|Published (Last):||15 March 2015|
|PDF File Size:||3.25 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.29 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Weizfeld Ph. Such a developed theorem would serve to clarify differences in perspective and so peacefully resolve those divergences, fostered by the method in ideology, which seeks to entrench such a polarised outlook.
The clarity which is the resultant of such an endeavour is the consequence of meeting the mutual needs of those concerned with the matter which is to be discussed, rather than the preconceived needs fostered by an isolated comprehension.
Here is a proposal offering a development which seems self-evident in its fundamental principle and which is found as an operative principle amongst different writers of various epochs and social contexts. There is no need to pose the matter of the Nation as a question at all, and one may simply examine the right to national identification in and of itself, by declaring that the apparent validity of national identity exists in itself. A People taking consciousness of itself acquires a right to their identity as a consequence.
As Daniel Turp puts it, [T]he U. This has led certain authors to assimilate the notion of people to that of a State and to make the latter, rather than the peoples that make up the State, the holder of the right to self-determination. Thus in reciprocity to the existence of any one nation, any other nation may exist and be recognised as such. The presence and appeal of national identity are considered problems in themselves, based in the presumption that the rise of national movements corresponds to and leads to the increase of violent confrontations and chauvinistic repression, as if, equating these social dysfunctions with national consciousness as a causal factor was validated by an empirical observation.
If these options were not possible, then resorting to manipulation and exploitation is considered as an alternative. If, however, one were to sift-out the social needs involved, then another direction could be substituted, that is, the prospect of simply seeking to fulfill that which is identity, mutually. Without recognising the nature of national consciousness in its own culture - as if the identity of the self were natural and that of the other was a fabrication - such a formalist perception leads to the belief that the conflicting national identity is appropriately just cause causa bellum for the actual act of aggression as a response.
Unfortunately, there is a bilateral interaction feeding upon itself in this context; this is the nature of the ideological construction that assumes the impossibility of co-existence as based in the empirical historical evidence of its own perspective alone. In conforming to the tendencies of an exclusive nationalism among its historical neighbours, the national ideology can rationalise itself and its actions.
At the basis of the habitual interpretation to this question of national identity, is the presumption of denying the existence of a nation, and consequently the consciousness of its existence national identity. The question of the nation is not posed by the nation per se, since any entity would not ordinarily question its own existence and survival. The ideological underpinning to the hostile treatment of national identity is not merely the property of a single ideology but is a methodology contained in the midst of such unlikely partners as Marxism, Liberalism and Anarchism.
National identity, being composed of elemental desires and capabilities, seeks a permanent association in the form of a community that forms a matrix of relations amongst itself because of the ability to communicate to a greater degree of precision than otherwise with other communities of thought.
Such an identity, if it considers itself a Nation, must necessarily consider its self-perpetuation and self-replication a priority. There are also many instances of dual identity practised, as various national communities are found to coexist within the same social entity. Those communities which have developed a national identity with other such communities would be considered nationalities, even while they are living amongst a given national culture with which they may have chosen to become acculturised.
And while each nation is unique, it need not be considered exclusive. This very situation holds true within parallel national phenomenon such as the Jewish People worldwide. The recognition of dual nationality becomes as natural as dual citizenship is considered to be. This may be referred to as poly-national and this is the basis of the perpetuation of the Jewish People.
Such a process may or may not be conscious. However, at the very least, territory, or any single factor, or set of factors, is not a sufficient basis for the development or definition of a nation. Otherwise, living in such proximity, the Palestinians and the Israelis would be expected to form a common Semitic nation, which seems unlikely. National- identity and ideology are actually counterpoised, and by its nature national consciousness tends to be an affront and a challenge to ideological systems of thought in general.
While the ideological system of thought is deterministic causal , consciousness is spontaneous, abstract and unpredictable. Such a tautology is a rationalisation for the status quo and a rationalisation for the perpetuation of a standing military apparatus set to defend that actuality.
This is the exclusionary face of national consciousness whose identifying image is that of the State. Hegel represents the epitome of such thought as a stage of history. In this manner a right to self-determination is established as an absolute principle. This was the prevalent view of 19th Century European political thought, including Karl Marx who practised the historical methodology of linear Periodisation.
This formalist methodology, based in the notion of progress, assumes a general progression of history as an inherent and inevitable force which propels undeveloped societies to duplicate the historical economic model provided by the relatively prosperous social formations.
The sense of inevitability is built upon the power to extract capital externally from the periphery of its influence as well as internally from class exploitation and the benefits of internal colonialism, as in slavery, and internal imperialism; as in the relative disparities of the economic orders.
Power justifies itself by its own operative criteria. This opposition implies two different perspectives, two historiographies, one linear and subsuming, the other contrapuntal and often nomadic. The right to self-determination selbsemancipatie rather than autoemancipatie became entrenched in those nations which had established a prior organised existence.
Such criteria 6 Edward W. Where such claims were proposed in zones already claimed, war was the frequent result. President Woodrow Wilson altered the status quo in that modifications could be made in response to crises, but only those modifications which were agreeable to a consensual decision of the established state powers.
In this forum [League of Nations], U. President Woodrow Wilson helped popularize the expression 'the right of self- determination', which had been coined by Karl Marx. It is rarely invoked despite a certain general appreciation of its presence.
Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism Since 9 which falters entirely on the proposition that the Nation is given expression solely by a State superstructure. The collective consciousness denies the supremacy of socio-economic orientations which are often thought to be fundamental to all forms of consciousness, notwithstanding the long held proposition for the abolition of class segregation.
However no consideration is given to the mutual recognition and respect being proclaimed throughout the world by one nation for another and the mutual aid this engenders. Without such a recognition we would have to reduce social existence to a Hobbesque nightmare of a war of each against all.
Having defined nationalism as ethnic-nation ideology, Rodinson came to define Zionist ideology as Jewish national identity. This is, in effect, equivalent to the Zionist ideology itself which claims the mantle of the Jewish people as a whole and assumes the right to represent the interests of this entire People. The Leninist orientation to such a movement remained dependent upon the nature of the ideological leadership of that nation.
Accordingly, the class concept was counterpoised to that of the Nation. Memmi therefore proclaims the right of national liberation for the Jewish people, however he does so in the form of Zionism, as a left- Zionist, he favours a socialist mode of government, but places the struggle for socialism as a secondary, post-State struggle.
What is not considered by this author is a territorial autonomy option for Jewish Arabs apart from the State of Israel alone. Not only is this a blind spot in Memmi's thinking, but it presents a problem with respect to Jewish people other than in the State of Israel. That Zionist state is still presented as the only possible territorial homeland. Perhaps 10 V. The recognition of national minorities in existing state formations according to the international human rights provisions is embodied in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a general principle in Article 27 which states; In those states in which ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.
Kly, International Law and the Black minority in the U. In reciprocity to the existence of any one nation, any other nation may exist. In this process, the perspective is inverted to reverse the direction of the hierarchical emission of authority in order to annul the monopoly of power. A social entity is examined from within rather than from an alienated external, and so extraneous, void which is actually another national perspective.
This interpretation of self-determination arises from the viewpoint provided by the Statist perspective that requires its principle of sovereignty, a principle that in logical consequence insists upon its own absolute security as an expression of its exclusive self-determination. By its own definition of security, the State ideology is trapped into replicating and contributing to its own insecurity since it provokes the reciprocal response on the part of any other State formation.
The centralised authority of the State apparatus serves to regard Society as a homogenised and unified nation best suited to the perpetuation of the State apparatus itself. Sub- Commission for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,3 in terms that form a precedent in Jurisprudence: [ Whether the number of persons belonging to the ethnic, religious or linguistic group is relevant depends on whether it is sufficiently numerous for it to be practical for the country concerned to maintain minority institutions.
Recognizing that there exist in many States distinctive population groups possessing racial, religious, linguistic or cultural characteristics different from those of the rest of the population, usually know as minorities.
This is the reason why the initial work of the United Nations Organization Sub-Commission focussed on the topic. Ethnic minority may be said to refer to cultural minorities in the broadest sense, and although the terms racial and ethnic have often been used to mean the same, in international law, they are seen as being quite different. They include not only beliefs, knowledge, sentiments and literature illiterate peoples often have an immensely rich oral literature , but also the language or other systems of symbols which are their vehicles.
Other elements are the rules of kinship, methods of education, forms of government, and all the fashions followed in social relations. Gestures, bodily attitudes and even facial expressions. The terminology which rests upon a criterion of culture alone and not the consciousness that is associated with such a culture, loses its effect.
Such was the fate of resolution F XVI of August 3, of the Economic and Social Council which recommended that, in the preparation of any international treaties, decisions of international organs or other acts which establish new States or new boundary lines between States, special attention should be paid to the protection of any minority which may be created thereby. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, itself does not have any reference to the collective rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities.
State laws shall not permit any discrimination whatsoever in this regard. National minorities shall be guaranteed the right to use their native language and to possess their own national schools, libraries, museums and other cultural and educational institutions.
Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter which specifies: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter [ In practice General Assembly Resolution XV of December 4, on the right to self-determination, Article 2, states; 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.
In seeking to achieve international cooperation, they shall respect the sovereign equality of states and shall refrain from intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any states.
Yussuf Kly notes, Thus the conventions, covenants and declarations promoting the right to self-determination can only be provoked if, after peacefully attempting to arrange for equal status relations within the context of national unity, the majority ethny fails or refuses to comply, and a crisis with international ramifications results.
Charter is not only a legal right, but that it also applies to minorities: The crux of the matter in a plural society is that it is not one people which is determining itself but two or more, and it should not be ignored that the United Nations Charter speaks in the same breath of self-determination and of the equal rights of peoples.
If they are actually to be equal, then the subordination of one to another is evidently ruled 23 Kly, op. As the international system has been built on the doctrine of equality of states, so likewise nations may assert themselves as separate and ultimate entities which cannot legitimately be subjected to the action of majorities which they regard as alien.
Accordingly one is obliged to change the context in order to treat the nature of national minorities in their actuality. Otto Bauer's proposal for national-cultural autonomy derives from the experience of Austria, in that Article 19 of the Austrian Constitutional Law of December 21, states; 25 Kly, op.
All the languages used in the provinces are recognized by the State as having equal rights with regard to education, administration, and public life. Belgium, Benelux, Switzerland, Crete or otherwise. An enormous juristic fraud has been perpetrated on modern political consciousness by confusing national identity with the power political reality of state sovereignty.
The whole idea of what it means to be a national has been converted through a formal juristic device into a legal status that the state confers, which, for the majority of people living in the world, does not correspond with their ethnic, psychological and political reality.
ERIC BUTTERWORTH DCOUVRE LA PUISSANCE EN TOI PDF
Taflst n ufgan. Acku afgan ar iqqaz d rad s-tt yaf. Teuvo Vehkalahti a dit…. Greetings from Finland. This blog is nice to explore, through other countries, people, culture and nature.