Referéndum en la Patagonia

El gobierno de Argentina ha reclamado durante más de un siglo la soberanía sobre las Islas Malvinas. Eso no es nuevo. Sin embargo, lo que resulta novedoso es la forma, el enfoque tomado en los últimos años. En lugar de utilizar la teoría jurídica y política para sus argumentos en apoyo de las reclamaciones, se ha producido un cambio hacia un discurso más populista. Este cambio no ha pasado desapercibido y como podría haberse esperado, se abre el juego a otras preguntas.

Mientras tanto, el Reino Unido ha reconocido en varias oportunidades el derecho a la autodeterminación de los ciudadanos británicos en todo el mundo. Últimas ejemplos son el referéndum Malvinas de 2013 y el de Escocia en 2014− aún por suceder.

Conectando los puntos: si el gobierno británico, muchas veces definido como "potencia colonial" por su par argentino, ha aceptado varias veces los deseos de los ciudadanos británicos en todo el mundo a la autodeterminación mediante un referéndum; ¿por qué la Argentina no sigue el ejemplo con su población? Es un hecho que el último referéndum en la Patagonia fue en 1902. También es un hecho que la idea de una Patagonia independiente ha estado en la región durante décadas.

Así que, si el gobierno argentino reclama las Islas Malvinas sobre la base de los valores democráticos, ¿no sería justo esperar que ese mismo gobierno, para demostrar un ejemplo democrático real, permita que la gente de la Patagonia decida su futuro estatus político?

Un poco de antecedentes teóricos:

De hecho, existen dos conceptos interrelacionados: a) el concepto de autodeterminación; y b) el concepto de referéndum.

Para el concepto de autodeterminación tenemos que revisar lo que el Derecho Internacional Público (DIP) dice al respecto. El hablar sobre el significado y las razones detrás de los discursos y documentos políticos puede ser entretenido, pero no ofrece ninguna herramienta útil real o legal para entender el problema. Así que nos centraremos ahora en algunos de los documentos que son hoy en día parte de DIP, y que tanto los gobiernos de Argentina y el Reino Unido a menudo mencionan. Para ilustrar el punto:

Capítulo 1, artículo 1, parte 2 de la Carta de la ONU establece entre sus propósitos: "El desarrollo de relaciones amistosas entre las naciones, basadas en el respeto al principio de igualdad de derechos y autodeterminación de los pueblos, y tomar otras medidas adecuadas para fortalecer la paz universal "

Resolución de la Asamblea General de la ONU 1514 Artículo 2: "Todos los pueblos tienen el derecho de autodeterminación; en virtud de este derecho establecen libremente su condición política y persiguen libremente su desarrollo económico, social y cultural "

Resolución de la Asamblea General de la ONU 2649 Artículo 1: "Afirma la legitimidad de la lucha de los pueblos bajo dominación colonial y extranjera reconocidos como titulares del derecho a la autodeterminación de restaurar para sí mismos ese derecho por todos los medios a su disposición"

Asamblea General de la ONU la resolución 2625 Artículo: "El principio de la igualdad de derechos y la autodeterminación de los pueblos"

y otros.

Aquí podemos ver de inmediato el origen de la disparidad en la interpretación y la clave para utilizar el mismo concepto de autodeterminación en diferentes formas dependiendo del interés que apoyamos. Debido a la vaguedad y ambigüedad del lenguaje normas legales tendrán necesariamente una textura abierta. Y debido a la textura abierta del lenguaje, habrá distintas interpretaciones respecto a cada norma legal. En términos más simples, toda palabra (y también sucede en la ley) puede tener diferentes significados; por ejemplo, una norma que prohíbe "vehículos" en el centro de la ciudad fácilmente se entiende para los coches; pero, ¿qué pasa con las bicicletas?

La autodeterminación como concepto jurídico tiene los mismos problemas. El término en sí mismo y sus componentes no están claramente definidos (¿qué significan "pueblo", "nación" y "derecho"?). Este fenómeno se "traduce" en los argumentos procedentes del Reino Unido para validar su política en cuanto a Malvinas. Pero también es "traducida" en contra-argumentos procedentes del gobierno argentino para mostrar exactamente lo contrario.

Como podemos ver, el principal problema está dado por el término en sí mismo y su falta de una definición precisa. Sin embargo, eso no es exclusivo de la autodeterminación. Para aquellos que están en las ciencias políticas y jurídicas, un concepto ambiguo, no está claramente definido, es algo casi de esperar por defecto. Así que vamos a tratar de traer algo de luz en lo que parece ser un problema oscuro.

De una manera sencilla y esquemática, podríamos ver que:

1) La autodeterminación es reconocida mundialmente como imperativo incluido en muchos de los documentos de Derecho Internacional Público.

2) En términos generales, esto significa que la “gente”, las personas "pueden decidir su destino" político.

3) Por “gente” se entiende habitantes.

4) Cualquier grupo de personas-habitantes-pueden hacer valer su derecho a la autodeterminación.

5) En consecuencia, el resto de la sociedad internacional sólo puede reconocer sus deseos.

Un referéndum es uno de los medios para expresar estos deseos. Es decir, un referéndum es un voto general por parte del electorado en una sola cuestión política. Si se aplica a la autodeterminación, por lo general significa que los habitantes decidirán si constituyen una organización política independiente o permanecen con el estatus político que actualmente tienen-por ejemplo, una provincia, un territorio de ultramar, etc.

Referendum in Patagonia

Argentina’s government has claimed for more than a century sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is not new. However, what results novel is the form, approach taken in recent years. Rather than using legal and political theory for their arguments to support the claims, there has been a shift to a more populist speech. This changed has not been unnoticed and as it could have been expected, opens the game to further questions.

In the meantime, the United Kingdom has acknowledged in several opportunities the right to self-determination to British citizens around the globe. Latest examples are the 2013 Falklands referendum and the 2014 Scottish referendum−yet to happen.

Connecting the dots: if the British government, many times defined as “colonial power” by its Argentine peer, has accepted several times the wishes of citizens around the world to self-determination by means of a referendum; why Argentina does not follow suit with its population? It is a fact the latest referendum in Patagonia was in 1902. It is also a fact that the idea of an independent Patagonia has been in the region for decades.

So, if the Argentine government were claiming the Falkland Islands based on democratic values, would not it be fair to expect that same government to actually show a democratic example by letting people in Patagonia decide their political future status?

A bit of theoretical background:

There are indeed two intertwined concepts: a) the concept of self-determination; and b) the concept of referendum.

For the concept of self-determination we have to review what International Public Law (IPL) says about it. To discuss the meaning and reasons behind political speeches and documents may be entertaining but does not offer any real or legal useful tool to understand the issue. So we will focus now on some of the documents that are nowadays part of IPL and that both the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom so often mention. To illustrate the point:

Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the UN Charter states amongst its purposes: “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”

UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 Article 2: “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”

UN General Assembly Resolution 2649 Article 1: “Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognised as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal”

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 Article e: “The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”

and others.

And here we can immediately see the origin of the disparity in interpretation and the key to use the same concept of self-determination in different forms depending on the interest we support. Because of the vagueness and ambiguity of language legal norms will necessarily have an open texture. And because of the open texture of language, there will be a core of settledness and a penumbra of unsettledness in every legal rule. In simpler terms, any word (and it also happens in law) can have different meanings; for example, a norm banning “vehicles” from city centres would easily be understood for cars; what about bicycles?

Self-determination as a legal concept has the same problems. The term itself and its components are not clearly defined (what do “people”, “nation”, and “right” mean?). And that is “translated” in arguments coming from the United Kingdom used to validate their policy in regards Falklands. But it is also “translated” in counterarguments coming from the Argentinean government to show exactly the opposite.

As we can see, the main problem is given by the term itself and its lack of a precise definition. However, that is not exclusive of self-determination. For those who are into political and legal sciences, an ambiguous, not clearly defined concept, is something almost to be expected by default. So let us try and bring some light into what appears to be a dark problem.

In a simple and schematic way, we could see that:

1) Self-determination is globally recognised as imperative even included in many International Public Law documents.

2) Broadly speaking, it means that people “can decide their destiny”.

3) By people it is meant inhabitants.

4) Any group of people−inhabitants−can assert their right to self-determination.

5) In consequence, the rest of the international society can only acknowledge their wishes.

A referendum is one of the means to express these wishes. That is to say, a referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question. If applied to self-determination, it usually means that the inhabitants will decide whether to be an independent political organization or remain with the political status they currently have−e.g. a province, an overseas territory, etc.

Scottish referendum: dates and question

The Scottish referendum will take place on Thursday 18th September 2014.

In a nutshell, a referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question. In this particular occasion, it is a consultative referendum and is being held to seek the opinion of the Falkland islanders on the political status of the Falkland Islands.

There will be only one question that will read:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?” and voters will choose yes or no.

Below, the links to the dates, question and the referendum booklet with more information.

Scottish referendum (Gov.UK Link)

Scotland's referendum webpage

We will discuss further on Friday in relation to why Scotland has the right to be listened. An important time in history for Scotland, the UK as a whole, and international relations.

Sovereignty and economy: autarchy [part 2 of 2]

We started this series of posts related to State sovereignty with a sketch [link to article], some conceptual issues [link to article], and now we focus on an element that could go against the institution itself, maybe not at theoretical level but in realpolitik.  Las week we dealt with autarchy, and what it means for a State to be in serious international debt in terms of its sovereignty [link to article].

The key factor that makes these cases diverse is not the fact that the subjects that are part of the agreement are Sates but that the lender and the borrower are usually in very different circumstances. If the agreed conditions are met on time, the lender should expect to receive the “money” centre of the transaction and the respective interest. The situation varies when the borrower is not able to repay the debt.

In national private law there are legal ways so as to constrict the individual, group or company to repay the debt. Even a sanction through criminal law is plausible in extreme circumstances. The law establishes beforehand the consequences of an omission. In International Law the legal scenario is completely different. Although there are some supra-States structures in place in most of the cases their decisions are not compulsory. War and reprisals have been seen for many years in the reality and by legal theorists as a feasible solution when a treaty or agreement is broken. But the current international theatre would not consider reasonable and humanitarian to start a war or execute reprisals against a State and its population. It would not be either considered of etiquette or good practice within the international society that a powerful and wealthy State invaded or attacked a poor and weak pair.

In consequence, it is more than common that due to internal circumstances the third world or non-central State is not be able to repay in full the loan so the first world or central State is granted some concessions such as priority in agreements, areas of exclusive use, exclusivity in exploitation of certain resources, etc. The phenomenon is quite well known in America, especially between the United States of America and the richest States in Central and South America in what has to do with natural resources.

We have said that in order for a State to be sovereign it has to be autonomous. By applying for loans, any given State is trying to reach a balance on its accounts due to internal and/or external deficit. This fact does not alter anything in regards to its sovereignty.

The issue arises when the loan cannot be repaid or in order to do so the lender intends to be repaid in a different way that may potentially mean granting that State with prerogatives over certain part of the territory, population, resources, etc. of its peer.

In this specific situation the “weak” State is “loosing” part of its sovereignty by letting an external authority decide and rule over internal matters. We shall not discuss here why the authorities of the “weak” State follow this course of action (simply because the State cannot repay, corruption, business interest, etc.). The intention here is to highlight that there are international rules that allow States to borrow money in different ways when necessary but the facts can sometimes attempt against the integrity of the concept of sovereignty depending on the form the debt is cancelled.

Is it necessary for a State to be sovereign to have autarchy?

It is indispensable in our opinion. As leading cases, Central and South America have regular instances in which the United States of America act directly within their borders since they are the main lenders in the region. Natural resources exploitation and use of territory for training their army are the most commons “ways of repayment”.

Without intending to make a value judgement with regards the correctness or not of these actions, we want to remind that the focal point here is that one State is letting another State interfere in its sphere of sovereignty simply because it is not autarchic. We leave the political and philosophical debate aside as they are not the reason for this analysis.

For a State to be sovereign is indispensable that the creation and interpretation of law happen in an independent atmosphere free of third party interests.

Last words on the topic.

As agreed, the first part of the definition of sovereignty reads that it is a right to be exercised with autonomy and autarchy.

As a right or prerogative it is part of a subject of law and its personality. In the case of study, it is a prerogative within a State and it is executed by the representatives of such a State.

These representatives must have the independent power of law creation and application (of course, limited by the legal system). They are (and must be) the ultimate authority of this legal system. There should not be any other authority with such a prerogative above them (legally speaking).

Consequently, their actions must not be interfered by internal or external interests, actions and/or omissions.

A State can apply for loans when necessary. Its authorities are able to follow the internal and international procedures to do so. If the loan was repaid, there would not be any concern or issue. On the contrary, if there were problems to repay the loan, the international legal system should be ready to put a procedure in place to guarantee both, the repayment of the loan and the statu quo of the State’s sovereignty.

We shall not discuss in this investigation a method, procedure or institution to achieve this goal as it is not the aim of the project. However, we want to underline the importance a factor as the economy can have (and actually has) in the normative and real independence of a State. Ergo, the implications it has on its sovereignty.

Sovereignty and economy: autarchy [part 1 of 2]

We have already made clear that for a State to be considered sovereign it has to be autonomous (for complete article follow link). One of the aspects that integrate the autonomy of a State is indeed its economy. By autarchy we mean the economic independence a State must have in relation to other States. The fact that a population is not able to meet its needs and has to recur to its pairs, international organization or any other means apart from the internal ones so to achieve a certain balance within its accounts may lead to other consequences analyzed below that could potentially attempt against its sovereignty.

The State creates law for its population. In other words, the designated authorities create and interpret law for the inhabitants of a specific territory. It is part of its sovereign prerogatives to determine what is legal and/or illegal.

One of the aspects that constitute a State is its economy. As part of the whole system, the economy of a State will be also regulated by norms.

To mention some of the elements that form that economic structure of a State we may enumerate a few such as: financial institutions, financial intermediaries, insurance companies, taxes, national and international budget, etc.

“According to political science all the economic institutions of society are determined or at any rate defined by law and are therefore subject to the sovereign authority”[1].

Therefore, the economy of a State and the economic infrastructure that sustains it are directly linked to its sovereignty as its sovereign government through the law creates and shapes every single element that result in forming a State as well as the procedures they are supposed to follow.

Nowadays’ world introduces many realities from States with a strong economic structure to others that continuously depend on international aid from their pairs, the World Bank and/or any other international organization.

Although this States continue being autonomous in the legal sense of the world, factually they are in debt. This situation puts in risk the notion of sovereignty in both, the normative and the real environment.

“The world has become familiar with the problem of sovereignty that arises when this process of decay occurs. […] A time comes when the Government begins to deteriorate. Public spirit ebbs. The people cease to respect their rulers or to hope for any real assistance from them. Facilities for economic development are denied or delayed, or granted subject to impossible conditions. The process of development falls into arrears”[2].

Consequently, we observe that although the economic structure of a State is determined, dictated and created by such a State exercising its sovereignty we think that they are directly and irreversibly interlinked in a reciprocal relation: the sovereign State establish through its legal system the economic structure; however, in order for that State to remain fully sovereign that economic structure must be autarchic.

What does it mean for a State to be in serious international debt in terms of its sovereignty?

It is common that third world States (or more modern, emerging economies) borrow large amounts of money (either in terms of capital or goods). Even developed States do so for very different reasons: simply to cover an overdraft on their expenses, to stimulate trade with a certain area, to create or develop a specific market, so soften bilateral relations with a given pair, etc. The ways or procedures a State may put in place can differ but in general they can be explained as follows:

a) by issuing bonds (national and/or internationally) in order to borrow money from nationals of that State or people, companies and/or any other subject of law abroad;

b) by borrowing money from international organizations such as the World Bank;

c) by borrowing money from another State.

In the first case, the State issues bonds (government or sovereign) at a certain price to be sold to anyone who wants to buy them with the promise to rescue them at a predetermined point in time in the future paying back a specified amount of money. These bonds are bought and sold in the open market and their yield also varies throughout the time they are valid till their maturity date.

The only difference between government and sovereign bonds is that the former are often denominated in the State's domestic currency and the latter in foreign currencies.

The State may decide to “recover” the bonds before the stipulated date and will be able to do so by cancelling them (repaying the holders).

Although this kind of bonds are usually referred as “risk free” (particularly the government’s ones), it can also happen that the State is not able to fulfil its obligations and not repay the holders at any point in the lifetime of the bond (not even at its maturity). This phenomenon is known as sovereign default. The defaulting State and the creditor(s) can renegotiate the terms of their agreement. Moreover, the State itself may modify its conditions (i.e.: length of the bonds lifetime, maturity date, etc.). This of course will directly affect the international credibility of that State in any future similar instance.

The second case follows the same general rules a private bank has when it lends money to individuals or companies. As international financial organizations this institutions focus their activities on making profits through lending money. As any other loan, the State will have to fulfil certain requirements such as to specify the reasons for borrowing the money and agree on a repayment plan and respective interests. Depending on the capacity and punctuality of repayment, the State will have a different credit rating (part of the country risk).

“A country’s power of borrowing abroad will depend partly on its reputation for good faith in fulfilling its engagements, but mainly on its capacity to pay”[3].

If it does not repay the repayment plan will be rescheduled. There is no thing such an international sanction if for whatever reason the State cannot fulfil its obligations. However, its international prestige as a borrower and good faith payer for future loans will be diminished. It may be possible for this State however to be granted a new loan but the conditions will be for sure stricter.

The third type of loan is between States. The conditions will be agreed between the States part on the transaction similarly to any other loan. The usual scenario in third world States (emerging economies) is that they borrow money from a first world State (developed economies) at a certain interest rate.  As far as we can see this would be a normal loan with different subjects than the traditional (States instead of individuals) with all its components: a borrower, a lender, and agreement and money to be borrowed/lent.

We will continue with this topic and how the lack of autarchy may affect sovereign States next Friday.

---

[1] Hawtrey, R.G., Economic aspects of sovereignty, Longmans, Green and Co., 1930, p. 3.

[2] Hawtrey, R.G., Economic aspects of sovereignty, Longmans, Green and Co., 1930, p. 55.

[3] Hawtrey, R.G., Economic aspects of sovereignty, Longmans, Green and Co., 1930, p. 90.