Self-determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.^[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.^[2] Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.^[3]

By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one's own acts without external compulsion.^[4][5]

History[link]

This section may contain original research or biased language and needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2010)

Pre-20th century[link]

Origins[link]

Just as colonisation and colonialism have been practiced throughout recorded history, political self-determination, on an individual level, has been documented similarly and cherished highly by collective peoples despite them; ancient Mesopotamia and the later Greek city-states are early examples of its practice.^[2] The employment of imperialism, through the expansion of empires, and the concept of political sovereignty, as developed after the Treaty of Westphalia, also explain the emergence of self determination during the modern era. During, and after, the Industrial Revolution many groups of people recognized their shared history, geography, language, and customs. Nationalism emerged as a uniting ideology not only between competing powers, but also for groups that felt subordinated or disenfranchised inside larger states, in this situation self determination can be seen as a reaction to imperialism. Such groups often pursued independence and sovereignty over territory, but sometimes a different sense of autonomy has been pursued or achieved.

Empires[link]

The world possessed several traditional, continental empires such as the Ottoman, Russian, Austrian/Habsburg, and the Qing Empire. Political scientists often define competition in Europe during the Modern Era as a balance of power struggle, which also induced various European states to pursue colonial empires, beginning with the Spanish and Portuguese, and later including the British, French, Dutch, and German. During the early 19th century, competition in Europe produced multiple wars, most notably the Napoleonic Wars. After this conflict, the British Empire became dominant and entered its "imperial century", while nationalism became a powerful political ideology in Europe.

Later, after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, "New Imperialism" was unleashed with France and later Germany establishing colonies in Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. Japan also emerged as a new power. Multiple theaters of competition developed across the world:

• Africa: multiple European states competed for colonies in the "Scramble for Africa";
• Central Asia: Russia and Britain competed for domination in the "Great Game"
• Eastern Asia: colonies and various spheres of influence were established, largely to the detriment of the Qing Empire.

The Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Qing Empire and the new Empire of Japan maintained themselves, often expanding or contracting at the expense of another empire. All ignored notions of self-determination for those governed.^[6]

Rebellions and emergence of nationalism[link]

The revolt of New World British colonists in North America, during the mid-1770s, has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination, because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, as well as the consent of, and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke's enlightened writings of the previous century. Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the United States Declaration of Independence which inspired Europeans throughout the 19th century.^[2] The French Revolution was motivated similarly and legitimatized the ideas of self-determination on that Old World continent.^[7][8]

Within the New World during the early 19th century, most of the nations of Spanish America achieved independence from Spain. The United States supported that status, as policy in the hemisphere relative to European colonialism, with the Monroe Doctrine. The American public, organized associated groups, and even Congressional resolutions, often supported such movements, particularly the Greek War of Independence (1821–29) and the demands of Hungarian revolutionaries in 1848. Such support, however, never became official government policy, due to balancing of other national interests. After the American Civil War and with increasing capability, the United States government did not accept self-determination as a basis during its Purchase of Alaska and attempted purchase of the West Indian islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John in 1860s, or its growing influence in the Hawaiian Islands, that led to annexation in 1898. With its victory in the Spanish-American War in 1899 and its growing stature in the world, the United States supported annexation of the former Spanish colonies of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, without the consent of their peoples, and it retained "quasi-suzerainty" over Cuba, as well.^[2]

Nationalist sentiments emerged inside the traditional empires including: Pan-Slavism in Russia; Ottomanism, Kemalist Ideology and Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire; State Shintoism and Japanese identity in Japan; and Han identity in juxtaposition to the Manchurian ruling class in China. Meanwhile in Europe itself there was a rise of nationalism, with nations such as Greece, Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria seeking or winning their independence.

Karl Marx supported such nationalism, believing it might be a "prior condition" to social reform and international alliances.^[9] In 1914 Vladmir Lenin wrote: "[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."^[10]

World Wars I and II[link]

Europe, Asia and Africa[link]

Map of the world in 1945, showing United Nations Trusteeship Council territories in green^[11]

Woodrow Wilson revived the American commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in November 1917, they called for Russia's immediate withdrawal as a member of the Allies of World War I. They also supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination."^[10] The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.^[2]

This presented a challenge to Wilson's more limited demands. In January 1918 Wilson issued his Fourteen Points of January 1918 which, among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims, as long as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples.^[2] The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 led to Russia's exit from the war and the independence of Armenia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia and Poland. The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation by the Allies of Czechoslovakia and the union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia as new states. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especially Poles, Czechs, and Serbs and Romanians) were given power over nationalities who disliked and distrusted them eventually helped lead to World War II. The defeated Ottoman empire was dissolved into the Republic of Turkey and several smaller nations, including Yemen, plus the new Middle east Allied "mandates" of Syria and Lebanon (future Syria, Lebanon and Hatay State), Palestine (future Transjordan and Israel), Mesopotamia (future Iraq). The League of Nations was proposed as much as a means of consolidating these new states, as a path to peace.^[12]

During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of decolonization. In the Statute of Westminster the United Kingdom granted independence to Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa after the British parliament declared itself as incapable of passing laws over them without their consent. Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq also achieved independence from Britain and Lebanon from France. Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the Indian independence movement. And Italy, Japan and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring certain territories under their control, leading to World War II.

In Asia, Japan became a rising power and gained more respect from Western powers after its victory in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan joined the Allied Powers in World War I and attacked German colonial possessions in the Far East, adding former German possessions to its own empire. In the 1930s, Japan gained significant influence in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria after it invaded Manchuria. It established Manchukuo, a puppet state in Manchuria and eastern Inner Mongolia. This was essentially the model Japan followed as it invaded other areas in Asia and established the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

In 1912, the Republic of China officially succeeded the Qing Dynasty, while Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Tuva proclaimed their independence. Independence was not accepted by the government of China. In 1915 treaty of Kyakhta Outer Mongolia recognized China's sovereignty. However, the Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia's independence, provided that a referendum was held. The referendum took place on October 20, 1945, with (according to official numbers) 100% of the electorate voting for independence.

Many of Eastern Asia's current disputes to sovereignty and self-determination stem from unresolved disputes from World War II. After its fall, the Empire of Japan renounced control over many of its former possessions including Korea, Sakhalin Island, and Taiwan. In none of these areas were the opinions of affected people consulted, or given significant priority. Korea was specifically granted independence but the receiver of various other areas was not stated in the Treaty of San Francisco, giving Taiwan de facto independence although its political status continues to be ambiguous.

The Cold War world[link]

The UN Charter[link]

In 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

• Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "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."^[13]
• Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)^[14] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).^[15] Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
• The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

However, the charter and other resolutions did not insist on full independence as the best way of obtaining self-government, nor did they include an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, new states were recognized by the legal doctrine of uti possidetis juris, meaning that old administrative boundaries would become international boundaries upon independence even if they had little relevance to linguistic, ethnic, and cultural boundaries.^[16][17] Nevertheless, justified by the language of self-determination, between 1946 and 1960, the peoples of thirty-seven new nations freed themselves from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.^[2][18][19] The territoriality issue inevitably would lead to more conflicts and independence movements within many states and challenges to the assumption that territorial integrity is as important as self-determination.^[16]

The Communist versus Capitalist worlds[link]

Decolonization in the world was contrasted by the Soviet Union's successful post-war expansionism. Tuva and several regional states in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, and Central Asia had been fully annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II. Now, it extended its influence by establishing satellite states in Eastern Germany and the countries of Eastern Europe, along with support for revolutionary movements in China and North Korea. Although satellite states were independent and possessed sovereignty, the Soviet Union often violated principles of self-determination by suppressing the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and the Prague Spring Czechoslovak reforms of 1968. It invaded Afghanistan to support an increasingly unpopular communist government assailed by local tribal groups.^[2] However, Marxism-Leninism and its theory of imperialism were also strongs influences in the national emancipation movements of third world nations rebelling against colonial or puppet regimes. In many Third World countries, communism became an ideology that united groups to oppose imperialism or colonization.

Soviet actions were countered by the United States which saw communism as a menace to its interests. Throughout the cold war, the United States created, supported, and sponsored regimes with various success that served their economic and political interests, among them anti-communism. To achieve this, a variety of means was implemented, including the orchestration of coups, sponsoring of dictatorships and military invasions.

Consequently, many self-determination movements, which spurned some type of anti-communist government, were accused of being Soviet-inspired or controlled.^[2] Thus, the United States entered into a ten-year war in Vietnam, taking over from French colonialists,^[20] and supported Portugal in its attempts to hold on to Angola. The Rhodesian Bush War of the 1960s and 1970s pitted the unrecognized, ardently anti-communist Rhodesian government, composed largely of the country's minority whites, against rival groups of black guerrillas, aligned respectively with Moscow and Beijing.^[21] The Chinese-backed Zimbabwe African National Union eventually took power in 1980, when the internationally-recognised Republic of Zimbabwe was formed.^[22]

Asia[link]

In Asia, the Soviet Union had already converted Mongolia into a satellite state but abandoned propping up the Second East Turkestan Republic and gave up its Manchurian claims to China. The new People's Republic of China had gained control of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War. The Korean War shifted the focus of the Cold War from Europe to Asia, where competing superpowers took advantage of decolonization to spread their influence.

In 1947, India gained independence from The British Empire. The empire was in decline but adapted to these circumstances by creating the British Commonwealth-—since 1949 the Commonwealth of Nations-—which is a free association of equal states. As India obtained its independence, multiple ethnic conflicts emerged in relation to the formation of a statehood during the Partition of India which resulted in Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Before the advent of the British, no empire based in mainland India had controlled any part of what now makes up the country's Northeast, part of the reason for the ongoing insurgency in Northeast India.^[23] In 1971 Bangladesh obtained independence from the eastern half of Pakistan.

Burma also gained independence from the British Empire, but declined membership in the Commonwealth. Internal conflict in Burma that challenge the ruling government persist.

Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands in 1949 after the latter failed to restore colonial control. As mentioned above, Indonesia also wanted a powerful position in the region that could be lessened by the creation of united Malaysia. The Netherlands retained Dutch New Guinea, but Indonesia threatened to invade and annex it. A vote was supposedly taken under the UN sponsored Act of Free Choice to allow West New Guineans to decide their fate, although many dispute its veracity. Later, Portugal relinquished control over East Timor in 1975, at which time Indonesia promptly invaded and annexed it.

Sarawak and Sabah[link]

Another controversial episode with perhaps more relevance was the British beginning their exit from British Malaya. An experience concerned the findings of a United Nations Assessment Team that led the British territories of Sarawak and Sabah in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the new Malaya Federation.^[24] The United Nation Team's mission followed on from an earlier assessment by the British-appointed Cobbold Commission which had arrived in the territories in 1962 and held hearings to determine public opinion. It also sifted through 1600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations and political parties. Cobbold concluded that around two thirds of the population favoured joining Malaysia while the remaining third wanted either independence or continuing control by the United Kingdom. The United Nations team largely confirmed these findings, which were later accepted by the General Assembly, and both territories subsequently joined with the new Federation of Malaysia. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without any referendums self-determination being held.^[25][26][27] they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there was an agreement between the Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 July 1963)^[28][29] This also triggered the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.^[30][31]

After the Cold War[link]

The Cold War began to wind down after Mikhail Gorbachev assumed power in March 1985. With the cooperation of the American president Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev wound down the size of the Soviet Armed Forces and reduced nuclear arms in Europe, while liberalizing the economy.

In 1989–90, the communist regimes of Soviet satellite states collapsed in rapid succession in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, and Mongolia. East and West Germany united, Czechoslovakia peacefully split into Czech Republic and Slovakia, while in 1990 Yugoslavia began a violent break up into its former 6 sub-unit republics. Kosovo, which was previously an autonomous unit of Serbia declared independence in 2008, but has received less international recognition.^[2]

In December 1991, Gorbachev resigned as president and the Soviet Union dissolved relatively peacefully into fifteen sovereign republics, all of which rejected communism and most of which adopted democratic reforms and free-market economies. Inside those new republics, four major areas have claimed their own independence, but not received widespread international recognition.

After decades of civil war, Indonesia finally recognized the independence of East Timor in 2002.

In 1949, the Communists won the civil war and established the People's Republic of China in Mainland China. The Kuomintang-led Republic of China government retreated to Taipei, its jurisdiction now limited to Taiwan and several outlying islands. Since then, the People's Republic of China has been involved in disputes with the ROC over issues of sovereignty and the political status of Taiwan.

As noted, self-determination movements remain strong in some areas of the world. Some areas possess de facto independence, such as Taiwan, North Cyprus, Kosovo, and South Ossetia, but their independence is disputed one or more major states. Significant movements for self-determination also persist for locations that lack de facto independence, such as Kurdistan, Chechnya, and the State of Palestine.

Current issues[link]

Since the early 1990s, the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, as sub-groups seek greater self-determination and even full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.^[32] The international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and often dictated more by politics than principle. The year 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration failed to deal with these new demands, mentioning only "the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation."^[17][33]

In an issue of Macquarie University Law Journal Associate professor Aleksandar Pavkovic and Senior Lecturer Peter Radan outlined current legal and political issues in self-determination.^[34] These include:

Defining "peoples"[link]

There is not yet a recognized legal definition of "peoples" in international law. Vita Gudeleviciute of Vytautas Magnus University Law School, reviewing international law and UN resolutions, finds in cases of non-self-governing peoples (colonized and/or indigenous) and foreign military occupation "a people" is the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, the unrepresented become a separate people. Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples.^[17] Other definitions offered are "peoples" being self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.), or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment", i.e. "loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples. Or the definition may be simply that a people is a group of individuals who unanimously choose a separate state. If the "people" are unanimous in their desire for self-determination, it strengthens their claim. For example, the populations of federal units of the Yugoslav federation were considered a people in the breakup of Yugoslavia, even though some of those units had very diverse populations.^[34] Libertarians who argue for self-determination distinguish between the voluntary nation (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and the state, the coercive apparatus, which they have a right to choose or self-determine.^[12]

Self-determination versus territorial integrity[link]

National self-determination appears to challenge the principle of territorial integrity (or sovereignty) of states as it is the will of the people that makes a state legitimate. This implies a people should be free to choose their own state and its territorial boundaries. However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples.^[34] According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence. ^{[35][36][37][38]}

Pavkovic and Radan describe three theories of international relations relevant to self-determination.

• The realist theory of international relations insists that territorial sovereignty is more important than national self-determination. This policy was pursued by the major powers during the Cold War.
• Liberal internationalism has become an alternative since that time. It promotes the abolition of war among states as well as increased individual liberty within states, and holds the expansion of global markets and cross-border cooperation diminishes the significance of territorial integrity, allowing for somewhat greater recognition of greater self-determination of peoples.
• Cosmopolitan liberalism calls for political power to shift to a world government which would make secession and change of boundaries a relatively easy administrative matter. However, also would mean the de facto end of self-determination of national groups.^[34]

Allen Buchanan, author of seven books on self-determination and secession, supports territorial integrity as a moral and legal aspect of constitutional democracy. However, he also advances a "Remedial Rights Only Theory" where a group has "a general right to secede if and only if it has suffered certain injustices, for which secession is the appropriate remedy of last resort." He also would recognize secession if the state grants, or the constitution includes, a right to secede.^[17]

Vita Gudeleviciute holds that in cases of non-self-governing peoples and foreign military occupation the principle of self-determination trumps that of territorial integrity. In cases where people lack representation by a state's government, they also may be considered a separate people, but under current law cannot claim the right to self-determination. On the other hand, she finds that secession within a single state is a domestic matter not covered by international law. Thus there are no on what groups may constitute a seceding people.^[17]

A number of states have laid claim to territories, which they allege were removed from them as a result of colonialism. This is justified by reference to Paragraph 6 of UN Resolution 1514(XV), which states that any attempt "aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter". This, it is claimed, applies to situations where the territorial integrity of a state had been disrupted by colonisation, so that the people of a territory subject to a historic territorial claim are prevented from exercising a right to self-determination. This interpretation is rejected by many states, who argue that Paragraph 2 of UN Resolution 1514(XV) states that "all peoples have the right to self-determination" and Paragraph 6 cannot be used to justify territorial claims. The original purpose of Paragraph 6 was "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions". Further, the use of the word attempt in Paragraph 6 denotes future action and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past action.^[39] An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.^[40][41]

Methods of increasing minority rights[link]

In order to accommodate demands for minority rights and avoid secession and the creation of a separate new state, many states decentralize or devolve greater decision-making power to new or existing subunits or even autonomous areas. More limited measures might include restricting demands to the maintenance of national cultures or granting non-territorial autonomy in the form of national associations which would assume control over cultural matters. This would be available only to groups that abandoned secessionist demands and the territorial state would retain political and judicial control, but only if would remain with the territorially organized state.^[34]

Self-determination versus majority rule/equal rights[link]

Pavković explores how national self-determination, in the form of creation of a new state through secession, could override the principles of majority rule and of equal rights, which are primary liberal principles. This includes the question of how an unwanted state can be imposed upon a minority. He explores five contemporary theories of secession. In "anarcho-capitalist" theory only landowners have the right to secede. In communitarian theory, only those groups that desire direct or greater political participation have the right, including groups deprived of rights, per Allen Buchanan. In two nationalist theories, only national cultural groups have a right to secede. Australian professor Harry Beran's democratic theory endorses the equality of the right of secession to all types of groups. Unilateral secession against majority rule is justified if the group allows secession of any other group within its territory.^[42][43]

Constitutional law[link]

Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.^[44]

In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of majority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible through amending the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court in Texas v White, held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States."^[45][46] The British Parliament in 1933 held that Western Australia only could secede from Australia upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient.^[34]

The Chinese Communist Party followed the Soviet Union in including the right of secession in its 1931 constitution in order to entice ethnic nationalities and Tibet into joining. However, the Party eliminated the right to secession in later years, and had anti-secession clause written into the Constitution before and after the founding the People's Republic of China. The 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma contained an express state right to secede from the union under a number of procedural conditions. It was eliminated in the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (officially the "Union of Myanmar"). Burma still allows "local autonomy under central leadership."^[44]

As of 1996 the constitutions of Austria, Ethiopia, France, Singapore,^{[citation needed]} Saint Kitts and Nevis Republics have express or implied rights to secession. Switzerland allows for the secession from current and the creation of new cantons. In the case of proposed Quebec separation from Canada the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 ruled that only both a clear majority of the province and a constitutional amendment confirmed by all participants in the Canadian federation could allow secession.^[44]

The 2003 draft of the European Union Constitution allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the State wanted to leave could not be involved in the vote deciding whether or not they can leave the Union.^[44] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities^[47] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005.

Drawing new borders[link]

Once groups exercise self-determination through secession, the issue of the proposed borders may prove more controversial than the fact of secession. The bloody Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were related mostly to borders issues because the international community applied a version of uti possidetis juris in transforming existing internal borders of the various Yugoslav republics into international borders, despite the conflicts of ethnic groups within those boundaries. In the 1990s indigenous populations of the northern two-thirds of Quebec state opposed to being incorporated into a Quebec nation and even stated a determination to resist it by force.^[34]

The border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State was based on the borders of existing counties and did not include all of historic Ulster. A Boundary Commission was established to consider re-drawing it. Its proposals, which amounted to a small net transfer to Northern Ireland, were leaked to the press and then not acted upon. In December 1925, the governments of the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom agreed to accept the existing border. Most Irish Nationalists and Irish Republicans claim all of Northern Ireland and are not particularly interested in new borders.^{[citation needed]}

Current movements[link]

For past movements see list of historical autonomist and secessionist movements and lists of decolonized nations. Also see list of autonomous areas by country and list of territorial autonomies and list of active autonomist and secessionist movements.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia[link]

Australia[link]

Recently (2003 onwards), self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to Aborigines (indigenous Australians). In the 1970s, the Aboriginal community approached the Federal Government and requested the right to administer their own communities. This encompassed basic local government functions, ranging from land dealings and management of community centres to road maintenance and garbage collection, as well as setting education programmes and standards in their local schools.

Balochistan province[link]

Since 1948, Baloch nationalists in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have been seeking to separate Baloch majority regions of the three countries to form a new state with the help of elements outside the aforementioned countries. The movement has culminated in several armed uprisings in both Pakistan and Iran, that have been crushed, especially during the 1970s inspired by Bengali nationalists. The movement is strongest in Pakistan, where it is led by the Balochistan National Party Balochistan Liberation Army and the Baloch Students Organization. This is supported by arch-rival countries such as the Republic of India and Bangladesh.

Basque Country[link]

The Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria, Spanish: País Vasco, French: Pays Basque) as a cultural region (not to be confused with the homonym Autonomous Community of the Basque country) is a European region in the western Pyrenees that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and Navarre in Spain and the Northern Basque Country in France. Since the 19th century, Basque nationalism has demanded the right of some kind of self-determination.^{[citation needed]} This desire for independence is particularly stressed among leftist Basque nationalists. The right of self-determination was asserted by the Basque Parliament in 1990, 2002 and 2006.^[48] Since^{[citation needed]} self-determination is not recognized in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, some Basques abstained and some even voted against it in the referendum of December 6 of that year. However, it was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74,6% of the votes in the Basque Country.^[49] The derived autonomous regimes for the BAC was approved in later referendum but the autonomy of Navarre (amejoramiento del fuero: "improvement of the charter") was never subject to referendum but just approved by the Navarrese Cortes (parliament). There are not many sources on the issue for the French Basque country.

Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (English: Basque Homeland and Freedom; pronounced [ˈeta]), is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization. Founded in 1959, it evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to a paramilitary group with the goal of Basque independence. Its ideology is Marxist-Leninist.^[50][51]

Biafra[link]

After years of ethnic friction culminating in the massacre of the Ibos in the Northern and Western Nigeria between 1966 and 1967 in which an estimated population of 500,000 Easterners were killed in a planned pogrom, the Eastern Region headed by Lt Col Odumegwu Ojukwu started a secessionist movement in Nigeria which resulted in the creation of the Republic of Biafra to protect the Easterners from annihilation. The inhabitants were mostly the Igbo people who led the secession due to economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions. This led to the Nigerian Civil War which would have been avoided if the Nigerian leaders had not violated the Aburi Accord 1967 made between the Biafrans and the Nigerians which guaranteed self-governance to the then four geopolitical regions. After initial military gains, the Biafran forces were pushed back and in 1970 Biafra was reabsorbed into Nigeria.

The meaning of the word "Biafra" has been explained in the Book, "Biafra or Nigerian Presidency: What the Ibos Want" where the author delved into the etimology and etiology of the words "Biafra", "Ibo" and "Igbo" and proved that "Biafra" is an ancient word in the Igbo language which was lost many centuries ago just like other Igbo words have been lost. The word "Biafra" appeared for the first time in the ancient map of Africa drawn by the Portuguese from 1492 to 1729 when it was spelt as Biafara, Biafar, and Biafares. It was in 1843 that the country was spelt as BIAFRA encompassing the lower Niger River and parts of the present day Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.

From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their ancient country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law. In addition, they have revived the Radio Biafra as a powerful media tool to educate their people. In recent times a public debate has started in the media on the rights of the indigenous people of Biafra. In response to those opposing the independence of Biafra, the solicitor for the indigenous people of Biafra made a strong argument in both national and international law asserting that what Nigeria got after the Biafra War of Independence was a military conquest and not a political victory. He submitted that what Biafra lost after the war was its sovereignty and not its people and therefore the remnants who were not consumed by the war are still protected under the law to exercise their right to self-determination as indigenous people of Biafra. Thus, the quest to revive Biafra is gathering momentum both at national and international levels as it is now being championed by legal methods. At the moment, Nigeria is made up of six geopolitical regions which are capable of self-governance. In recent times, separatist aspirations have been growing again in Nigeria, not only by the indigenous people of Biafra but also by other ethnic groups both in the North and in the South, giving a clear sign that Nigeria may not remain the same, but will either be restructured to guarantee self-governance to the six geopolitical regions similar to the Aburi Accord 1967 or break up, disintegrate and go into oblivion like one of the ancient empires we read in history.^[52]

Canada[link]

In Canada, many in the province of Quebec have wanted the province to separate from Confederation. The Parti Quebecois has asserted Quebec's "right to self-determination." There is debate on under which conditions would this right be realized.^[53] French Canadian nationalism and support for maintaining French Canadian culture would inspire Quebec nationalists, many of whom were supporters of the Quebec sovereignty movement during the late-20th century.^[54]

Catalan Countries[link]

Països Catalans (in Catalan, often literally translated into English as Catalan Countries) refers to the territories where Catalan language is historically spoken.^[55] These correspond with some parts of the medieval Crown of Aragon ^[56][57] (concretely Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencia and La Franja in Spain, Northern Catalonia in France, the city of Alghero in Italy, and Andorra).^[58]

Today there are movements supporting the independence of the Catalan Countries in both Spain and France, but they only have significant support in Catalonia. Some of political parties from Catalonia, the Valencian Country and the Balearic Islands that follow this idea are the Republican Left of Catalonia, Catalan Solidarity for Independence (SI), Rally for Independence and Republican Left of the Valencian Country, Estat Català, Partit Republicà Català, Popular Unity Candidates, Valencian Nationalist Bloc, Bloc per Mallorca, etc. Furthermore, there are other Catalan groups and movements that seek the independence of the Catalan Countries as a whole, such as: Sobirania i Progrés,^[59] Deu Mil per l'autodeterminació,^[60] Catalunya Estat Lliure,^[61] Sobirania Valenciana,^[62] etc. All these political parties and movements believe in non-violence and express their ideas in a non-violent manner.

Recently, there have been a series of non-binding, unofficial referenda or "popular votes" (consultes populars, in Catalan, a binding referendum for independence is illegal in Spain) held in municipalities around Catalonia, in which voters indicated whether they support Catalan independence from Spain.^[63][64] They began on 13 September 2009 in the town of Arenys de Munt in a self-organised local movement and was then followed by a slew of Catalan municipalities. As an example of the positive results obtained everywhere, 90% of ballots cast in Barcelona on 11 April 2011 voted yes to independence. The number of voters was 230,590, representing 21.37% of the voting population.^[65][66] These referenda are still ongoing, as there is slated to be a second round in 2011–2012.

Chechnya[link]

Under Dzhokkar Dudayev, Chechnya declared independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of Chechens, and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: the Achmed Zakayev-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the UK and the USA), and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate.

Falkland Islands[link]

The British government have stated that the majority of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wish to remain British and therefore the transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.^[67] This position is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution^[68] and is a powerful factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years, and on territory claimed as British since 1690 when the first recorded landing took place.

From the Argentine point of view (see UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047), self-determination cannot be applied to solve this dispute because the current inhabitants "were descendants of British who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled". This is in reference to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 (considered a continuation of sovereignty by the latter, but an illegal invasion from Argentine point of view) during which Argentina claims the River Plate population living in the islands was expelled. The existing population was in fact encouraged to remain by the British^[69] who made no attempt to colonise the islands till 1841.

In this case, Argentina claims the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination (see in this same article Self Determination versus Territorial Integrity), considering the proximity of the islands to the continental territory, whereas from the British point of view, self-determination for a long-established population is a more important factor than proximity, notwithstanding that Britain had settled the islands before Argentinian territory included any of Patagonia (the region of Argentina bordering the Falklands).

From the Argentine point of view, Britain is applying self-determination for a purpose opposite to what they see as its original conception, that was preventing the continuation of colonialism throughout the world after World War II, and in this sense, they would be far from a truthful defense of a democratic principle as self-determination. British Prime Minister David Cameron, on the other hand, described Argentina's position as more colonialism.^[70]

Israel and Palestinian territories[link]

The right to self-determination as outlined in public international law is often referenced by both sides in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Jammu and Kashmir[link]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, adopted in 1948, called for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), an alliance of 26 organizations in Kashmir seeks self-determination according to the UN resolution. Some groups have suggested that a third option of Independence be added to the resolutions two options of union with India or union with Pakistan.^[71][72]

Kosovo[link]

Kosovo is a largely ethnic-Albanian nation (Albanians 88%, Serbs 6%, Bosniaks 3%, Roma 2%, Turks 1%),^[73] which seeks independence on territories long held by ethnic Serbs, including as part of Yugoslavia. Conflict between the two culminated in the 1996-1999 Kosovo War between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia led by Slobodan Milošević. This culminated in the 1999 United States/NATO attacks on Serbia, withdrawal of Serbian troops and entry of the NATO Kosovo Force. International negotiations to determine the final status of Kosovo were unsuccessful. On 17 February 2008, 109 members (10 members including all Kosovo Serbs were absent) of the Kosovo Assembly voted unanimously for a unilateral declaration of independence.^{[citation needed]} Serbia rejected the decision. Kosovo independence is disputed and supervised by the international community following the conclusion of the political process to determine Kosovo's final status envisaged in UN Security Council Resolution 1244.^[73] See the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. In February 2008 Europe's major powers and the United States recognised independence of Kosovo.^[74] The independence of Kosovo has been recognized by 91 countries as of 1 June 2012.^[75][76] The territory of Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the Government of Kosovo. On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice gave the following advisory opinion: "The declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law." ^[77]

Kurdistan[link]

Kurdistan is a historical region primarily inhabited by the Kurdish people of the middle east. The territory is currently part of 4 states Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. There are Kurdish self determination movements in each of the 4 states. Iraqi Kurdistan has to date achieved the largest degree of self-determination through the formation of the Kurdistan Regional Government, an entity recognised by the Iraqi Federal Constitution.

Although the right of the creation of a Kurdish state was recognized following World War I in the Treaty of Sèvres, the treaty was then annulled by the Treaty of Lausanne. To date two separate Kurdish republics and one Kurdish Kingdom have declared sovereignty. The Republic of Ararat (Northern Kurdistan/Eastern Turkey), the Republic of Mehabad (Eastern Kurdistan/Iranian Kurdistan) and the Kingdom of Kurdistan (Southern Kurdistan/Northern Iraq), each of these fledgling states was crushed by military intervention. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan which currently holds the Iraqi presidency and the Kurdistan Democratic Party which governs the Kurdistan Regional Government both explicitly commit themselves to the development of Kurdish self-determination, but opinions vary as to the question of self-determination sought within the current borders and countries.

Nagorno Kharabagh[link]

The Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan is part of the geographical area called Garabagh (Qarabağ). The name of this part of the country consists of two Azerbaijani words: “qara” (black) and “bağ” (garden). However, the majority Armenian population of the region refers to it by its previous Armenian name, Artsakh. As far as the right of peoples to self-determination is concerned, it is well known^{[citation needed]} that, in reality, the practical realization of this right, as stipulated in the relevant international documents, does not involve unilateral secession, but represents a legitimate process carried out in accordance with international and domestic law within precisely identified limits.^{[citation needed]}

There are two critical factors to be addressed in the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. Firstly, it is the extent of self-determination a people are given to protect themselves and determine how they wish to be ruled and what role is played by human rights violations, cultural eradication and pogroms by the Azerbaijani majority against the Armenian communities of Azerbaijan in a decision. Secondly, one must regard the question of legality of unconstitutional acts, such as violating the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Other considerations of the rules of international law, particularly those prohibiting the use of force and the acquisition of territory, are also relevant in that the Soviet authorities and, subsequently, the Azerbaijani government applied use of military and paramilitary force in ethnic cleansing initiatives like Operation Ring, while the Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh established militia forces to resist further pogroms and defend the civilian population by repelling Azeri forces.

New Zealand[link]

Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was among the first people to make this call,^[78] which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington that year.

The South Island Party with a pro-South agenda, fielded candidates in the 1999 General Election.

Scotland[link]

Moves towards Scottish Independence from the United Kingdom are being led by the majority Scottish National Party government in the Scottish Parliament, with a plebiscite scheduled for the Autumn of 2014.

South Africa[link]

Southern Cameroons/Ambazonia[link]

Southern Cameroons today makes up the two English-speaking regions of the Republic of Cameroun, the North West and South West regions. The people of Southern Cameroons' claim to self-determination arises out of their allegations that the Republic of Cameroun forcefully annexed their territory by the 1961 take over of the territory and the 1972 dissolution of the federation in favor of a Unitary Republic of Cameroon. Southern Cameroons scored a victory in a legal battle against the Republic of Cameroon when the African Commission for Human and Peoples' Rights found that there were unresolved issues with the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cameroon vis-a-vis Southern Cameroons. More importantly, the African Commission found that contrary to the claims of the Republic of Cameroon, the people of Southern Cameroons are indeed a "people" under the African Charter and broad international law with the inalienable right to determine their destiny.^[79]

Southern Sudan[link]

Southern Sudan reached a peace agreement with Sudan in 2005. It contained a referendum for self-determination in January 2011, during which an overwhelming majority voting for secession from northern Sudan.

Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka[link]

The Sri Lankan Tamils people seek self determination due to ethnic pogroms and discrimination by the majority Sinhala government's discrimination in language, education, jobs, and civil liberties.^[80] The early non violent protests developed into a violent confrontation with the state and eventual civil war. Tamil independence advocates argue that former sovereignty of Tamils in their north eastern homeland that was lost during colonialism should be re-instated to meet Tamil aspirations.

Taiwan[link]

Taiwan is the focus of a self-determination dispute in the East Asia region. The government of the People's Republic of China claims the entirety of Taiwan as its territory. However, Taiwanese independence advocates argue that there is no legal claim to Taiwan, as no legally binding treaty ever transferred sovereignty to China following World War II, an assertion with which not only the People's Republic of China but the Republic of China currently governing Taiwan disagree. This de facto government of Taiwan also has not formally withdrawn its claims to China and several other areas. The People's Republic of China proposes that the island become its own special administrative region of China.

Tibet[link]

From its unification from 604-650 CE until 1724 and from 1912 to 1951, Tibet was a sovereign nation. In 1949, when the Dalai Lama was 15 years old and thus not yet the head of state, the Chinese government ordered a military march into Tibet in order to force the Tibetan government to negotiate its sovereignty. When negotiations failed, China invaded. Tibet was then forced to "peacefully negotiate" its sovereignty, and ceded rule over Tibet to China in the Seventeen Point Agreement in 1951. The Dalai Lama has repudiated the agreement, claiming that it was signed under compulsion and that Chinese government forged Tibetan government seals. The delegates who allegedly represented Tibet were either chosen by the Chinese or were prisoners of Chinese, and were not allowed to communicate with the official Tibetan government during negotiations. Since the agreement, there have been widespread reports of political and religious oppression of Tibetans by the Chinese. The Tibetan government in exile, located in India, has continuously called for Tibet's sovereignty to be restored, or alternatively, in recent years, for greater political autonomy for the Tibetan region within the Chinese political system.

Turkish Cypriots[link]

Since Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of Cyprus in 1974, following ethnic clashes and turmoil on the island, an administration recognized by Turkey only was declared in 1983 – the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.^[81] Turkish Cypriots and their former leader, Fazıl Küçük said that Turkish Cypriots had the right of self-determination, as well as Greek Cypriots.^[82]

United States[link]

The colonization of the North American continent and its Native American population has been the source of legal battles since the early 19th century. Surviving Native Americans have been resettled onto separate tracts of land (reservations), which have been given a certain degree of autonomy within the United States federal government.

Some Chicano nationalist groups seek to "recreate" Aztlán, the legendary homeland of the Aztecs comprising the Southwestern United States which is home to the majority of Mexican Americans.^[83]

There is an active Hawaiian sovereignty movement which aims at recreating an independent Hawaiian nation or territorial units similar to Indian reservations. Some wish to reinstate the Hawaiian monarchy, which lost its soverignty largely because of the United States.

Since 1972, the U.N. Decolonization Committee has called for Puerto Rico's decolonization and for the U.S. to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. In 2007 the Decolonization Subcommittee called for the United Nations General Assembly to review the political status of Puerto Rico, a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution.^[84] This follows the 1967 passage of a plebiscite act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continued commonwealth, statehood, and independence. In the first plebscite the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes but U.S. congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998, the status quo was upheld.^[85]

Many current U.S. state, regional and city secession groups use the language of self-determination. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."^[86][87]

So-called "Confederate Southern Americans", defined as white Christian descendents of those resident in the Confederate States of America at the onset of the Civil War (preferably having Scots or Scots-Irish descent), are seeking a "natural right to self-determination" by claiming "oppressed minority" status through Neo-Confederate groups such as the League of the South.

See also[link]

• United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
• Territorial integrity
• Ethnic nationalism
• Religious nationalism
• Identity politics
• Individualist anarchism
• Informational self determination (German)
• International relations theory
• List of historical unrecognized countries
• National delimitation in the Soviet Union
• Nationalism
• Nation-state
• Non-Intervention
• Puerto Rican Independence Movement
• Right to exist
• Secession
• Self-ownership
• Sovereignty
• Special Committee on Decolonization
• Wars of national liberation
• Anglo-French Declaration of November 7, 1918
• List of national liberation movements recognized by intergovernmental organizations
• Latino self determination

References[link]

Books[link]

External links[link]

• Thürer, Daniel, Burri, Thomas. Self-determination, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• The Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV). "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"
• United Nations Charter.
• Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
• Self Determination in Focus, Foreign Policy In Focus self-determination papers site.
• Andrei Kreptul, The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100.
• Jacob T. Levy, Self-Determination, Non-Domination, and Federalism, published in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy.
• "Winds of Change or Hot Air? Decolonization, Self-determination and the Salt Water Test," Legal Frontiers International Law Blog
• The Right of Nations to Self-Determination V. I. Lenin February–May 1914.
• Parliamentarians for National Self-Determination Unofficial page for London based Parliamentary lobby group.
• Self Determination - International Law and Practise collated and sequenced by Nadesan Satyendra.
• The Center for World Indigenous Studies.
• Post-2011 scenarios in Sudan: What role for the EU?, edited by Damien Helly, Report No.6, November 2009, European Union Institute for Security Studies
• self determination for Puerto Rico and all Latin American nations

v t e Indigenous rights Rights Conflict resolution Cultural diversity Cultural heritage Freedom from forced assimilation Freedom from forced removal Freedom from racial discrimination Freedom of religion Gender equality Human rights Indigenous intellectual property Indigenous language Land rights Land-use planning Right to determine indigeneity Self-determination Traditional knowledge Governmental organizations Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs Council of Indigenous Peoples Fundação Nacional do Índio National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Non-governmental and political organizations Amazon Watch Assembly of First Nations Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin Cultural Survival Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs National Indigenous Organization of Colombia Native American Rights Fund Survival International Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Zapatista Army of National Liberation (more ...) Issues Bantustan / Indian reservation / Indian reserve / Ranchería Civilizing mission Colonialism Cultural genocide Manifest destiny Postdevelopment theory Settler colonialism Legal representation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 Historical cases 2009 Peruvian political crisis Chiapas conflict Depopulation of Diego Garcia High Arctic relocation Indian removal Mapuche conflict Oka Crisis Rubber boom San controversy Stolen Generations Category

Monty Python (sometimes known as The Pythons)^[2][3] was a British surreal comedy group who created Monty Python's Flying Circus, a British television comedy sketch show that first aired on the BBC on 5 October 1969. Forty-five episodes were made over four series. The Python phenomenon developed from the television series into something larger in scope and impact, spawning touring stage shows, films, numerous albums, several books and a stage musical as well as launching the members to individual stardom. The group's influence on comedy has been compared to The Beatles' influence on music.^[4][5]

The television series, broadcast by the BBC from 1969 to 1974, was conceived, written and performed by members Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. Loosely structured as a sketch show, but with an innovative stream-of-consciousness approach (aided by Gilliam's animation), it pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in style and content.^[6][7] A self-contained comedy team responsible for both writing and performing their work, the Pythons' creative control allowed them to experiment with form and content, discarding rules of television comedy. Their influence on British comedy has been apparent for years, while in North America it has coloured the work of cult performers from the early editions of Saturday Night Live through to more recent absurdist trends in television comedy. "Pythonesque" has entered the English lexicon as a result.

In a 2005 UK poll to find The Comedian's Comedian, three of the six Pythons members were voted by fellow comedians and comedy insiders to be among the top 50 greatest comedians ever: Cleese at #2, Idle at #21, and Palin at #30.^[8]

[edit] Before Flying Circus

Palin and Jones met at Oxford University, where they performed together with the Oxford Revue. Cleese and Chapman met at Cambridge. Idle was also at Cambridge, but started a year after Cleese and Chapman. Cleese met Gilliam in New York while on tour with the Cambridge University Footlights revue Cambridge Circus (originally entitled A Clump of Plinths). Chapman, Cleese and Idle were members of the Footlights, which at that time also included the future Goodies (Tim Brooke-Taylor, Bill Oddie and Graeme Garden), and Jonathan Lynn (co-writer of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister). During Idle's presidency of the Club, feminist writer Germaine Greer and broadcaster Clive James were members. Recordings of Footlights revues (called "Smokers") at Pembroke College include sketches and performances by Idle and Cleese. They are kept in the archives of the Pembroke Players, along with tapes of Idle's performances in some of the college drama society's theatrical productions.

Python members appeared in and/or wrote the following shows before Monty Python's Flying Circus. The Frost Report is credited as first uniting the British Pythons and providing an environment in which they could develop their particular styles:

• I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again (radio) (1964–1973) [Cleese: cast member & writer] – [Idle and Chapman: writers]
• The Frost Report (1966–1967) [Cleese: cast member and writer] – [Idle: writer of Frost's monologues] – [Chapman, Palin and Jones: writers]
• At Last the 1948 Show (1967) [Chapman and Cleese: writers and cast members] – [Idle: writer]
• Twice a Fortnight (1967) [Palin and Jones: cast members and writers]
• Do Not Adjust Your Set (1967–1969) [Idle, Jones, and Palin: cast members & writers] – [Gilliam: animation]
  — Bonzo Dog Band: musical interludes]
• We Have Ways of Making You Laugh (1968) [Idle: cast member & writer] – [Gilliam: animation]
• How to Irritate People (1968) [Cleese and Chapman: cast members & writers] – [Palin: cast member]
• The Complete and Utter History of Britain (1969) [Palin and Jones: cast members & writers]
• Doctor in the House (1969) [Cleese & Chapman: writers]

Several featured other important British comedy writers or performers of the future, including Marty Feldman, Jonathan Lynn, David Jason and David Frost, as well as members of other future comedy teams, Ronnie Corbett and Ronnie Barker (the Two Ronnies), and Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graeme Garden and Bill Oddie (the Goodies).

Following the success of Do Not Adjust Your Set, originally intended to be a children's programme, with adults, ITV offered Palin, Jones, Idle and Gilliam their own series together. At the same time Cleese and Chapman were offered a show by the BBC, which had been impressed by their work on The Frost Report and At Last The 1948 Show. Cleese was reluctant to do a two-man show for various reasons, including Chapman's supposedly difficult personality. Cleese had fond memories of working with Palin and invited him to join the team. With the ITV series still in pre-production, Palin agreed and suggested the involvement of his writing partner Jones and colleague Idle—who in turn suggested that Gilliam could provide animations for the projected series. Much has been made of the fact that the Monty Python troupe is the result of Cleese's desire to work with Palin and the chance circumstances that brought the other four members into the fold.^[9]

[edit] Monty Python's Flying Circus

Development of the series[link]

The Pythons had a definite idea about what they wanted to do with the series. They were admirers of the work of Peter Cook, Alan Bennett, Jonathan Miller and Dudley Moore on Beyond the Fringe, and had worked on Frost, which was similar in style. They enjoyed Cook and Moore's sketch show Not Only... But Also. One problem the Pythons perceived with these programmes was that though the body of the sketch would be strong, the writers would often struggle to then find a punchline funny enough to end on, and this would detract from the overall sketch quality. They decided that they would simply not bother to "cap" their sketches in the traditional manner, and early episodes of the Flying Circus series make great play of this abandonment of the punchline (one scene has Cleese turn to Idle, as the sketch descends into chaos, and remark that "This is the silliest sketch I've ever been in"—they all resolve not to carry on and simply walk off the set). However, as they began assembling material for the show, the Pythons watched one of their collective heroes, Spike Milligan, recording his groundbreaking series Q5 (1969). Not only was the programme more irreverent and anarchic than any previous television comedy, Milligan would often "give up" on sketches halfway through and wander off set (often muttering "Did I write this?"). It was clear that their new series would now seem less original, and Jones in particular became determined the Pythons should innovate.

After much debate, Jones remembered an animation Gilliam had created for Do Not Adjust Your Set called Beware of the Elephants, which had intrigued him with its stream-of-consciousness style. Jones felt it would be a good concept to apply to the series: allowing sketches to blend into one another. Palin had been equally fascinated by another of Gilliam's efforts, entitled Christmas Cards, and agreed that it represented "a way of doing things differently". Since Cleese, Chapman and Idle were less concerned with the overall flow of the programme, it was Jones, Palin and Gilliam who became largely responsible for the presentation style of the Flying Circus series, in which disparate sketches are linked to give each episode the appearance of a single stream-of-consciousness (often using a Gilliam animation to move from the closing image of one sketch to the opening scene of another).

Writing started at 9 am and finished at 5 pm. Typically, Cleese and Chapman worked as one pair isolated from the others, as did Jones and Palin, while Idle wrote alone. After a few days, they would join together with Gilliam, critique their scripts, and exchange ideas. Their approach to writing was democratic. If the majority found an idea humorous, it was included in the show. The casting of roles for the sketches was a similarly unselfish process, since each member viewed himself primarily as a 'writer', rather than an actor desperate for screen time. When the themes for sketches were chosen, Gilliam had carte blanche to decide how to bridge them with animations, using a camera, scissors, and airbrush.

While the show was a collaborative process, different factions within Python were responsible for elements of the team's humour. In general, the work of the Oxford-educated members (Jones and Palin) was more visual, and more fanciful conceptually (e.g., the arrival of the Spanish Inquisition in a suburban front room), while the Cambridge graduates' sketches tended to be more verbal and more aggressive (for example, Cleese and Chapman's many "confrontation" sketches, where one character intimidates or hurls abuse, or Idle's characters with bizarre verbal quirks, such as The Man Who Speaks In Anagrams). Cleese confirmed that "most of the sketches with heavy abuse were Graham's and mine, anything that started with a slow pan across countryside and impressive music was Mike and Terry's, and anything that got utterly involved with words and disappeared up any personal orifice was Eric's".^[10] Gilliam's animations, meanwhile, ranged from the whimsical to the savage (the cartoon format allowing him to create some astonishingly violent scenes without fear of censorship).

Several names for the show were considered before Monty Python's Flying Circus was settled upon. Some were Owl Stretching Time, Toad Elevating Moment, A Bucket, a Horse and a Spoon, Vaseline Review and Bun, Wackett, Buzzard, Stubble and Boot. Flying Circus stuck when the BBC explained it had printed that name in its schedules and was not prepared to amend it. Many variations on the name in front of this title then came and went (popular legend holds that the BBC considered Monty Python's Flying Circus to be a ridiculous name, at which point the group threatened to change their name every week until the BBC relented). "Gwen Dibley's Flying Circus" was named after a woman Palin had read about in the newspaper, thinking it would be amusing if she were to discover she had her own TV show. "Baron Von Took's Flying Circus" was considered as an affectionate tribute to Barry Took, the man who had brought them together. Arthur Megapode's Flying Circus was suggested, then discarded.

There are differing, somewhat confusing accounts of the origins of the Python name although the members agree that its only "significance" was that they thought it sounded funny. In the 1998 documentary Live At Aspen during the US Comedy Arts Festival, where the troupe was awarded the AFI Star Award by the American Film Institute, the group implied that "Monty" was selected (Eric Idle's idea) as a gently-mocking tribute to Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, a legendary British general of World War II; requiring a "slippery-sounding" surname, they settled on "Python". On other occasions Idle has claimed that the name "Monty" was that of a popular and rotund fellow who drank in his local pub; people would often walk in and ask the barman, "Has Monty been in yet?", forcing the name to become stuck in his mind. The name Monty Python was later described by the BBC as being "envisaged by the team as the perfect name for a sleazy entertainment agent".^[11]

Style of the show[link]

Flying Circus popularised innovative formal techniques, such as the cold open, in which an episode began without the traditional opening titles or announcements.^[12] An example of this is the "It's" man: Palin, outfitted in Robinson Crusoe garb, making a tortuous journey across various terrains, before finally approaching the camera to state, "It's...", only to be then cut off by the title sequence and theme music. On several occasions the cold open lasted until mid show, after which the regular opening titles ran. Occasionally the Pythons tricked viewers by rolling the closing credits halfway through the show, usually continuing the joke by fading to the familiar globe logo used for BBC continuity, over which Cleese would parody the clipped tones of a BBC announcer. On one occasion the credits ran directly after the opening titles. Because of their dislike of finishing with punchlines, they experimented with ending the sketches by cutting abruptly to another scene or animation, walking offstage, addressing the camera (breaking the fourth wall), or introducing a totally unrelated event or character. A classic example of this approach was the use of Chapman's "Colonel" character, who walked into several sketches and ordered them to be stopped because things were becoming "far too silly." Another favourite way of ending sketches was to drop a cartoonish "16-ton weight" prop on one of the characters when the sketch seemed to be losing momentum, or a knight in full armour (played by Terry Gilliam) would wander on-set and hit characters over the head with a rubber chicken,^[13] before cutting to the next scene. Yet another way of changing scenes was when John Cleese, usually outfitted in a dinner suit, would come in as a radio commentator and make the formal and determined announcement, "And now for something completely different."

The Python theme music is The Liberty Bell, a march by John Philip Sousa, which was chosen, among other reasons, because the recording was in the public domain.^[12]

The use of Gilliam's surreal, collage stop motion animations was another innovative intertextual element of the Python style. Many of the images Gilliam used were lifted from famous works of art, and from Victorian illustrations and engravings. The giant foot which crushes the show's title at the end of the opening credits is in fact the foot of Cupid, cut from a reproduction of the Renaissance masterpiece Venus, Cupid, Folly, and Time by Bronzino. This foot, and Gilliam's style in general, are visual trademarks of the series.

The Pythons used the British tradition of cross-dressing comedy by donning frocks and makeup and playing female roles themselves while speaking in falsetto. Generally speaking, female roles were played by a woman (usually Carol Cleveland) only when the scene specifically required that the character be sexually attractive (although sometimes they used Idle for this). In some episodes and later in Monty Python's Life of Brian they took the idea one step further by playing women who impersonated men (in the stoning scene).

Many sketches are well-known and widely quoted. "Dead Parrot", "The Lumberjack Song", "Spam", "Nudge Nudge", "The Spanish Inquisition", "Upper Class Twit of the Year", "Cheese Shop" and "The Ministry of Silly Walks" are just a few examples.

Introduction to North America[link]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) added Monty Python’s Flying Circus to its national September 1970 fall lineup.^[14] They aired the 13 episodes of Series 1, which had first run on the BBC the previous fall (October 1969 to January 1970), as well as the first 6 episodes of Series 2 only a few weeks after they first appeared on the BBC (September to November 1970).^[14] The CBC dropped the show when it returned to regular programming after the Christmas 1970 break, choosing to not place the remaining 7 episodes of series 2 on the January 1971 CBC schedule.^[14] Within a week the CBC received hundreds of calls complaining of the cancellation, and more than 100 people staged a demonstration at the CBC’s Montreal studios.^[14]

Time-Life Films had the right to distribute all BBC-TV programs in the United States, however they had decided that British comedy simply would not work in America. Therefore, it was not worth the investment to convert the Python episodes from the European PAL standard to the American NTSC standard.

Sketches from Monty Python’s Flying Circus were introduced to American audiences in August 1972, with the release of the Python movie And Now for Something Completely Different, featuring sketches from series 1 and 2 of the television show. This 1972 release met limited box office success.

In the summer of 1974 Ron Devillier, the program director for non-profit PBS television station KERA in Dallas, Texas, started airing episodes of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Ratings shot through the roof, providing an encouraging sign to the other 100 PBS stations that had signed up to begin airing the show in October 1974—exactly 5 years after their BBC debut. There was also cross-promotion from FM radio stations across the country, whose airing of tracks from the Python LPs had already introduced American audiences to this bizarre brand of comedy. The popularity on PBS resulted in the 1974 re-release of the 1972 "...Completely Different" movie, with much greater box office success.

The ability to show Monty Python’s Flying Circus under the American NTSC standard had been made possible by the commercial actions of American television producer Greg Garrison. Garrison produced the NBC series The Dean Martin Comedy World, which ran during the summer of 1974. The concept was to show clips from comedy shows produced in other countries, including tape of the Python sketches "Bicycle Repairman" and "The Dull Life of a Stockbroker". Payment for use of these two sketches was enough to allow Time-Life Films to convert the entire Python library to NTSC standard, allowing for the sale to the PBS network stations who then brought the entire show to US audiences.

With the popularity of Python throughout the rest of the 1970s and through most of the 1980s, PBS stations looked at other British comedies, leading to UK shows such as Are You Being Served? gaining a US audience, and leading, over time, to many PBS stations having a "British Comedy Night" which airs many popular UK comedies.^[15]