The right of the legitimacy of South Azerbaijan's independence in international law

"The right to self-determination"

By Umud Duzgun

April 22, 2022

Introduction:

The principle of self-determination, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reflected in numerous international treaties and instruments such as the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Helsinki Final Act, stands as a cornerstone of international law. Rooted in liberal and democratic values, it affirms the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Yet, despite its clear legal foundations, the application of this principle has often been inconsistent, shaped by shifting geopolitical interests and the reluctance of dominant powers and centralized states to accommodate demands for autonomy or independence.

In this evolving international landscape, the South Azerbaijani people represent a distinct and often overlooked case. Their struggle to preserve and assert their national identity has unfolded under conditions of political repression, cultural assimilation, and denial of basic collective rights. This book seeks to explore the legal legitimacy of South Azerbaijan’s claim to independence by placing it within the broader framework of international law and historical precedent.

Following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the rapid global exchange of information, a renewed wave of national awakening has empowered many stateless nations to pursue their right to self-determination. However, as demands for independence become more pronounced, regional and global responses have remained complex and at times contradictory. Colonial and authoritarian regimes often suppress the discourse around self-determination, while major international powers tend to respond to such claims based on their strategic and economic interests rather than consistent legal principles.

This study examines the legal definition and development of the right to self-determination, the distinction between declarations of independence and unilateral secession, and the difference between liberation from foreign occupation and internal colonialism. It also considers the legal process for recognition of new states, including admission to the United Nations, and evaluates examples of successful independence movements from the last three decades.

Through critical analysis of legal doctrines, state practices, and international reactions, this work demonstrates how the case of South Azerbaijan fits within contemporary interpretations of self-determination. It articulates the legal and moral grounds for recognizing South Azerbaijan’s right to independence, grounded in international law and supported by documented evidence. By doing so, it contributes to the broader scholarly and legal debate on sovereignty, minority rights, and the peaceful realization of national aspirations in a global order still marked by asymmetries of power and justice.

  The American Doctrine of Self-Determination

On February 11th, 1918, Woodrow Wilson stated "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their consent. Self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."

During World War II, the principle was included in the Atlantic Charter, declared on August 14, 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter. It was recognized as an international legal right after it was explicitly listed as a right in the UN Charter.

Political terminology of the "right to self-determination"

Political terminology of the "right to self-determination" means that each distinct ethnicity or nation has the right to govern itself and the right to independence, as well as the right to vote. The vote must be with a majority of 50+1 in a region and not across the entire nation.

"The right to self-determination" in the academic discourse of the world

In legal terms, "determination of destiny" is an inherent right. Therefore, the question arises whether to exercise this inherent right one must ask permission and garner the consent of another or not? The answer to this question is a big no, citing the provisions of the conventions and the opinions of international jurists that will appear in the text.

Three terms are commonly used to define the "right to self-determination" in the world's academic discourse:

1- 'Self-government' means any person or any nation is free to govern itself or its nation without any other interference (under the rule of its national government).

2- 'Self-determination' refers to the act of determining one's own destiny as well as the destiny of the nation.

3- National self-determination refers to a nation that determines its own destiny with national will and determination. In other words, the "self-determining nation" must be freed from the external control of imperial and colonial powers as well as from the internal control of authoritarian, racist, and internal colonial regimes.

 

The author's definition of the "right to self-determination"

A nation's right to self-determination refers to its freedom to decide its own future political status, form its own national government, declare independence and form alliances according to its national interests. Thus, a distinct nation has the right to conduct its own affairs without being dominated by another country or influenced by another nation.

The right to self-determination and the American Revolution

Self-determination and self-government run deep in democratic history. It was the American Revolution and War of Independence against British dominance in the 1770s and the triumph in "self-determination" alongside the explicit reference to natural human rights as well as the consent and sovereignty of the people in the US Declaration of Independence, that were the foundation for the idea that inspired Europeans through the 19th century.

The right to self-determination and Europe

One of the foundations of the French Revolution (1789-99) was Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of self-government. "Determining one's destiny, autonomy, integrity, and self-sufficiency play a key role in a person's survival in civil society," he said. Emmanuel Sieyès and others argued that Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of self-government means not only democracy but also an independent nation. The democratic understanding of international relations is that independent nations should be free of kings, aristocracy, churches, and ancient customs. It legitimized the formation of the nation-state and the declaration of independence by the countries in continental Europe. This was the theory of 'self-government,' Which legitimized the formation of the nation-state and the declaration of independence of the countries in continental Europe. 

The "right to self-determination" after World War II

 Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the right to self-determination has been one of the fundamental principles, regarded by many as a crucial element of legitimacy. The most official text that included self-determination after World War II was Article 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, which considered the right to self-determination as one of the Organization's goals. In various UN resolutions, including Resolutions 1514 and 2625, the Declaration of Independence for Colonial Nations and Territories, the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred to this principle as a foundation for decolonization. Since1971, following Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan, this principle encompassed countries that had freed themselves from the yoke of internal colonialism and had become independent.

The right to self-determination is not only recognized as one of the core principles of the United Nations, but it is also enshrined in the International Covenants on Civil, Political, Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights. Based on its previous opinion, the International Court of Justice in 2004 recognized this principle as a foundational principle of International law and interpreted countries' adherence to it as a general obligation. 

 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

Article 1.1: "All people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they can freely determine their political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development. (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."  

The Right to Self-Determination and the International Court of Justice and UN Intervention

The International Court of Justice, which is the judicial body of the United Nations, based the principle of "determination of the destiny of nations" on the inalienable principles of customary international law in 1971. The Court issued advisory opinions in 1975 determining the status of Namibia and Western Sahara and recognized the decolonization process of non-sovereign countries and territories. The Court also recognized sovereignty, ruling in 1995 that the people of East Timor had a right to self-determination despite their non-sovereign status.

As for the extension of this principle to include non-colonial status and internal aspects of countries, the United Nations applied this principle primarily to colonial status, racism and subjugation (e.g. Rhodesia) until 1971 (before Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan's colonialism). In practice, the United Nations is bound to intervene in such situations, but after the 1970s, the right to self-determination of nations has been established based on freedom and equality, which can only be realized under a democratic government. Therefore, the issue of UN intervention in non-democratic countries remains.

In various documents, especially the 1992 Convention on the Rights of Minorities, the United Nations and the international community recognized the rights of minorities and obligated the government to respect them. This key document states: The promotion and realization of minorities' rights are integral parts of the transformation of society in the framework of a democratic rule of law.

The theory and practice of international law are examined in relation to the principles and rules in the conventions, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Charter, and the practice of international law post-World War II, which shows that the principle of self-determination for independence does not necessarily conflict with the principle of territorial integrity (both internal and external) of the colonial country.

 Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations (Article 2.4) is the main source of support for the "principle of territorial integrity of countries".

Article 2.4

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Therefore, if a part of a state's territory is being partitioned by force or aggression from a foreign state, it is in violation of Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations. However, if the separation is the result of a conflict within a country, it will not be considered a violation of the Charter since the people of the country have no obligation to follow the Charter.

South Azerbaijan's independence from Iran is not contradicted by this principle; reasons include:

Firstly, the issue of South Azerbaijan lies with the domestic colonizer, not between two UN member states (such as between North Azerbaijan and Iran).

Secondly, in June 1946, a treaty was signed between the Prime Minister of the Central Government of Iran (Ahmad Ghavam) and the Prime Minister of the National Government of South Azerbaijan (Jafar Pishevari), which was unilaterally broken by the Central Government of Iran after six months. 

Thirdly, in December 1946, Iran's military forces invaded South Azerbaijan and overthrew the people's elected national government. South Azerbaijan was the victim of genocide perpetrated by the Persian fascist regime, which murdered between 25,000 and 30,000 of its innocent people.

As part of the UN Charter clause, "No to the use of force", the government of Iran used force and violence against the government of the "other state" (National Government of South Azerbaijan) that has been committed to cooperation and coexistence. Consequently, it was known as an aggressor and occupying state.

Since separatism and independence are not crimes under international law, no state has the right to resort to force in response to separatist demands, unless the separatist group first resorts to force, as in the case of the Kurdish terrorist group PKK or the Tamil Tigers.

  

South Azerbaijan's National Movement is civil, and its protests are peaceful and oppose the use of violence. Despite this, the current Iranian regime has been resorting to violence from day one, killing dozens of national activists, injuring hundreds, imprisoning, and causing thousands to flee the country in the last 15 years alone. However, the National Movement of South Azerbaijan does reserve the right to self-defense while rejecting armed struggle.

Self-determination vs. Territorial Integrity

From a legal standpoint, the right to self-determination is more significant and logical than the principle of territorial integrity, since the first is a "principle" and the second is a "right." One of the major disadvantages of the territorial integrity principle is that it ignores the fact that many internationally recognized borders between countries are arbitrary and derived from unequal wars and occupations; these borders are not permanent. As a result of artificial borders, a nation has become split into two or more and has slowly deteriorated under the control and hegemony of a totalitarian government of another nationality.

The principle of territorial integrity is a "conditional principle"

The principle of self-determination is a "legitimate right"

According to the UN Charter, territorial integrity is not an absolute principle, but one that is conditional, while the right to self-determination and independence is a legitimate right. As stated in the United Nations Charter: no state may violate the territorial integrity of another state, except under certain conditions, to stop widespread violations of human rights, threats to peace and national security, after all, other options have been exhausted. This intervention is intended to halt the countless violations of human rights and create the conditions for negotiation and peace. Under certain circumstances, the principle of territorial integrity can be temporarily suspended with the permission of the Security Council.

Territorial integrity is a border agreement between neighboring countries

Determining the destiny of a nation is a natural right of nations, not a contract

People and nations have an inherent right to determine their destiny, which is by no means a contract, whereas the principle of territorial integrity of countries is a contract agreed between neighboring countries to determine borders. Nevertheless, borders can be changed and are not eternal; civilized nations such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia were able to redraw their borders without trouble. 

In the event of a conflict between these two principles of international law, the "right to self-determination of nations" will always prevail and take precedence over the "principle of territorial integrity of nations". It was the result of the breakdown of major countries that raised the number of UN member states from 51 in 1945 to 193 in 2021.

Two basic conditions for respecting the territorial integrity of a country

International law stipulates that a country's territorial integrity can be protected by observing two conditions. First, the ruling government must be representative of all the people living in the country. Second, the ruling government must not discriminate against ethnic groups.

Essentially, if the ruling government discriminates against other nationalities and minorities seeking political participation. These minorities and nationalities will not have any obligation to respect territorial integrity. The United Nations took this measure in South Rhodesia and South Africa to reject the white minority rule over the black majority and urged other governments not to recognize a discriminatory government.

As a rule, the people of South Azerbaijan, who are increasingly exposed to systematic racial, identity and linguistic attacks by the Iranian government, have no obligation to respect Iran's territorial integrity.

 

The obstacles to the exercise of "the right to self-determination"

Over the past two centuries, colonial, totalitarian, and fascist countries have posed the greatest obstacle to determining nations' fates. Till the late eighteenth century, the right to self-determination was just a slogan. With the fall of empires and the retreat of colonial powers followed by the enactment of modern laws within the international community, the determination of destiny has increasingly become a political act. The obstacles, however, have not been completely removed, and countries that have totalitarian and fascist systems, such as Iran, China, and Russia have resorted to denial and violence and refuse to face the realities of the 21st century. Hence, the "right to self-determination of nations" only applies in democratic countries without violence, through a referendum, and through the ballot box, not in countries such as Iran that are totalitarian, racist, and fascist.

The advantages of the "right to self-determination" principle

In addition to seeking to promote democracy, the principle of self-determination has many advantages. As a defender of the people's will, this principle must be implemented without interference from external factors, which is in line with modern democracy. It is a useful principle for modern governments striving to implement democracy and the will of the people. 

Socialism and the "right of nations to self-determination"

Karl Marx supported independence movements and argued that such nationalism could be a "precondition" for social reform and international unions. In 1914, Vladimir Lenin wrote: "[It is] wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as anything other than the right to exist as a separate state". But after Lenin gained power in the Soviet Union, he and other assertive communists prohibited non-Russian nations from implementing their own self-determination and only recommended it to other nations, including the Irish people in Britain.

Throughout its discourse, the Pan-Persian communists including the "Tode Communist Party, Fadaei, Rahe Kargar" and other groups distorted and abused the principle of "right to self-determination of nations", which was proposed decades ago by western liberal democracies and was falsely dubbed by those communists as a Lenin and Mao innovation. In order to quell the anger ignited by the none Persian national liberation movements, they recruited members from ethnic nationalist activists for their own organizations using empty promises.

Using deceptive slogans like "eliminate discrimination and oppression of ethnic nationals", they claimed by establishing the rule of the proletariat in Iran would guarantee the rights of oppressed non-Persian nations to self-determination. However, they never mentioned the fact that Lenin and Mao banned the principle of the "right to self-determination of nations" within Soviet territory and China. Actually, their aim was simply to infiltrate and control non-Persian ethnic national movements in order to maintain the territorial integrity of Iran and continue the Persian ethnic minority rule.

It is unfortunate that most of these communists instead of seeking refuge in "Communist haven" Cuba or North Korea, they were taken refuge in capitalist countries "Western imperialism", and despite decades of living in democratic countries, they didn't learn the fundamentals of democracies. Nevertheless, to distort the national movement of South Azerbaijan, some of them infiltrated it with deceptive slogans of so-called "Stalinist justice and equality, elimination of national oppression, and so on."

Luckily, the movement's activists exposed the deception of those brainwashed communists at the right time and marginalized them and minimized their influence in the movement. Among activists, I was the first to stand up to these traitors and charlatans. Even for the first time, I rejected applying the principle of "the right to self-determination" in Western democracies within the context of the fascist system of Iran's Persian-centered thought. This principle can only be applied to countries like Canada, Britain, and Belgium that have sustainable democratic thinking.

  

Through the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, the Communists' systematic abuse of nations' rights to self-determination was ended and by using the true and universal meaning of this principle found in the United Nations Charter, nations under the fascist rule of communism were able to gain their independence and join the United Nations; including fifteen countries from the Soviet Union, two from Czechoslovakia; the Czech Republic and Slovakia, seven from Yugoslavia, Eritrea from Ethiopia and East Timor from Indonesia, Kosovo from Serbia, South Sudan from Sudan. Because of this, remnants of the communists no longer are able to impose their lies on people. 

The right to self-determination and the Persian Shu'ubi Shiites

According to Surah Ra'd verse 11, Islam supports nations' rights to self-determination and calls upon nations to fight for their rights. إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ "God will not change the condition of any people until the people themselves change their condition."

 This means that God will not change any people's social, cultural, economic, or political status unless they fight for it. Aside from this verse, there is a narrative that depicts a single Islamic nation that is more spiritual than geographical. There are currently 55 Muslim-majority countries in the world with defined borders. 

Alternatively, another interpretation of Islamic cosmopolitanism comes from the Shiite-Shu'ubi Persians and their eclectic ideologies. This ideology has two roots and cover only a small portion of Shiism: The first root is radical Shiite Shu'biyah that is based on superstitions and terrorism. The second root is the extreme Persian nationalism based on racism and fascism. Contrary to the Holy Qur'an, Iran's Persian Shiite regime does not acknowledge the right of non-Persian and non-Shu'ubi Muslim nations to determine their own destiny. While South Azerbaijan's right to self-determination and independence is in complete accordance with the explicit verses of the Qur'an and Islam.

In contrast to the eclectic Shiite ideology of Persian Shu'ubiyah, the Turks of Azerbaijan believe in separating religion from state, and therefore their traditional Shiite ideology has nothing to do with the Persian-Shu'ubi Shia ideology. In 1979, When the Azerbaijanis revolted against the new Iranian constitution and article 110 of Velayat-e-Faqih(the rule and guardianship of supreme leader), granting absolute power to clerics, the conflict culminated and a line-up between Azerbaijani-Turks Shiite and Persian- Shu'ubi Shiites formed. The vast majority of the Pan-Persian intellectual current, as well as Persian political parties including Mo'tlalefe Party, Hizbollah, Persian Mujahideen(Mojahedin e Khalg Iran), Tode Party and other Communist parties supported the Shu'ubi Velayat-e Faqih and voted for it. However, Azerbaijani Turks did not vote and rejected.

Moreover, the Persian fascism regime attempts to spread the Persian Shu'ubi-Shiite among non-Shu'bi Shiites throughout the region under the name Shiite Crescent. They are also, trying to spread Shu'bi-Shia to non-Shu'ubi Turks in South Azerbaijan in order to undermine the National Movement by homogenizing Shia-Shu'ubiyah. Luckily, because of the revelations of the nature of the Persian Shu'ubi Shiites by intellectuals and theorists of the national movement and hostile stances were taken by the Persian Shu'ubis against Azerbaijan during the Armenian occupation of Nagorno Karabakh. In addition, as a result of the Persian shu'ubi regime's comprehensive assistance to Armenia, the Persian Shu'ubi-crescent lost its final card of deception among Shiite Turks of Azerbaijan.

Rights of self-determination and the Mehran Bahari network of the Iranian regime deception

There are many parallel groups and various networks created by the Persian minority regime to undermine the National Movement of South Azerbaijan including Shbeke Azariha, Sahar TV, Mehran Bahari and Yeni A. Birligi, etc. One of the most deceptive networks, which operates for more than two decades is Mehran Bahari. A team of the Iranian regime's secret service, under the name Mehran Bahari, which is anonymous to observers, has some known sympathizers and members mostly Armenian-origin Muslims and Persianized Azerbaijani Turks (Manqurtlar), members of the Tudeh Party and other pan-Persian Communist groups.

The network's deceptive theory of the "Turkic Ummah of Iran" or so-called "Turks tribe of Iran" is based on the cosmopolitanism of the "Islamic Ummah" and "Communist Ummh Workers Cosmopolitanism." The new cosmopolitanism was not invented to glorify the Turkic world but by the deceptive claim of the "Turkic nation of Iran" to deny the right to self-determination of the people of South Azerbaijan.

Mehran Bahari network claims to be pro-Turkic, but its anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish theology proves otherwise. They attempt to create a theoretical rift within the Azerbaijan National Movement and want to separate the two inseparable concepts of "Tüırkçülük", and "Azərbaycançılıq", or pro-Turkic and pro-Azərbaijani ideas, which both are based on the Azerbaijani center of thought.

 

In addition, Mehran Bahari's gang cannot hide its enmity for the name of Azerbaijan, referring to "northern Iran" rather than South Azerbaijan, using the phrase "ruling nation" instead of the usurper and occupier minority Persian regime, and using the phrase "condemned nation" instead of the nation under internal colonization and occupation by the Persian minority regime. They attempt to make South Azerbaijan appear as a nation that capitulated! Nevertheless, the nation of Azerbaijan has never surrendered to the fascist regime of the Persian minority and continues to fight for its independence.

 

The theory of "the right to separation" in Failed States 

If the ruling government is on the verge of collapse for any reason, it has lost the legitimacy of running the country as a failed state. The United Nations may agree to a region's secession from the central government of a failed state on moral and humanitarian grounds to provide security for the disputed areas in light of Buchanan's theory of self-determination, known as the "remedial right to secession". (Allen Buchanan 1997). If the newly independent regional government is able to provide better security than the central government, then its legitimacy has been established and it has a better argument for recognition. In some cases, the United Nations can act pragmatically by accepting the legality and independence of separatist regions from failed states, in order to reduce and end conflicts.

Self-determination in the case of dissolution

In the event of dissolution or collapse, the right to self-determination and to declare the independence of regional states does not require the consent of either the central government or the government claiming to be the heir of the former regime. Due to this, 15 former Soviet Union countries and 7 former Yugoslavian countries have been declared legitimately independent without the consent of Russia and Serbia. Although the independence of the former Soviet republics was recognized internationally and joined the United Nations without opposition from the Russian state, the Serbian government opposed the independence of the former Yugoslav republics, which claimed all of Yugoslavia. A succession claim to the former Yugoslavia was never accepted by the international community. 

Indeed, the international community never recognized the succession claim of Serbia over the former Yugoslavia. In accordance with international law, "the dissolution of a state" means that that state no longer has legitimacy or legal personality. Therefore, after the dissolution and collapse of the fascist regime in Iran, the remnants of the Shah and Mullah regimes or the Persian opposition will not be able to claim succession.

Factors contributing to the growing demand for self-determination and independence worldwide.

Aside from historical causes, factors contributing to the recent demand for the "right to self-determination" and independence include the following:

a) The emergence of the unique technology of the free flow of information via the Internet and social media

b) The adoption of Western democratic values that have raised national consciousness. 

c) Considering religion as a private matter and rejecting superstitions.

d) Over the past three decades, successful examples of nations that have achieved independence and thus liberated themselves from dominant powers have emerged as the only solutions to end colonization, exploitation, plunder, and economic discrimination, as well as fascist policies, the eradication of national identity and mother tongue.

e) Increase capacity and willingness to create a national-democratic government.

f) Develop new international laws on the right of separation and declaration of independence, including unilateral declarations of independence. 

Self-determination and Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization(UNPO)

UNPO is an international organization whose aim is to facilitate the participation of marginalized peoples and unrepresented nations in international institutions(Hague, Netherlands 1991). As a means of consolidating the "right to self-determination," which is applicable to nations without an official representative in the United Nations. As well as the legal preparation for political independence and international recognition for its members. 

The organization has several dozens of members including Tibet, Uighuristan, Al-Ahwaz, Catalonia, and South Azerbaijan.

The Provisions of the Montevideo Convention

Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (December 26, 1933) states:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a) a permanent population;

b) a defined territory;

c) a government, and

d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.

 

Recognition of South Azerbaijan under the Montevideo Convention

The international legitimacy of the government of South Azerbaijan cannot be questioned despite a thousand years of statehood and having a genuine, democratic government (1324-25). Because of the substantial experience of statehood in South Azerbaijan, it has more qualifications than those stated in the Montevideo Convention. The last national government of South Azerbaijan in 1946, was overthrown by Iran's fascist regime, and the territory has been occupied since.

Upon the collapse of the totalitarian and fascist regime in Iran and the expulsion of the occupying forces, the people of South Azerbaijan will regain their democratic state, declare their independence, and establish reciprocal relations with the rest of the world.

Undoubtedly, it will be recognized by the seven independent Turkic states, as well as other friendly countries, and the last UN requirement of "capacity and ability to establish relations" will be effectively removed, and it will get a permanent membership in the UN without any problems. Many newly independent states, including Eritrea, Kosovo, East Timor, and South Sudan, have declared their independence, even without meeting the requirements of the convention and recognized by most countries and the United Nations.

Breaking the taboo about legitimating independence by the international community

In the past, regional states' separatism within countries and independence were seen as fundamentally difficult due to UN charters' principles of territorial integrity, which ensures a nation's sovereignty (the central government). However, this has changed over the past three decades. Many ethnic groups around the world have sought separation and independence from the central government, citing the right to self-determination. Among them are Eritrea, East Timor, Kosovo, and South Sudan, all of which gained their independence under international supervision and UN approval.

 

Unilateral declaration and de facto independence

The Greek military coup and Greece's annexation of Cyprus, strongly opposed by the Turkish population of Cyprus, led North Cyprus, backed by Turkey, to unilaterally form a de-facto government in 1974 and unilaterally declare independence in 1983. South Ossetia and Abkhazia also achieved de facto independence from Georgia through a different process based on the people's right to self-determination. 

As with North Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, South Azerbaijan can declare independence and be recognized under special conditions. Support and recognition from North Azerbaijan, Turkey, and other Turkish states and friendly countries will make it easier for South Azerbaijan to obtain UN recognition.

  

The doctrine of 'separation solution and new developments in international law

The international arena is witnessing the emergence of new theories and fundamental shifts in the world order that have given independence seekers more hope; this makes them more determined to take the final step, which is to achieve their independence goal. However, without a doubt, the most important development in this field took place in 2008; when Kosovo Albanians unilaterally declared independence from the Serbian government.

With increasing support for Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia, so does the UN General Assembly, with a mandate from the International Court of Justice approving Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia based on international law. By breaking the taboo, the United Nations accepted Kosovo's declaration of independence on July 22, 2010. The independence of Kosovo was recognized immediately by 43 countries, including the US, Turkey, Germany and the Netherlands(so far 112 countries). Several countries, including Serbia, Russia and Iran opposed Kosovo's independence. 

In the aftermath of Kosovo's independence (2008), the doctrine and theory of 'solution separation' and 'remedial right to secession' became part of international law. Therefore, according to new international Law, a nation within an internal colony declared independence when its fundamental rights are widely and openly violated by the central government.

Thus, a decisive separation and declaration of unilateral independence or a decisive separation mean going beyond the Leninist slogan of "the right to self-determination of nations" and enacting that right. The international legal system does not prohibit separation or unilateral declarations of independence. It doesn't matter how much the dominant central government (like Serbia) opposes it. Although Quebec's conditions bear no resemblance to those under the oppressive Serbian regime, the Supreme Court of Canada has accepted the exercise of the right to secede. Therefore, in similar circumstances, South Azerbaijan can unilaterally declare independence in accordance with new provisions of the international law system. 

Conditions that apply for "Separation Solution"

a) Separation may occur if the central government does not act within the principles of equality for the right to self-determination and does not have a government that represents the whole people.

b) When the right to self-determination is denied, the right to self-determination can be the only way to compensate. According to this amendment, a place in such a situation is not only against international stability but the continuation of the previous law, that is, the denial of one's right to determine one's destiny can endanger international peace and security. 

c) When governments ignore the right of their citizens to self-determination, the integrity of their borders cannot be guaranteed.

D) Prolonged repression and not exercising the right to self-determination can justify separation as a last resort.

"Exceptional solution, the last solution"

This theory holds that the only way to end gross human rights violations is through the secession of a part of the country. Accordingly, the right of inevitable secession must be recognized.

The reasons for secession and independence 

It has been established that the following causes lead to secession and independence:

a) The illegitimacy of the rule of state 

b) Lack of security for citizens   

c) Violating collective rights   

d) Violations of human rights  

e) The use of military force and occupation   

f) Reaching a deadlock in the negotiations  

 

The requirements for setting up an independent state,

and South Azerbaijan's capacity to achieve it

To ensure the running of an independent state, the international community considers the following conditions essential. 

1- Having a specific land and geography: South Azerbaijan has an interconnected historical land from Darband to Varamin and Sunghor to Maku. About one-third of this land is governed independently by the Republic of Azerbaijan, located north of the Araz River. 

2- Having a distinct identity and language; South Azerbaijan is distinct from other Iranian nationalities because it has a Turkish identity and Turkish language.

3- Having economic resources; South Azerbaijan has rich underground resources, such as gold, copper, steel, and fertile fields with potential oil, gas, and petrochemical resources. It also has agriculture, food production, textiles, and machinery industries. Its strategic location on the Silk Road makes it important for international trade, transportation, travel, and tourism.

4- Having a state-oriented political force; South Azerbaijan has a long history of rule going back thousands of years, as well as experience in modern and democratic governance.

5- Having a democratic policy and program based on human rights; Accordingly, the theme of the Manifesto of Independence of South Azerbaijan emerged from the heart of democracy and is fully in line with the provisions of the Human Rights Convention and the UN Charter. It includes all segments of the population, regardless of race, creed, gender, language and ethnicity. 

6- Emphasizing libertarian nationalism; South Azerbaijan's nationalism is based on patriotism, defense nationalism, and libertarian nationalism.

Various forms of secession and independence of countries

a) Separation of countries under foreign colonization; "Accelerate decolonization through recommitment and practical solutions." The UN Special Committee has documented dozens of countries that were under foreign rule, including dozens dominated by Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Portugal. Since the United Nations was founded in 1945, 80 former colonies have gained independence, and the trend toward eradicating colonialism has intensified in the past three decades.

b) Non-autonomous regions still colonized by foreigners; the UN Special Committee list includes 17 non-autonomous regions. The territories dominated by France, New Zealand, Britain, and the United States are American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Desert Islands. 

c) Successful unilateral secessions and declarations of independence from internal colonization: such as Bangladesh (from Pakistan), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Serbia (from Yugoslavia), Kosovo (from Serbia), South Sudan (from Sudan), the Republic of Northern Cyprus (from the Republic of Cyprus), East Timor (from Indonesia), Abkhazia, and South Ossetia (from Georgia).

d) Unilateral and failed separation from internal colonialism: Unilateral and failed attempts at secession have occurred in places such as Katanga (Republic of the Congo), Biafra (Nigeria), Chechnya (Russia), Transnistria (Moldova), and Jaffna-Tamil (Sri Lanka). It is a period during which most or all of the state autonomy has been dissolved by the central or federal government. People under military occupation suffer severe repression and their rights are violated.

e) Separation failed despite a majority vote: Despite gaining a majority vote for separation, Catalonia was unable to be separated from Spain due to opposition from the federal government. To legalize the separation, the constitution needs to be amended. 

The role of foreign countries and great powers in realizing nations' destiny

The United States helped most of central and southern Latin America gain independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century. It also supported the independence of European countries like Hungary and Greece. Most European and Middle Eastern countries became independent in the first half of the twentieth century as a result of war and the intervention and support of other countries. Therefore, it will be considered normal if one day the brotherly, friendly, and allied countries support South Azerbaijan's independence.

The fate and legal status, and the right to call for UN intervention

 As advocates of the "remedial right to secession," have argued, when the central government systematically violates the fundamental rights of pro-independence groups and when the central government has openly attacked these groups. In such cases, the United Nations shall give priority to the independence groups, and any foreign interference shall take place only with the permission of the Security Council.  

In contrast, if the central government does not systematically violate or ignore minorities' fundamental rights, and the separatists declare independence by resorting to violence without the UN's involvement, sometimes the UN accords priority and rights to the central government. In spite of this, Serbia's central government's breaches of international law were so obvious that Resolution 1244 was passed. 

UN Security Council Resolution 1244 features

Due to the significance of how Kosovo gained independence in international relations and a turning point in international law, I will briefly describe its process. Looking closely at this process, it appears that the legal path for gaining independence and its acceptance in the United Nations has been opened. Security Council Resolution 1244 was adopted on 10 June 1999. In order to administer Kosovo's climate temporarily outside the control of the Serbian central government, the organization appointed an international government called the Kosovo International Civilian and Security Council (UNMIK). 

Security council resolution 1244 has the following characteristics

First, a full civic, legal, and political mandate to establish an international administration regime in Kosovo. Second, humanitarian aid for Kosovo, and restoring public order in crisis areas. Third, the Provisional Administration of Kosovo was created to prevent Serbia from imposing its internal colonial discriminatory policies on Kosovo. Fourth, to establish a special temporary legal regime to prevent Serbia from exercising its jurisdiction over Kosovo.

The declaration of independence of the "State of Kosovo" following UN Security Council Resolution 1244

The first parliamentary elections in Kosovo were held in November 2001 under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. After the consolidation of the Kosovo national government, the Kosovo government declared its independence on February 17, 2008, despite strong opposition from Serbia, Russia, and China, which has been recognized by 112 countries as of this writing. Unlike the doctrine of the twentieth century, scholars of international law today insist that in the international legal system there are no rules or provisions that affirm or deny either unilateral separation or prohibition of unilateral separation from any part of a state's territory. Therefore, in international law, what is not forbidden is permissible. In this context, if a new independent state can exercise its sovereignty effectively, that would be recognized as a legitimate political function of international law.

According to the case of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared independence, the positive reaction of the international community and the majority of countries to recognize Kosovo indicates that "territorial integrity" no longer serves as a red line and does not have the deterrent effect it once had. Consequently, Kosovo paves the way for other captive nations, including the Turkish nation of South Azerbaijan, to gain their independence.

The International Court of Justice ruled in favor of the legitimacy of unilateral separation

For the first time, the UN International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Kosovo's unilateral independence, weighing the scales in favor of the right to self-determination. For the first time, the International Court of Justice has ruled in favor of Kosovo's unilateral independence, tipping the scales heavily in favor of self-determination. 

The International Court of Justice's final argument is as follows:

To bring its reasoning to a close, the Court summarizes its conclusions as follows:

"The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently, the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law."

The recognition of Kosovo's independence

Kosovo's independence was a taboo that was upheld by the International Court of Justice and recognized by the international community. Canada, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Turkey recognized Kosovo as an independent state immediately (March 19, 2008). In response, the Serbian government summoned its ambassadors from some countries, including Turkey, Canada and Japan, in protest. The immediate recognition of Kosovo's independence in this brutal and difficult game would have meant Serbia's irreparable defeat and an irreversible victory for Kosovo.

  

What makes Persian think tanks afraid of consolidating the legitimacy of unilateral independence?

In response to Kosovo's declaration of independence, the Persian think tank could not hide its concern and fear over the consequences of the principle of "the legitimacy of unilateral independence" in the United Nations. The fascist regime of the Persian minority has officially stated that it opposes independence for East Timor, Kosovo, and South Sudan. The easiest way to understand the Persian fascist regime's anger lies in their academic distortions of international law and documents.

Knowing the "Persian thought system", I was not surprised by the inverted and undocumented analyses of a few main Persian sources in Iranian study and research centers. Among their tricks is not using new documents and not being updated. As examples;

- The false claim that: "Kosovo's declaration of independence was made without going through the United Nations and with Washington's direct command!

-The recognition of Kosovo's independence is a mockery of the collective consciousness and human civilization! 

-Washington's invisible hands can be traced back to the break-up of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the split of Yugoslavia and other economic, political, and military unions in Eastern Europe.

-The unilateral independence of Kosovo has no international value.

- Kosovo's independence represents a dormant hatred for the Orthodox of the Balkans that can have serious consequences for the Balkans with their political ups and downs. Ironically with the Muslim people of Chechnya, the Uyghurs, or even the Shiite people of Karabakh, the Persian Shu'abiyya was not concerned with Muslim or Shiite people. 

- The unilateral independence of Kosovo is a threat to Iran ( the fascist system of Iran) and can serve as a model for other separatist movements elsewhere in the world, It can lead to dangerous consequences for internal colonial countries like Iran.

However, the anger of Persian fascism is not new and unprecedented. A couple of years ago, US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced a resolution to the House of Representatives that reflected Congress' understanding that the South Azerbaijani people, living under the Iranian regime, in fact, are not Persians, but Turkic people and part of one nation, geographically separated by the Araz River between Republic of (North)Azerbaijan and Iran( South Azerbaijan). Therefore, they should be allowed to decide their own destiny and have their own independent country. It is the natural right of the (South) Azerbaijani people to choose their political structure and country, and this right does not depend on the will of Washington's bureaucrats or the Islamist dictatorship in Iran. Azeri Turks have sovereignty and independence in the republic of Azerbaijan, so Iran's Azeri Turks(the South Azerbaijanis) can't have the same choice. For this to happen, we need to support the right to self-determination through free elections and the opportunity to determine their own destiny at the ballot box." 

 

The Doctrine of non-recognition and recognition of the independence of new countries 

Over the past century, we have witnessed four types of doctrines about non-recognition and recognition of countries' independence:

Over the past century, we have witnessed four types of doctrines about non-recognition and recognition of country independence:

In the first type, the old policy of non-recognition is an effective tool in the hands of central governments against declarations of independence that no country can recognize. Communist China occupied the Independent Republic of Manchuria (1932-1945) and the Independent Republic of East Turkestan (1944-1949). The country of Katanga (1956-1963) was independent for eight years before it was occupied by the Congolese government. In 1965, South Rhodesia declared independence, as did several other states, none of which were recognized by the international community.

The second type of recognition policy, which historically many countries gained independence from foreign colonial rule, including India, Pakistan and Kenya from Britain, Indonesia from the Netherlands. 

The third type of recognition policy includes nations that fought their internal colonial systems and gained independence, such as Bangladesh from Pakistan, Bahrain from Iran, East Timor from Indonesia, and Eritrea from Ethiopia.

The fourth and the newest type of recognition policy is a case-by-case approach, as with Kosovo's independence from Serbia, and South Sudan's independence from Sudan, which could be applied also to other nations, such as Basques and Catalans in Spain, Tibet, Uyghurs in China, Chechnya, Tatarstan in Russia, as well as non-Persian nations in Iran, including South Azerbaijan, who seek to liberate their nation from internal colonialism and declare independence. 

Globally speaking, promoting unilateral independence and international recognition of newly independent states has, on the one hand, strengthened the principle of the right to self-determination and the declaration of independence, while on other hand, it has undermined the principle of territorial integrity and non-interference by foreign countries in the internal affairs of unruly countries.

Russia - Ukraine war and misuse of self-determination

Historically, in Russia, the right to self-determination has always been denied. Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin's deception of self-determination was evident by banning the principle of self-determination for non-Russians inside the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, it was Russia that denied the Chechen people their right to self-determination and invaded and massacred thousands of Chechen people. Tsarist and Soviet regimes historically denied the Crimean Tatars self-determination. Then, in 2014, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea from Ukraine, sending its armed militia into Eastern Ukraine under the pretense of protecting Russian minorities. On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded and attacked the entire country of Ukraine with the fascist aim of eradicating the Ukrainian language and identity.

Even though Russia has been threatening Ukrainian rights for centuries, the current Ukraine government has neither acted fairly nor democratically regarding the rights of its Russian-speaking minority. Kyiv's pro-West government restricted the teaching and use of Russian in government institutions and utilized Ukrainian as the sole official language(2019); It was also accused of excluding many Russian-speaking Ukrainian elites from government positions under the pretext that they were pro-Moscow. Nevertheless, none of this can justify the burial military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian fascist regime. Instead of being intransigent, Russia and Ukraine should accept the implementation of the Minsk agreements (2014), which would have granted autonomy to Luhansk and Donetsk. 

Although this is not the topic of this article, it is noteworthy to mention that this cruel and unbalanced war and the peculiar military defense tactics used by Ukraine without a single rocket attack against a military base within Russian territory are extraordinarily questionable. The key to ending this war is returning to peace talks and enforcing this agreement.

Unfortunately, Russia and the West are both hypocritical about self-determination and sovereignty. Likewise, the US and NATO violated international law by invading Iraq as well as Russia when it invaded Georgia and Ukraine. Each side relied on their own subjective arguments, in this case, the US was worried about its security after the September 11 attacks and wrongfully believed Iraq had nuclear weapons, meanwhile, Russia is concerned about NATO expansion and wrongly views Ukraine's democratization as a threat to its own security while denying Ukraine's rights to self-determination and sovereignty, as well as its right to decide whether to join the EU, NATO and any other organization, regardless of the concerns of any other nation. Therefore, the right to self-determination must be discussed in a democratic and peaceful manner at a peaceful time.

The recent incursions of Russian troops into Ukraine are reminiscent of several Russian invasions of Azerbaijan in the past 200 years, as well as the brutal invasion of South Azerbaijan by the Persian fascist regime of Iran in 1946.  While world powers may use the right to self-determination for their own political ends. However, oppressed people like the South Azerbaijani Turks will never give up their fight to liberate their homeland from the occupation of the Persian fascist regime and establish their own sovereign state.

 

South Azerbaijan and the right to self-determination

In the years leading up to the Constitutional Revolution(1906), the  South Azerbaijani people witnessed the gradual deterioration of their economic conditions, the migration of skilled labor and owners of Tabriz industries and bazaars to the capital Tehran, as well as the unprecedented decline in the influence of political leaders from Tabriz (the site of the Crown Prince at the time) in the Iranian capital Tehran. However, due to their over 1,000-year history of ruling in Iran, they believed that these problems could be solved with reform. 

After Nasser al-Din Shah was assassinated by Persian terrorists (Reza Kermani-1896) and the decline of the Turk ruling elite's influence, especially those based in South Azerbaijan, the ethnic Persian ruling elite gained a greater influence in the ruling court during Muzaffar al-Din Shah's reform policy period (1896-1907). It was the beginning of an open power struggle between two ethnic political elites, the Turks and the Fars (Persians).

 

In South Azerbaijan and Tabriz, the Turks intellectuals and political elites were concerned that they might lose regional power to a centralized government in Tehran during the constitutional reform movement. That's why, the concept of "determining one's own destiny" was introduced for the first time using the theory of "Turk's thought of Azerbaijan Centered", and incorporated "the principle of state and provincial administration" to the first constitutional law of Iran(1908), but it was never implemented because of ongoing political unrest and weakness of the Qajar ruler.

Following the suspension of the constitution by the new government in Tehran and the intervention of Russia and Britain, the conflict between the Tabriz revolutionaries and the government in Tehran intensified. In spite of the heavy attacks and siege of Tabriz by the central government, the Tabriz revolutionaries were successful in keeping the constitutionalist movement alive for 11 months. In Tehran, however, the power struggle between the Russian and British elements culminated in the collapse of the central government, which led to the British-affiliated forces capturing Tehran.

Unfortunately, the Tabriz constitutionalist leaders made a strategic mistake by leaving their power base and departing for Tehran. Due to conflict of interests and violations of constitutional law, which included the elimination of the powers of state and provincial governments by Tehran's centralist (the British-affiliated mostly ethnic Persian political elite, who falsely claimed to be constitutionalists). After the breakdown of the negotiation, the centralist forces in Tehran used violence, destroying the constitutional revolution's ideals. As a result, the Persians collaborated with Britain and France against the Azerbaijani Turks and prevented Tabriz revolutionary leaders from holding any government positions. This was a huge setback for the Turkic political elites in Tehran and Tabriz, as well as unfortunate consequences for the people of South Azerbaijan. Eventually, after years of political turmoil, a British-engineered military coup overthrew the Turkic Qajar monarchy and installed the British-affiliated Tajik-Fars ethnic military man Riza Mir Panj (Pahlavi) as ruler of Iran.

Throughout North and South Azerbaijan, the fight for self-determination and independence continued in various forms according to the theory of the "Turk's thoughts of Azerbaijan Center." In the north under the leadership of Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh during the creation of the Independent Republic of (North)Azerbaijan and during the uprising of Sheikh Mohammad Khiabani, the one-year-long establishment of the national government led by Jafar Pishavari and the Khalg e Musalman movement in South Azerbaijan against the regime of Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini in Iran. 

The current national movement is a continuation of the earlier movements, and national awakening is a very widespread phenomenon.

It is well known that no movement is successful without powerful parties or organizations behind it. However, the Iranian regime represses the formation of public parties and civic organizations, making their establishment virtually impossible. Currently, the main challenge facing the movement at the moment is the lack of any party or organization inside the country and strong parties or organizations outside the country. 

But despite all difficult challenges, the national movement organizations in our country have been successful because of their cohesion and solidarity; they organize national and civic activities underground and in a network. For the sake of following the national democratic principles of the movement, devoted field activists at home take on all the risks and endure hardships, but they are only concerned with liberating their homelands from the Persian fascist regime and the freedom and welfare of their nation, and not with fame and personal interest. 

Taking advantage of democracy and political freedoms, the National Movement in exile was able to spread its voice internationally, promote its program independently of the central Persian opposition, and counter the propaganda of the Persian fascists. Yet it has failed to lobby successfully and achieve organizational cohesion for a variety of reasons. 

South Azerbaijan's National Movement determined its course consciously as a nonviolent and civil movement. Some infiltrators of Iran's secret service attempted to form a phony guerrilla group within the movement to divert the movement from its civil path, thus discrediting it as a violent movement, but their plans failed. Although any other resistance movements against the Iranian regime are important for weakening our common enemy. However, in contradiction with the movement's course and goals, some "Persian-driven Center" elements have attempted to align this civil movement with other violent groups under the pretext of uniting against Iran's regime, such as the Persian terrorist-fascist groups, the Mujahideen Khalq, Saltanat-Talab, Islah-Talab, Persian left-wing fascist groups, and the Kurdish terrorist groups, as well as sympathizing with some violent Al Ahvazi and Baluchi groups. Apart from that, the South Azerbaijan Movement stands in solidarity with other ethnic nationals in their legitimate fight against the Iranian regime.

Azerbaijan's enemies, including the Persian fascists, the Azerbaijani right-wing pan-Iranians, and the left-wing pan-Iranians of Azerbaijani communists, deceitfully penetrated to control the deviation of the national movement and sought to destroy the "Turk's thought of Azerbaijan's centered" through deception and lies. Nevertheless, following the revelations of national activists, their attempt to repeat their historical betrayal of the national movement failed.

 

While faced with the terrible consequences of cultural-linguistic assimilation in South Azerbaijan for so many decades and unequal confrontation in all areas, including propaganda and lack of active staff with the national thinking of Azerbaijan center in the early stage, the National Movement of South Azerbaijan managed to repel the plague of Persianized right-wing and left-wing communist Azerbaijanis who were more Pan-Persian than Persian nationals themselves. After years of struggle, Azerbaijan's national movement,  once again placed 'self-determination' on the true path of the 'Azerbaijan center thought system'.

Throughout decades, South Azerbaijan's people have protested and patiently demanded just their 'basic rights' from the oppressive Persian minority regime of Iran. Unfortunately, they received nothing but denials. Since the uprising of May 2006, they have sacrificed tens of martyrs, hundreds of wounded, thousands of prisoners, and exiles. In February 2013 after hundreds of thousands demonstrated under the banner, 'South Azerbaijan is not Iran' they reached a point where the only way to decide their own destiny is by asserting their right to secede and declare independence.(2)

 

Any movement, including the National Movement of South Azerbaijan, has its own tactics, strategy, and goals, so having a solid ideology is crucial to ensuring the faith and belief system's stability and preventing it from slipping. Along with religious and personal convictions, there are also collective and national beliefs. In terms of national ideology, the National Movement of South Azerbaijan adheres to 'Turk's thoughts of Azerbaijan Centered', which embraces freedom and independence, liberal democracy, universal human rights, and patriotic nationalism. It opposes racism and ultranationalism (or blind nationalism).

 

Azerbaijan's National Movement is not a party-led or individual-led movement. As a truly national movement, it advances in a civil and pluralistic manner, and to achieve its goal of forming a national government and declaring independence, it continues to use different political tactics to mobilize people. Despite using different tactics, all the sincere efforts of the national activists are very valuable and part of the national movement, including the effort to implement Article 15(lifting a ban on teaching in the mother tongue), the acquisition of autonomy and federalism, and the maximum demands of con-federalism and independence.

In order to prevent the deceptions of the fascist regime, for the implementation of each of these tactics, even the minimum demand of Education in the Mother Tongue (Article 15) must be based on the ' Turk's thought system of Azerbaijan center' and its ideology of 'Independence driven and Azerbaijan driven'. As well as to prevent the enemies within Azerbaijan's national movement who are using the pretext of defending Article 15 and all forms of deviant federalism and appeasing the regime's criminal apparatus.(1)

I strongly believe that creating a mindset and mentality of 'independence-driven thinking' as an ideology of the national movement is the only way to achieve the sacred aspirations of the South Azerbaijan people.

In conclusion

Rising awareness among oppressed nations about their rights and the belief that international law, democracy and human rights conventions, the United Nations will stand up for them in today's world. South Azerbaijanis are more determined than ever before to seek liberation and independence. Nations that have been dominated undergo their own processes of recovery and restoration of their national identities. In light of the current favorable international conditions for dominated and occupied countries, these nations do not have to endure intolerable conditions. In addition to recognizing that Persian fascism is their main enemy, the South Azerbaijani people recognize that the fascist Persian mindset is inherently hostile toward the principles of the right to self-determination, democracy, and universal human rights.

In addition to international institutions, it is expected that those who consider themselves progressive and support fundamental human rights will demonstrate their true faith and defend the right to self-determination and independence of South Azerbaijan regardless of their ethnicity or nationality. 

While adhering to international law and advancing civil resistance methods, the Azerbaijani National Movement will never wait until the massacre and genocide of its people have occurred before international organizations arrive to weep crocodile tears over the graves of their loved ones! Wrongly calling victims for compromise on the negotiating table with the killer! Therefore, the fascist regime of Iran was given a warning in November 2018 when tens of thousands of people in Tabriz raised the banner "Either Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia; the choice is yours". (3)

Consequently, in the event of unbearable repression and killing by Iranian regime, South Azerbaijan's people will exercise their right to legitimate defense and take up arms in order to prevent their nation from being massacred by hostile occupying forces of the Persian fascist regime. There is no doubt that the national will and the strong presence of the Turkic countries alongside the people of South Azerbaijan and the support of friendly and allied countries, the Persian fascist regime will not dare to repeat its historical crimes.

 .................. ***** ...............

Additional:

Case Studies in the Exercise of the Right to Self-Determination

🟩South Sudan

 After Sudan gained independence from Britain in the 1950s, conflict between the northern and southern regions erupted and continued until a peace agreement was reached in 2005. With the consent of the central government, the people of South Sudan held a referendum in 2011 in which 98.8% voted in favor of independence. Sudan was the first country to officially recognize South Sudan’s independence. South Sudan subsequently became the 196th country in the world and the 193rd member of the United Nations.

🟩Kosovo

 Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Kosovo’s autonomy was revoked by Serbia in 1989, severe repression by Serbian forces against the Albanian population of Kosovo led to a humanitarian crisis and armed resistance. In 1996, the people of Kosovo formed the Kosovo Liberation Army. In 1999, NATO intervened militarily against Serbia, and the United Nations assumed administrative control over Kosovo. On February 17, 2008,  Kosovo became the first country to declare unilateral independence from Serbia. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) reviewed the legality of the declaration, and 9 out of 14 judges ruled in favor of Kosovo’s independence. To date, Kosovo has been recognized by 112 countries, including a majority of Western states. Kosovo’s case is often cited as a precedent in debates about unilateral secession and humanitarian intervention. 

🟩Abkhazia and South Ossetia

The developments in these two regions were shaped by Russian intervention and annexationist policies, although they at times drew on similar legal arguments as Kosovo. In 2008, following a military conflict with Georgia, both regions declared independence. On August 26, 2008, Russia formally recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Subsequently, three additional UN member states also recognized them. Although widely condemned—especially by Western governments—for violating Georgia’s territorial integrity, this case remains significant due to the fact that one of the world's great powers and a permanent member of the UN Security Council supported the recognition.

 🟩Crimea

The situation in Crimea was dramatically altered by Russia’s illegal military intervention and annexation, which bypassed any legitimate legal framework. This act violated both the United Nations Charter and fundamental principles of international law. While the right to self-determination could theoretically apply to the Turkic people of Crimea, any legitimate expression of this right must occur in a democratic and peaceful environment—for instance, via referendum within the framework of Ukrainian sovereignty. Before such a vote could be held, however, the issue of demographic manipulation and forced migration by Russia would need to be addressed.

🟩Donetsk and Luhansk

In eastern Ukraine, where ethnic Russians form a majority, tensions escalated after the rise of a pro-Western government in Kyiv and the marginalization of pro-Russian factions. When the Russian language was stripped of official status, and Ukrainian was declared the sole national language, unrest deepened. Eventually, with Russian support, Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence. While Russia had previously rejected Kosovo’s unilateral independence, it recognized these two separatist republics unilaterally, further complicating international legal norms 

🟩 East Timor

Indonesia was under colonial rule by the Portuguese and the Dutch for centuries. After World War II, it gained independence from the Netherlands. While Western Timor was freed from Dutch control, the Portuguese withdrew from East Timor in 1975, which was then invaded and occupied by Indonesia. Following years of rebellion and conflict, a UN-supervised referendum was held in 1999. In that vote, 87.5% of East Timorese chose independence from Indonesia.

The result triggered violent backlash from Indonesian-backed militias. Over 1,000 civilians were killed during the violence. The United Nations responded with peacekeeping forces, led by Australian troops, and temporarily administered East Timor. On May 20, 2002, East Timor was officially recognized as an independent state by the international community.

🟩Eritrea

Eritrea’s path to independence is a powerful example of the high cost of federal deception and lack of security guarantees. Historically a part of the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) Empire and under Italian colonial rule in 1890, Eritrea came under British control in 1941. Despite strong independence movements, in 1950 the UN passed Resolution 390A, creating a federal union between Eritrea and Ethiopia, pressured by the U.S. Eritrea retained its own flag, courts, police, and local autonomy, while Ethiopia managed foreign affairs, defense, and finance.

However, in 1962, Ethiopia dissolved the Eritrean parliament and unilaterally annexed the territory, triggering a 30-year-long war of independence. The Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) ultimately defeated Ethiopian forces in 1991 and took control of Eritrea. The Eritrean struggle is a classic example of a prolonged armed liberation movement that ultimately achieved internationally recognized independence.

In 1993, a UN-supervised referendum was held where the vast majority voted for independence. Eritrea officially became a sovereign state on May 24, 1993. The case of Eritrea underscores the danger of entering federal arrangements without military guarantees—a cautionary tale for South Azerbaijan.

🟩 The Status of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (with 2025 Update)

The international community has increasingly recognized the need to address the rights of ethnic and national minorities, particularly those with territorial concentration. In the case of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, this recognition began with the chemical bombing of Halabja in 1988, after which the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 688, establishing a no-fly zone and granting the Kurds a protected autonomous zone in 1991.

Following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, the 2005 Iraqi Constitution formally recognized the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The KRG possesses significant powers, including its own military forces (Peshmerga) and a designated share of Iraq’s executive authority, often represented by holding the Presidency of Iraq. Despite its tribal and semi-democratic political structure, the KRG enjoys more autonomy than many other autonomous regions worldwide, even exceeding the democratic Catalonia(federal Spain) in some respects.

Later, in 2017, the Kurdistan Regional Government held an independence referendum in which over 92% voted in favor of secession. However, due to strong opposition from Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and even Western powers, the referendum did not result in actual independence. Nonetheless, this remains a major example of the right to self-determination expressed through democratic means.

🔄 Update (Early 2025): Resolution of the PKK Conflict in Turkey

In early 2025, a groundbreaking shift occurred in Turkey's long-standing conflict with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). The unexpected appeal by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), to Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the PKK, called for an end to the 41-year campaign of terror. Öcalan responded positively, agreeing to enter a democratic reconciliation process.

Subsequently, the PKK announced:

• The formal dissolution of the party

• The laying down of arms

• A transition toward peaceful political engagement

The Turkish government welcomed the initiative and entered negotiations with the DEM Party, the only legal pro-Kurdish party in the Turkish parliament. The process marked the official end of a violent era that had claimed over 40,000 lives, signaling a historic shift toward coexistence and political reconciliation.

🔄 Parallel Development: Dissolution of the YPG in Syria (2025)

In a parallel move to the resolution of the PKK conflict in Turkey, the People’s Protection Units (YPG)—widely regarded as the Syrian affiliate of the PKK and a central armed group in northern Syria—announced its formal dissolution in early 2025. The YPG's leadership agreed to lay down arms and begin integration into the official Syrian Army, This came as part of a broader regional shift toward negotiated stability. 

Together with the PKK’s disarmament, these developments signal the end of a decades-long cycle of insurgency and militarized Kurdish separatism in both Turkey and Syria—marking the beginning of a new phase of political normalization and regional recalibration.

🟦 The Peaceful Nature of the South Azerbaijan National Movement

In contrast to other national movements such as those of the Baloch, Al-Ahvazi Arabs, and Kurds, which have engaged in armed struggle, the New National Movement of South Azerbaijan has, since its inception in 1988, explicitly rejected violence. It has instead committed to a strategy of non-violent, civil, and democratic resistance.

This principled position has become the movement’s core strength, allowing it to attract millions of activists from across all segments of society, including youth, intellectuals, women, and workers. As a result, the South Azerbaijan National Movement has emerged as the most viable and legitimate alternative force to tackle the fascist regime’s occupying forces, with the goal of liberating South Azerbaijan and establishing its own national government.

By maintaining a peaceful approach grounded in democratic ideals and civic participation, the movement enhances both its moral authority and legal legitimacy under international law, standing in sharp contrast to armed separatist efforts elsewhere in the region.

🟩East Turkestan and the Struggle for Independence

East Turkestan, officially referred to by the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, has historically been home to a predominantly Turkic-speaking, Muslim Uyghur population. The region's turbulent history is marked by repeated efforts to assert independence, most notably through the establishment of two short-lived republics in the twentieth century. The First East Turkestan Republic was declared in Kashgar in November 1933 amid a widespread uprising against Chinese rule, while a second republic was formed in 1944 in the Ili region with support from the Soviet Union. However, both republics were ultimately suppressed—first by Chinese nationalist forces and later by the newly established Communist regime. Following Stalin’s shifting geopolitical interests and political compromises, Soviet support was withdrawn, allowing for the full occupation of the region by Communist China by 1949.

The incorporation of East Turkestan into the PRC marked the beginning of systematic efforts by the Chinese state to consolidate control over the region. In 1884, even prior to Communist rule, the Qing Dynasty had renamed the territory “Xinjiang,” meaning "New Territory" in Mandarin, symbolizing a colonial claim. Subsequent decades saw the imposition of demographic and cultural changes, including forced migration of Uyghurs and the settlement of Han and Hui populations, designed to erode the region’s indigenous character and facilitate permanent colonization.

According to Chinese government statistics, Uyghurs made up approximately 73% of Xinjiang’s 5.11 million population in 1955. By 2020, this proportion had declined to 44.96% of a total population of 26 million, reflecting significant demographic engineering. This shift has occurred alongside increasingly repressive policies, including mass surveillance, internment camps, suppression of religious and cultural practices, and forced assimilation. These measures have drawn widespread international condemnation, particularly in recent years, as credible reports emerged of systematic human rights abuses amounting to what many observers, including the United States, describe as genocide.

Despite the severity of the situation, East Turkestan's independence movement has failed to garner substantial support on the global stage, in part due to China's economic leverage and veto power within the United Nations Security Council. While countries such as the United States and Turkey have voiced concerns, no major international body has formally recognized Uyghur claims to independence. Chinese dissidents and intellectuals, including prominent figures in the diaspora, have shown limited solidarity. In some cases, they have even denied or distorted the Uyghur plight, as exemplified by Wei Jingsheng’s controversial remarks in 2024, where he not only rejected accusations of genocide but inversely accused Uyghurs of committing atrocities against Han Chinese—an inversion of the historical record.

In light of this complex reality, the Uyghur struggle for national liberation persists in the face of overwhelming odds. Many Uyghurs believe that peace, dignity, and freedom are attainable only through full independence. Appeals to abandon the independence agenda in hopes of gaining Chinese public sympathy are often regarded by activists as naïve or futile, given the lack of significant protest among Chinese elites or intellectuals regarding the state’s ongoing repression.

East Turkestan stands as a stark example of how deeply rooted aspirations for self-determination can be stifled by the geopolitical calculations of global powers and the coercive capabilities of a dominant state. The case underscores the limits of the international legal order in addressing the rights of stateless nations under authoritarian rule.

🟩Manchuria  

Manchuria, located in northeastern China, became a focal point of international conflict in the early 20th century. In 1932, following the Japanese invasion, the puppet state of Manchukuo was established, led by the last Qing emperor, Puyi. Although presented as an independent state, Manchukuo was entirely controlled by Japan and lacked genuine sovereignty. It was not widely recognized internationally. After Japan's defeat in World War II(1945), Manchuria was occupied by Communist China. The Manchurian case is significant not as a genuine independence movement, but as an example of externally imposed statehood lacking legitimacy. It also illustrates how the international community generally does not recognize states created through military occupation and lacking internal legitimacy.

🟩Katanga

In July 1960, just two weeks after Congo (Zaire) gained independence from Belgium, the Katanga region in the south, with the support of Belgium and the West, declared independence from the central Congolese government due to political and tribal tensions. However, this independence was short-lived. In 1963, it was ended through a joint operation by United Nations forces and the Congolese central army.

🟩Biafra

In 1967, following the massacre of over 30,000 Igbo people in northern Nigeria, the southeastern region of Nigeria, known as Biafra, declared independence. This led to the Biafra-Nigeria civil war, which lasted until 1970 and resulted in the deaths of over 2 million Biafrans, mostly from starvation due to a blockade. Despite not achieving independence, the Biafran struggle remains a symbol of self-determination and resistance against genocide and repression.

🟩Bangladesh

In 1947, British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, with the latter comprising two geographically and culturally distinct regions: West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Despite East Pakistan having a larger population, political and economic power was concentrated in West Pakistan. Tensions escalated when the Pakistani military launched a brutal crackdown on the Bengali population in 1971 following a democratic election victory by the Awami League in East Pakistan. The ensuing war led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. With support from India, East Pakistan declared independence as Bangladesh on March 26, 1971. Following victory in the war, Bangladesh achieved international recognition and was admitted to the United Nations in 1974. The Bangladesh case is a pivotal example of successful secession driven by repression, democratic denial, and armed struggle.

🟩The Basque Movement

The Basque nationalist struggle, led by the militant organization ETA, emerged in response to political and cultural repression under Francoist Spain. Seeking an independent Basque state that included regions in both Spain and France, ETA engaged in a decades-long campaign of violence, resulting in over 800 deaths. Despite initial popular support, ETA's violent methods eventually led to declining legitimacy. The organization declared a permanent ceasefire in 2011 and fully disarmed by 2017. The Basque experience illustrates both the potency and eventual limitations of armed struggle for self-determination, reinforcing the strategic advantage of peaceful advocacy in achieving long-term goals. This outcome parallels the principled non-violent stance maintained by the South Azerbaijani movement.

🟩The Defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka

The Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka arose from demographic and political shifts initiated during British colonial rule, which facilitated the large-scale migration of Hindu Tamils from India. Following independence in 1948, tensions escalated between the Sinhalese Buddhist majority and the Tamil minority, culminating in territorial claims by Tamils in the island's north and east. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) spearheaded a prolonged armed campaign for an independent Tamil state. However, the movement ultimately failed due to its reliance on violent tactics, including terrorism, which alienated domestic and international support. In 2009, the Sri Lankan state decisively defeated the LTTE, dissolving the movement. This case highlights the limitations and consequences of militarized self-determination efforts in the absence of sustained legitimacy and public backing.

🟩Parallels Between Tamil and Kurdish Territorial Claims

The historical trajectory of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka bears structural similarities to that of Kurdish migration into Iran's West Azerbaijan province. Kurdish resettlement during periods of conflict with the Iraqi regime—particularly in 1974 and 1991—resulted in lasting demographic changes, with many Iraqi Kurds settling in ethnically Azerbaijani Turks regions. Subsequently, Kurdish nationalist groups, including Komala, PJAK, and the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, have advanced territorial claims within these regions. This mirrors the Tamil experience and illustrates the complexities of ethnic migration, demographic change, state manipulation, and contested claims to autonomy. The Iranian government's apparent tolerance or facilitation of Kurdish claims may reflect a strategic use of inter-ethnic rivalry to undermine the Azerbaijani independence movement through a divide-and-rule approach.

🟩A Failed Federal Model in India – Kashmir

The case of Jammu and Kashmir demonstrates the challenges inherent in federal autonomy frameworks under centralist pressures. Initially granted broad constitutional autonomy under Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir operated under a unique legal and political structure within the Indian Union. However, in August 2019, the Indian government unilaterally revoked this status, integrating the region into direct federal governance. The action undermined the prior federal compromise and echoed similar historical events, such as the Iranian state's suppression of the autonomous Azerbaijani government in 1946. This case underscores the fragility of federal guarantees in the face of national consolidation and the precarious position of regional movements seeking sustained autonomy or self-determination.

🟩Northern Ireland – The Failure of Armed Resistance

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) launched a prolonged armed campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland beginning in the early 1970s. Framed as a three-stage strategy involving defense, retaliation, and guerrilla warfare, the campaign resulted in widespread violence, including bombings and civilian casualties. Loyalist paramilitary groups responded with their own violent actions to maintain union with the UK. After decades of conflict and limited political gains, the IRA officially ended its armed struggle in 2005, committing to peaceful political advocacy and disarmament. This evolution reflects a broader recognition of the diminishing returns of violence as a means of self-determination and offers a comparative lens through which to evaluate the South Azerbaijani movement's continued adherence to non-violent strategies since 1988.

Policies of Global Powers on the Right to Self-Determination and Independence

🟩United States:
The U.S. policy does not encourage separatism; however, it strongly opposes any form of systematic oppression or genocide by ruling states in the name of territorial integrity. While the U.S. does not actively promote secession, it recognizes separatism and independence as legitimate goals under certain circumstances.

🟩Russia:

Russia falsely claims that Lenin "discovered" the principle of self-determination, despite its existence long before the emergence of communist ideology, and despite numerous countries gaining independence from colonial rule over the centuries. Lenin, in fact, denied this right to the subjugated nations within the USSR. Today, Russia claims to have no issues with non-Russian peoples like the Chechens or Tatars, despite brutal repression. While denying self-determination domestically, Russia has violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter by using force to pursue annexationist policies in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Nonetheless, Russia stands on the brink of potential disintegration, with numerous republics expressing aspirations for independence, including Chechnya, Dagestan, Komi-Permyak, the Urals, the Volga region, Tatarstan, Chuvashia, Udmurtia, Bashkortostan, and Siberia.

🟩China:
China also falsely claims that Mao "discovered" the right of peoples to self-determination, although Mao—like Lenin—denied this right to the oppressed nations within China. Despite claims of peaceful coexistence, the truth lies in the existence of massive forced labor camps, systematic assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and brutal repression of Tibetans and Uyghur Turks. The Chinese state opposes self-determination and pursues annexationist policies in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

🟩 France

The Corsican and New Caledonian independence movements are two prominent examples of nationalist efforts seeking greater autonomy or full independence from the French Republic. In Corsica, the nationalist movement—particularly the National Liberation Front of Corsica (FLNC)—has a history marked by armed struggle and violence. In contrast, the New Caledonian independence movement, led primarily by the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), has generally emphasized political dialogue and negotiation over militancy.

Similarly, the Basque independence movement seeks self-government or independence for the Basque Country, which spans parts of both Spain and France. While the movement is more prominent in Spain, it also exists within the French Basque region, albeit with less political visibility.

Ironically, although France presents itself as a democratic nation, it does not fully recognize the right to self-determination for its own minority regions, including Corsica, New Caledonia, and the French Basque Country. At the same time, France has historically supported or tolerated certain separatist or armed movements abroad, revealing a contradiction in its domestic versus foreign policy stance on self-determination.

🟩United Kingdom – Scotland:

Scotland emerged as an independent country in the 9th century and remained sovereign until the 1707 political union with England, forming Great Britain. Today, the United Kingdom functions as a confederation of four nations: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Scotland retains a high degree of autonomy, including an independent government, parliament, judiciary, police force, and partial military independence, with shared operations alongside the UK military. It also has independent representation in international organizations such as the EU and the Commonwealth and competes under its own flag in global cultural and sporting events.
According to surveys, 62% of Scotland’s six million residents identify as “Scottish only,” 18% as “Scottish and British” (typically assimilated individuals), 8% as “British only,” and 4% as other identities (often immigrants). The Scottish Government has scheduled a second independence referendum for September 2023. In stark contrast to Russia, the UK—despite being a global power—has democratically accepted and implemented the principle of self-determination within its own borders, though it has occasionally opposed or obstructed this principle elsewhere to protect its geopolitical interests.

🟩European Union
The EU’s passive stance on Catalonia’s independence referendum reflects the Union’s limited capacity to mediate internal conflicts among its member states and its ambiguous relationship with them. The EU’s non-intervention in Spain masks the reality of other active and semi-active self-determination movements within several member states, such as Italy (Veneto, Sardinia), Belgium (Flemish movement), Denmark (Faroe Islands), Finland (Åland Islands), France (Corsica), and Spain (Catalonia, Basque Country), all of which seek self-determination.

🟩Canada– Québec

Canada, as a democratic and progressive nation, implemented the right to self-determination following its own independence (1867) in a federal and confederal structure, particularly with regard to the French-speaking province of Québec. Québec has held two referenda on independence: the first lost by 10%, and the second by less than half a percent (30,000 votes). A third referendum is currently under discussion. Although there are no legal obstacles to exercising self-determination in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court emphasized that “remedial secession” is permissible if internal self-determination is obstructed. The Court and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have stated: “Although unilateral secession is not a right in constitutional or international law, if internal self-determination is denied, secession may be invoked as a last resort.” The Canadian Supreme Court further affirmed that if any province votes for independence by a clear majority, the federal government must negotiate with it and is prohibited from using military force or coercion to prevent secession.

 🟩 Spain

Spain, despite being a democratic nation, does not recognize the right to self-determination for regions such as Catalonia and the Basque Country. This position is grounded in the Spanish Constitution, which asserts the "indivisible unity of the Spanish Nation." While the constitution allows for a degree of autonomy for "nationalities and regions," it explicitly denies the legal right to secession or full self-determination, resulting in persistent political tensions and conflicts—especially with Catalonia.

Ironically, the European Union, which often advocates for the right to self-determination in non-EU countries, has been largely ineffective in resolving such internal disputes among its member states.

The Catalan and South Azerbaijani independence movements share several notable similarities: both are rooted in distinct languages, cultures, and historical claims to territorial identity. Moreover, each movement utilizes a symbolic football club as a platform for political expression—FC Barcelona in Catalonia and Tractor FC in South Azerbaijan serve not only as sports teams but as powerful cultural and political symbols of resistance and national identity.

🟩Non-Member Observer States

Unlike the 193 officially recognized UN member states, several entities have not been granted official status by the United Nations but are recognized as independent states by some UN member countries:

State	Recognition by UN Member States
Kosovo	112
Western Sahara	44
Taiwan	16
South Ossetia	5
Abkhazia	5
Northern Cyprus	1

🟩International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Right to Independence

The ICJ has emphasized that in the second half of the 20th century, international law evolved to affirm the right to independence for peoples in non-self-governing territories or under foreign domination, subjugation, and exploitation. It noted that “a significant number of new states emerged as a result of the exercise of this right.”

🟩The Right of a Minority Versus the Majority

In most democratic systems, the constitution allows a minority to claim the right to form an independent nation-state. In countries where the constitution is based on absolute majority rule (e.g., Canada, Belgium, the UK), this principle is upheld. A numerical majority cannot revoke this right from a minority simply because they oppose independence.

🟩Sovereignty Versus the Right to Self-Determination

In 2011, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) addressed a question raised by Kofi Annan:
“If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to Rwanda, to Srebrenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”
This question reflects the ongoing debate between proponents of humanitarian intervention and those defending absolute state sovereignty.

The ICISS responded that:
“Sovereignty is conditional. Its legitimacy depends on the state’s responsibility to its people. When a state fails to fulfill that responsibility, the social contract between the state and its citizens is voided, and sovereignty loses its legitimacy.”

****************

 

 PDF version

References:

* Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination. By Lee C. Buchheit.

*Review by: Eisuke Suzuki

*Territorial integrity and self-determination: rules and standards- Sergey Markedonov 2015

* https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cnap20/46/6?nav=tocList

* Self—Determination or Territorial Integrity: The United Nations in Confusion 

 by MICHAEL M. GUNTER

* SELF-DETERMINATION Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession

by Patricia Carley

*THE IDENTITY ARGUMENT FOR NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION-

 ‌by Hsin-wen Lee

* From Protectorate to Statehood: Self-Determination v. Territorial Integrity in the Case of Kosovo and the Position of the European Union (2009)

by Heribert Franz Koeck  (Author), Daniela Horn (Author), Franz Leidenmuehler (Author)

* - The Shu'ubiyah controversy and social history of early Islamic Iran

by Rpy P, Mottahedeh

*Secession and Statehood: Lessons from Spain and Catalonia (Routledge Research in International Law by Ana Gemma López Martín  (Author), José Antonio Perea Unceta (Author)

*Self-Determination, International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: A Right in Abeyance (Post-Conflict Law and Justice)by Manuela Melandri

* ICISS - International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty(2011). 

A state's sovereignty vs people's self determination

In respond to the question posed by Kofi Annan: "if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?"

 The question summarizes the ongoing debate between those who value the norm of humanitarian intervention above state sovereignty and vice versa.

The ICISS purpose of the Committee was to arrive at an answer: "A state's sovereignty is also under question. Sovereignty is dependent upon the state's responsibility to its people; if not fulfilled, then the contract between the government and its citizen is void, and thus the sovereignty is not legitimate. In that crucible lies the genesis of the responsibility to protect doctrine.

(1)Turk's thought system of Azerbaijan center 

  

Link: https://ayiq-eller.blogspot.com/2021/06/blog-post.html

Turk's thought system of Azerbaijan center (Tabriz) VS Persian's Thought system of Iran center (Tehran).

(2) South Azerbaijan is not Iran 

Link: https://ayiq-eller.blogspot.com/search?q=South+Azerbaijan+is+not+Iran

 

(3)"Either Czechoslovakia, or

 Yugoslavia :the choice is yours "

Link: https://ayiq-eller.blogspot.com/search?

 

Authors' biography: 

Umud Duzgun was born Akbar Aghighi  on June 20, 1961 in Ucan City near Tabriz, South Azerbaijan. His involvement in politics began prior to the uprising of February 18, 1978 in Tabriz, and he participated in most of the anti-Shah demonstrations there during the 1979 revolution . After the revolution, in search of his identity, he began to engage in his native national activities by joining the Musalman People's Party(MPP). He actively participated in the eight-month campaign of the MPP against the ultimate power given to Ayatullah Khomeini under article 110 of Iran's new constitution. In line with the majority of Azerbaijanis, he did not cast the vote in the regime's constitutional election. He was also part of the first generation of the "Azerbaijani students association" at Tehran University(1980's). 

Upon immigrating to North America in 1990, he published analytical articles presenting the theory of the "Azerbaijan center Turkic system of thought" and laying out a roadmap for the Turkic nation of South Azerbaijan to achieve full independence from Iran's fascist regime through the collapse of the entire Iranian system.