的是:”to promote…  their progressive development towards self governance or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.”

在UN declaration of Friendly Relations of 1970也提到self determination applies also to people subject to foreign or alien domination

如果遇到military hostilities,
It was felt that the position of peoples in such territories was to be protected not just by humanitarian law, but by insistence upon their right to self determination

文中又提到上文 “is fostered by the committee on human rights, acting under the covenant on civil and political rights, that self determination is of continuing applicability

同頁(p.116)footnote18中列出

The ILC supported this view in its 1988 Report to the General Assembly, stated that “ the principles of self determination  proclaimed in the Charter as a universal principle had been applied mainly in eradicating colonialism, but there were  other cases in which it had been and could and should be used.  By not trying it exclusively to colonial contents, it would be applied much more widely.  In that connection, all members of the Commission believed that the principle of self determination was of universal application.” – Year Book of ILC (1988) ii pt2 p.64

關於這些我有兩大問題:

1. 究竟self-determination是不是 an universal principle?如果是under what condition could it be applied?

2. What is the legal definition of “peoples”?