“Self – determination is to peoples what freedom is to individuals, that is to say, the very basis of their existence. While self-determination cannot be an individual human right, it is definitely the necessary condition for the very existence of human rights in the sense that, where it does not exist, man 「or women」cannot be free since he [or she]is not allowed to liberate himself「or herself」.” (Vasak, 1982: 5)
自決權 (Rights of Self – Determination) 不僅是在探討集體權的範疇中一個非常重要的探討課題，也是在政治與法律範疇中的核心議題 註2 。同時在1966年議決通過，1976年一月及三月前後生效的《經濟、社會和文化權利國際公約》(Economic、Social and Cultural Rights) 與《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)這兩項國際公約中均將民族的自決權放在第一部分，指出：
第一部份 (Part I)
(1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.)
(2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.)
(3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.)
本文研究重點將著重於集體權中的自決權，並依自決權來做說明其於集體權中的運用。由於魁北克自治運動經常是被用來探討一群體追求經濟生存、語言及文化保護的集體權案例，而魁北克依民主方式所提出的公民投票 (First Referendum註4 on sovereignty-association, 1980, Second Referendum on sovereignty, 1995) 也是人民行使自決權的重要研究案例，因此本文亦以集體權中的自決與自治權來探討魁北克的分離或獨立運動。最後，筆者將探討如何將台灣的原住民族運動與加拿大魁北克的分離自治運動做一連結。
資本主義在二十世紀初期進入全面性的緊張狀態，因此在戰勝國所持的帝國主義下展開了一波又一波的殖民地的瓜分掠奪與列強的對立。在這種情況之下，自決權在國際法上的地位雖因爭論而尚未有較一致的看法，但是，基本上還是可看出自決權基本上是來自國際法的保障，其主要根據為歐美各國中產階級革命時期所產生的民族主義以及主權在民的雙重原則。第一次大戰以自決權號召催生民族國家 (nation-state)，並成為推動歐洲版圖及權力重新劃分的利器 (Stapleton, 1995)。
第一次世界大戰前後，各國對於自決並無一共通的認知，也不把它當成一個普世價值。事實上，在研究自決權時不甚受重視的美國總統威爾森 (Woodrow Wilson, 1856 – 1924)、列寧 (Vladimir Ilich Lenin, 1870 – 1924) 與波蘭籍的盧森堡 (Rosa Luxemburg, 1871-1919 ) 也為自決的概念提出不同看法，但真正將此自決一詞流行於人們口中的是威爾森。威爾森於1918年在國會議堂正式公開提出有關於自決的議題 :
“National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”
威爾森清楚的提出自決的概念應該在於行動，而非口號而已，他也認為應將此種提供世界安全的集體訴求理想組織化成為國際聯盟 (the League of Nations)，並將「民族有權利自決」此一概念放到「國際聯盟憲章」 (the League of Nations Covenant, 1919, amendments 1924)中。威爾森除了稍微將自決做了定義，更重要的是將民主(democracy)也涵誘F。另外，威爾森也讓我們清楚看出自決並非是一個口號，而應是一種具有行動立的意念倡導。
Robert Schaeffer (1990: 50-51) 引用列寧的觀念，認為賦於一個民族自決的權利清楚著指出獨立權利在政治上意涵，也就是一民族有權反抗壓迫者，並從壓迫國分離出來。Raya Dunayevskaya (1991:53) 提出盧森堡的對馬克思批判，認為馬克思的民族自決原則解釋成資本家的民族主義 (bourgeois nationalism)，並認為那只是一種烏托邦 (Utopia)。盧森堡認為民族自決在資本主義下無法達成，在社會主義下則無存在必要。雖然對於民族自決的看法不完全一致，但很顯然的資本主義的侵略與自決權的發展在當時有其關聯性，而威爾森與列寧均認為自決權的本身是行使分離的權利 (the right of secession) 。 第二次世界大戰時，帝國主義各國開始對於所謂的民族問題採取不同的面對態度與作法。一九四一年由英國與美國共同發表的「大西洋憲章」 (The Atlantic Charter, 1941) 聲明中表明無擴張領土的野心，且提及兼併領土必須得到對方的同意，而且要恢復被壓迫民族的主權與自治。也就是說，英國與美國宣稱不去承認沒有基於人民自由表明的願望所作的領土變更，再者，「大西洋憲章」似乎也宣稱尊重人民選擇政府形態的一種權利。
民族自決至此仍然是曖昧不明的，但基於道德及政治情勢所趨，還有非常值得一提的去殖民化 (Decolonization)呼聲四起，使得民族自決的原則在一九四五年聯合國正式成立之後的「聯合國憲章」中第一條第二項提及聯合國的目的之一，即是「發展民族的自決權，以及本於尊重自決原則的各國家之間的友好關係」。 認真來看，真正明文指稱「所有的民族都有自決權」(All peoples have the right to self-determination) 的是聯合國大會在1960年通過「應允殖民地及民族獨立宣言」 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples，又稱 Declaration on Colonial Independence，請參考附錄一)。宣言中提及「所有民族都有權利的自決權，行使範圍及與自由決定政治地位與追求經濟、社會、與文化的進展」，以及「為維持穩定、和樂、以及友好的關係之需求，不論是種族、性別、語言、或宗教都享有人權與自由，且應具有尊重各民族的平等與自決普世尊敬與謹守的原則」。此宣言又提及「不能以政治、經濟、社會、或教育的準備不足而成為阻礙減緩獨立的依據」。並重申「所有民族均享有與生俱有的完全自由的權利，行使自治權以及保有其固有領土的完整性」。
事實上，當我們回顧世界歷史，以歷史觀來談論以族群 (ethnicity) 或民族主義 (nationalism) 下的自決權概念時，必須要區分在第一次世界大戰時威爾森等人的以族群、語言、民族的原則下的一種對內自決 (Internal self-determination)與第二次世界大戰時去殖民化的對外自決 (External self-determination)觀念。較近代的學者例如Salvatore Senese (1989) 與 Leo Matarasso (1989)則利用對內自決與對外自決來建構民族主權自治 (Peoples’ Sovereignty) 與民主在集體權與擁有自決的主權架構下的連結。
對外自決基本上是於國際上宣稱民族的地位。此概念包含了認知(recognition)了一個民族有權利去自己組成一個民族國家 (nation-state)，或是去融入(integrate into) 一個現有國家，或與現有國家結成為聯邦 (federal with )。前幾年的東帝汶即是屬前者，透過公民自決投票對國際宣稱獨立主權而成為一獨立民族國家。融入一現有國家可舉美屬東薩摩亞 (Eastern Samoa)為例，雖然在血源及文化上與獨立的西薩摩亞相同，但是並沒有跟隨著被德國及紐西蘭先後統治過的西薩摩亞一樣提出獨立，至今仍與其他四個特殊美屬領土接受美國某些程度上的管轄。至於聯邦形式則以英協以及歐協為最佳典範。
根據Senese (1989: 19) 與Matarasso (1989: 12) )的看法，對外自決持有的概念是所有民族有權自異族 (foreign) 殖民者或種族主義者 (racist)的壓迫中自由解放。而這樣的概念可從「民族權利國際宣言」(Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples) 第六條中看出 (請參考附錄二)。值得我們注意的是Senese與Matarasso均認為對外自決是一個民族享有自治主權的重要關鍵。
對內自決主要是考量了一個民族有權選擇族群內部所達成共識 (或者是比較接近共識)所想要的一種政治、經濟、或社會型態及生活方式 (Felice，1996: 22-23)。這樣的原則可從「民族權利國際宣言」第七條中所提的「每個民族有權享受一個國家賦於該國公民的民主權利」看出 (請參考附錄二)。我們可以舉的例子則是本文所要探討的魁北克分離或獨立運動，以及原住民族的自治運動訴求。
早期以法裔為主的魁北克分離派人士認為經濟蕭條是被以英裔居多的聯邦政府當成殖民地而受剝削。後期的魁北克分離派人士則演變為保護語言及文化為訴求，要求在加拿大地區保持關係但擁有自治權，是一種「國中有國」的概念。讓我們來看看由魁北克獨立黨所整理的社會運動簡表 (Independence of Quebéc )註5，則不難看出這種對內自決的集體權行使下所要求的獨立。
·一七六○年：新法 (New France ) 政府在蒙特簍 (Montreal)投降，加拿大成為英國管轄。
·一七七八年：第一份加拿大人發行的法語報紙 La Gazette Littéraire de Montréal 上市。
·一七七九年：法語報紙 La Gazette Littéraire de Montréal 創辦人 Fleury Mesplet 因此被捕入獄。
·一七九○年：成立Société des patriots de Montréal。
·一七九一年：成立Société des débats libres de Montréal。
·一七九一年：英國為魁北克省立新憲 (The Constitutional Act)，以渥太華河 (Ottawa River) 為分界，西邊成上加拿大，東邊成為下加拿大 (Upper Canada and Lower Canada)，這兩個英屬殖民地擁有民選議會，但是立法及行政官員均為官方指派而非民選。
·一七九二年：首次以憲法為據舉行選舉，英語者 (Anglophones) 與法語者 (Francophones) 在首期議會為語言問題爭論。
·一八四一年：在團結法案下 (Act of Union)，下加拿大與上加拿大合併，並在正式憲法的條文上捨棄法文。
·一八四九年：鼓吹加拿大與美國合併的公開宣言 (Annexation Manifesto) 在蒙特簍報刊登。
·一八六七年：英國政府認可不列顛北美法案 (The British North America Act)，成立加拿大國(Dominion of Canada)，由四個殖民省(Ontario、Québec、Nova Scotia、New Brunswick)所組成，魁北克省人口佔全境三分之一。明定加拿大國為英、法雙語國家。
·一九五○年至一九六六年：獨立或分離運動取代合併運動而興起。1958年Alliance Laurentienne 宣言公諸於世，在1960年間陸續成立Rassemblement pour l’indépendence nationale (RIN) 以及Action socialiste pour l’indépendence du Québec (ASIQ)。 魁北克省政府在此期間進行「無聲革命」(Quiet Revolution)，接管釵h教育及社會政策，結束天主教會掌控局面。
· 一九六七年至一九九五年：自決自治運動 (Sovereignist Movement) 開始逐漸取代獨立或分離運動。
·一九六八年：魁北克黨 (Parti Québécois) 成立，以爭取魁北克脫離加拿大而獨立。 RIN為不分散主張分離者票源而正式解散
·一九七六年：魁北克黨在選舉中獲勝而首度執政，由勒維克 (René Levesque)出任魁省省長。
·一九七七年︰魁北克黨通過法語法案Bill 101 (The Charter of French Language) 以及178 Act，制定境內全面使用法文，並強制商業招牌不準使用英文。
·一九八○年：勒維克提出「主權聯繫」計畫，主張魁北克獨立但仍與加拿大維持密切關係，魁北克針對此計畫舉行公投 (First Referendum on sovereignty – association)，反對者以60%之得票率勝過支持獨立的40%得票率。
·一九九○年：簽訂政治性改革的協定密奇湖協定(Meech Lake Accord, 1987)來承認魁北克為「明顯的異社群」(Distinct Society) ，但並未獲得議會簽署通過。
·一九九二年：加拿大舉行全國公投 ( Charlottetown referendum on constitutional reforms)，大多數人反對修憲，英語系選民認為讓步太多，法語系選民則認為該憲政改革太少。
·一九九四年：魁北克黨由黨魁巴希佐 (Premier Parizeau)領導。
在這裡要特別提出來的是1995年的公投所設定之問題 (請參考註腳4)。在這問題上投贊同的一方式是支持經濟與政治下的夥伴關係機制。問題中所提的自治法案宣言 (the Bill) 如下:
“We, the people of Quebec, declare it is our will to be in full possession of all the powers of a State: to vote all our laws, to levy all our taxes, to sign all our treaties and to exercise the highest power of all, conceiving, and controlling, by ourselves, our fundamental law.”
從以上簡史我們可以看出法裔魁北克區人士的民族運動 (Quebec Nationalist Movement Period) 所提出的自決大約經過了激烈保衛運動 (The Patriots Movement Period) 時期、合併主義 (Annexionist Movement) 時期、獨立自主時期 (Autonomists’ Independence Movement Period)、到自治運動時期 (Sovereignist Movement)。這整個經過最早是從民族主義的保衛戰以及經濟考量下而尋求分離，但最後在經濟考量外加入語言與文化等社會政治目標而產生的獨立自治但保持關聯 (sovereignty with association) 公民投票自決訴求，而這部分可從1995年的公投問題看出端倪。
在這整個過程中語言與文化等社會因素被納入為經濟政治的自決論戰範疇，並依國際法的保障舉行全民公投。至於為何兩次公投都些微比數落敗，原因不外為程度上的差別，從完全獨立 (佔關鍵性的少數) 到獨立但合作 (多數法裔人士支持) 的光譜上尚未完全整合，另一個關鍵則因非法語系新移民 (例如華裔及西裔)也漸漸移民進入魁北克區，讓原本以保護法語與經濟文化的公投自決自治之訴求成為英裔人士反擊為排外的政治訴求。最後，不容忽視的是魁北克尋求自決自治人士對於境內原住民族的態度成為另外一個關鍵。
原住民族運動基本上反映了侵略與壓迫下的集體運動，而這集體運動可以不同型態產生，但通常都脫離不了外來殖民者對土地與資源的掠奪，以及文化霸權下的同化後所帶來的壓迫，包括語言文化傳統知識與制度等等 (Wilmer，1993; 林淑雅，2000)。在這裡，原住民族集體運動通常同樣是用自決權來表達自治的訴求 (Young，1990: 181-183; Wilmer，1993; Sanders，1991 ) 。但是，同樣是以自決權的保障而提出自治的加拿大原住民族並未被魁北克分離派人士所支持。
簡略的一提，魁北克省的哈德遜灣 (Hudson Bay) 與詹姆士灣 (James Bay)正是巨鯨河 (Great Whale) 的交匯處，而此地正是克雷人 (Gree) 與因紐人 (Inuit) 的家鄉。當魁北克省想利用此地興建一座跨國投資的水力發電水庫時，完全沒有照會克雷族人與因紐族人，因而引發一場因經濟開發與傳統土地被掠奪的殖民與反殖民抗爭。雖然到了1975年時兩原住民族獲的魁北克省法院的土地擁有權聲明知協議宣判，但是魁北克省打著搶救經濟求自治但對當地原住民族的殖民統治所造成的雙重標準與對立卻已造成，而得不到信任與支持 (Cohen, 1994: 39-48)。 很有趣的是，雙方都持反對經濟殖民主義。我們可以提出解釋，認為魁北克的原住民族為保護大地資源及永續經營概念而要求自決與自治，這與主張大量開發以振經濟的魁北克分離派的自治人士理念背道而馳。
本文在稍早提出魁北克區人士的民族運動有著強烈的經濟誘因。魁北克主張分離自治人士長期以來已受壓迫者心態自居，認為魁北克省的經濟不振完全是歸咎於加拿大聯邦 (一般是認為聯邦是以英裔為主) 將魁北克視為殖民省，因此以行使經濟自決權會在集體認同號召下為魁北克人脫離貧窮。當然，魁北克人深知控制資源所在地的基本原則，所以一方面訴求不受聯邦管轄，用壟斷資源來振興經濟。另一方面，魁北克主張經濟開發人士則要與和土地資源密不可分的第一民族進行談判。總之，第一民族原住民不願妥協在經濟開發下所可能帶來的生態破壞。原住民跟土地之間的情結是相互依賴的，原住民被外來族群的壓迫不僅土地掠奪，在文化的霸權下更是用主流知識價值體系進行結構性的暴力。
姑且不去評斷魁北克分離派人士的民族自決權使用的正當性，它總是依據國際法的保障下實施的。但是值得我們來看的是經濟下的訴求後所產生的特殊認同 (語言與文化的同質性) 將自決訴求不論是分離獨立或分離但保持夥伴關係的自治權而言，都提升到與民族尊嚴與保有傳統語言文化的相關層次。
讓我們來看聯合國成立後所制定的《國際人權法典》( International Bill of Human Rights ) ，它是由《世界人權宣言》(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)、《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966)、《經濟、社會和文化權利國際公約》(Economic、Social and Cultural Rights, 1966)三個國際公約所合成，用以落實推展與履行憲章的人權條款與任務。但是在聯合國憲章強調自決權、經濟與社會發展、公平正義的國際秩序等，均不能以戰爭或武力的方式而不正當取得。這也是魁北克分離派人士在經過兩次公投後，仍計劃以此方式訴求其自治權的行使早日實現。
談完加拿大的魁北克例子，讓我們把原住民族的運動帶回來到台灣的時空下檢視。汪明輝註9的文章台灣原住民族運動的回顧與展望為台灣的原住民族運動做了一個很重要的整理。另外高德義 (2001)、施正鋒 ( 1998、2000、2001、2002、2003)、布興‧大立 (2001)等人也就台灣的原住民族從自決權當中做自治探討或參與立法。
如果我們說台灣的獨立建國運動註10應該是一種對外的自決手段，那麼台灣的自決權似乎停留在呼喊口號後的疲乏階段。舉一個最近的例子，雲程 (2004) 發表於海洋電子報的文章提及:
美國國務卿鮑爾在數週前接受媒體訪問，面對記者的問題：「台灣不斷說自己不需要宣佈獨立，因為台灣已經是擁有主權的獨立國家，而且有約 26 個國家的承認，那是很多國家 …… 」時，鮑爾回答：「 ( 台灣 ) 可以宣布類似聲明，但我們的政策很明確。台灣並未獨立。它並未享有如同國家般的主權，而這仍舊是我們的政策，一個堅實的政策。」
我們可以從另一個觀點，也就是就對外自決的觀點來看這樣的一個議題。其實，鮑爾的「台灣並未獨立」說其實也沒有錯。在阿扁執政後釵h具有獨立建國的人或多或少 (自願或不太甘願的自慰式想法) 都接受了台灣中華民國是擁有主權的獨立國家的論調，這種轉變或多或少會沖垮一些數十年來為獨立建國者的能量與動力。
其實在獨立建國運動與原住民族自決自治的路上，台灣的狀況除了可用魁北克分離派人士與原住民族的經濟開發與永續經營的對立外，還可加入典型的馬克思論述下的同等被壓迫群中 (尋求自決的雙方陣營) 的中產階級(獨派人士) 聯合資本家 (既有權利者或舊有體制)，去壓迫更低階級的工人 (原住民族) 。
註1 本文為台灣國際研究學會所舉辦所舉辦的「瞭解當代加拿大政治學術研討會」(2004/11/06)所撰寫之草稿，歡迎提供建設性批評與建議。本稿非經作者野i請勿自行引用及轉載。 註2 人權研究法學家Donnelly (1985, 1989) 認為民族權 (Peoples’ Rights) 並非人權 (Human Rights)。Donnelly 批判法國法學家Vasak所提出的民族權是集體權之概念，認為集體權 (Collective Rights) 與團體權 (Group Rights) 不同，並應與人權分開來看。本文的研究將集體權與團體權均視為集體人權 (Collective Human Rights) 所探討的範疇，多位學者的論述會於本文內稍加介紹。 註3 一般漢文版本翻譯成「人民」，本文用「民族」，因為英文的「peoples」指一群享有共同宗教、文化、語言、或與生繼承的特殊習性之集合體。 註4 李明峻的從國際法觀點看公民投票問題一文以提及「目前我國所使用公民投票一詞的意涵來看，在層次上大約是包括人民投票（plebiscite）、國民投票（referendum）和住民投票三個概念。」，並認為公民投票（plebiscite）是決定國家前途的，「通常是在有主權爭議或獨立問題的國家與地區實施。如北愛爾蘭、加拿大魁北克、法屬密克羅尼西亞等地，為了釐清主權爭議或決定是否獨立，或是對基本政治的體制做一裁決，則行使此種公民投票，以為定奪。」
(http://taup.yam.org.tw/announce/9712/c008.htm) (2004/10/26)。本文使用Referendum 談加拿大魁北克例子，基於所有正式文件均使用Referendum一詞，而且其屬性目前為本文內將會提到的對內自決概念。 註5 本文索引用的資料大多取自Independence of Quebéc 的網站下的英語資料 (History of our movements – resources Center for the English –Speaking World)。 註6 在此特別特出這一點是因為旗幟的認同凝聚雖僅具象徵性，但往往在運動上佔有重要地位。在修定此稿時正逢陳水扁總統昨日(1004/11/21) 提出中國國民黨應於三個月內修黨徽，否則將於立委選舉後立法修國徽法以避免黨國不分的困擾。這是執政黨放出訊息要中華民國 / 台灣退去中國國民黨色彩的一個做法，但更重要的是要凝聚對認同台灣主權意識的人士之宣示。 註7 The referendum question: “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new Economic and Political Partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June, 1995?” 註8 1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? 2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? 3. In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada? 註9 著作日期不詳。http://www.geo.ntnu.edu.tw/faculty/tibu/ (2004/11/01) 註10 若就台灣獨立建國聯盟的立場而言，早期的獨立運動是要獨立於蔣介石所代表的中國 / 中國國民黨法統，而現階段的獨立應是脫離中華民國的陰影，並致力建立屬於認同台灣的人之國族。也就是說，獨立與建國均尚未真正完成。 註11 研究法律及政治的學者專家對台灣主權論點通常是提及台灣有實質主權，沒有法理主權。但是無論如何，台灣並沒有享有完全與完整的一個正常國家主權是不容置疑的。
布興‧大立。2001。<原住民族需要什麼樣的自治?> 收於野@楷等編《原住民族人權與自治》，頁41-56，台北: 前衛。
李憲榮。2002。<加拿大的英法雙語政策> 收於施政鋒編《各國語言政策》，頁3-50，台北: 前衛。
施正鋒。1998。《族群與民族主義 – 集體認同的政治分析》，台北: 前衛。
_______。2001。<原住民自治與台灣前途> 收於野@楷等編《原住民族人權與自治》，頁81-96，台北: 前衛。
高德義。2001。<當前原住民實施自治的問題點> 收於野@楷等編《原住民族人權與自治》，頁67-80，台北: 前衛。
Cohen, Barri. (1994) “Technological Colonialism and the Politics of Water” in Cultural Studies 8 (1): 32-55.
Donnelly, Jack. (1985) The Concept of Human Rights. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
____________. (1989) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dunayevskaya, Raya. (1991) Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy of Revolution. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Felice, William. (1996) Taking Suffering Seriously: The Importance of Collective Human Rights. New York: State University of New York Press.
Hannum, Hurst. (1996) “Rethinking Self-Determination” in International Human Rights in Context: Law / Politics / Morals. Henry Steiner and Philip Alston ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
History of the Quebec Nationalist Movement. http://english.republiquelibre.org/. (10/12/2004)
Matarasso, Leo. (1989) “Relations between Rights of Peoples and Human Rughts.” UNESCO. SHS-89 / CONF. 602/5.
Sanders, Douglas. (1991) “Collective Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 13 (1991) 368-386.
Senese, Salvatore. (1989) “The Law for the Rights of Peoples: A Difficult Search for the Construction of a New Universality.” Cahiers 7.
Stapleton, Julia. ed. (1995) Group Rights – Perspectives Since 1900. England: Thoemmes Press.
Vasak, Karel. (1982) “Human Rights as a Legal Reality.” in The International Dimensions of Human Rights. Karel Vasak ed. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Wilmer, Franke. (1993) The Indigenous Voice in World Politics. New York: Sage.
Young, Iris Marion. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960
The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence, A ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,
Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non- Self- Governing Territories, Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,
Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,
Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,
Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,
Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory, Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
And to this end Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples
Algiers, 4 July 1976
We live at a time of great hopes and deep despair; a time of conflicts and contradictions; a time when liberation struggle have succeeded in arousing the peoples of the world against the domestic and international structures of imperialism and in overturning colonial systems; a time of struggle and victory in which new ideals of justice among and within nations have been adopted; a time when the General Assembly of the United Nations has given increasing expression, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Charter on the Economic and Social Rights and Duties of States, to the quest for a new international, political and economic order.
But this is also a time of frustration and defeat, as new forms of imperialism evolve to oppress and exploit the peoples of the world. Imperialism, using vicious methods, with the complicity of governments that it has itself often installed, continues to dominate a part of the world. Through direct or indirect intervention, through multinational enterprises, through manipulation of corrupt local politicians, with the assistance of military regimes based on police repression, torture and physical extermination of opponents, through a set of practices that has become known as neo-colonialism, imperialism extends its stranglehold over many peoples.
Aware of expressing the aspirations of our era, we met in Algiers to proclaim that all the peoples of the world have an equal right to liberty, the right to free themselves from any foreign interference and to choose their own government, the right if they are under subjection, to fight for their liberation and the right to benefit from other peoples’ assistance in their struggle. Convinced that the effective respect for human rights necessarily implies respect for the rights of the peoples, we have adopted the Universal Declaration for the Rights of Peoples.
May all those who, throughout the world, are fighting the great battle, at times through armed struggle, for the freedom of all peoples, find in this Declaration the assurance of the legitimacy of their struggle.
Section I. Right to Existence
Every people has the right to existence.
Every people has the right to the respect of its national and cultural identity.
Every people has the right to retain peaceful possession of its territory and to return to it if it is expelled.
None shall be subjected, because of his national or cultural identity, to massacre, torture, persecution, deportation, expulsion or living conditions such as may compromise the identity or integrity of the people to which belongs. Section II. Right to Political Self-determination
Every people has an imprescriptible and unalienable right to self-determination. It shall determine its political status freely and without any foreign interference.
Every people has the right to break free from any colonial or foreign domination, whether direct or indirect, and from any racist regime.
Every people has the right to have democratic government representing all the citizens without distinction as race, sex, belief or colour, and capable of ensuring effective respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Section III: Economic Rights of Peoples
Every people has an exclusive right over its natural wealth and resources. It has the right to recover them if they have been despoiled, as well as any unjustly paid indemnities.
Scientific and technical progress being part of the common heritage of mankind, every people has the right to participate in it.
Every people has the right to a fair evaluation of its labour and to equal and just terms in international trade.
Every people has the right to choose its own economic and social system and pursue its own path to economic development freely and without any foreign interference.
The economic rights set forth shall be exercised in a spirit of solidarity amongst the peoples of the world and with due regard for their respective interests.
Section IV. Right to Culture
Every people has the right to speak its own language and preserve and develop its own culture, thereby contributing to the enrichment of the culture of mankind.
Every people has the right to its artistic, historical and cultural wealth.
Every people has the right not to have an alien culture imposed upon it. Section V. Right to Environment and Common Resources
Every people has the right to the conservation, protection and improvement of its environment.
Every people has the right to make use of the common heritage of mankind, such as the high seas, the sea-bed, and outer space.
In the exercise of the preceding rights every people shall take account of the necessity for coordinating the requirements of its economic development with solidarity amongst all the peoples of the world. Section VI. Rights of Minorities
When a people constitutes a minority within a State it has the right to respect for its identity, traditions, language and cultural heritage.
The members of a minority shall enjoy without discrimination the same rights as the other citizens of the State and shall participate on an equal footing with them in public life.
These rights shall be exercised with due respect for the legitimate interests of the community as a whole and cannot authorise impairing the territorial integrity and political unity of State, provided the State acts in accordance with all the principles set forth in this Declaration. Section VII. Guarantees and Sanctions
Any disregard for the provisions of this Declaration constitutes a breach of obligations towards the international community as a whole.
Any prejudice resulting from disregard for this Declaration must be totally compensated by whoever caused it.
Article 24 Any enrichment to the detriment of the people in violation of the provision of this Declaration shall give rise to the restitution of profits thus obtained. The same shall be applied to all excessive profits on investments of foreign origin.
Any equal treaties, agreements or contracts concluded in disregard of the fundamental rights of peoples shall have no effect.
External financial charges which become excessive and unbearable for people shall cease to be due.
Article 27 The gravest violations of the fundamental rights of the peoples, especially of their right to existence, constitute international crimes for which their perpetrators shall carry personal penal liberty.
Any people whose fundamental rights are seriously disregarded has the right to enforce them, specially by political or trade union struggle and even, in the last resort by the use the force.
Liberation movements shall have access to international organisations and their combatants are entitled to the protection of the humanitarian law of war.
The re-establishment of the fundamental rights of peoples, when they are seriously disregarded, is a duty incumbent upon all members of the international community.
Montreal Gazette October 11, 1849
Montreal Annexation Manifesto
To the People of Canada.
The number and magnitude of the evils that afflict our country, and the universal and increasing depression of its material interests, call upon all persons animated by a sincere desire for its welfare to combine for the purposes of inquiry and preparation with a view to the adoption of such remedies as a mature and dispassionate investigation may suggest.
Belonging to all parties, origins and creeds, but yet agreed upon the advantage of co-operation for the performance of a common duty to ourselves and our country, growing out of a common necessity, we have consented, in view of a brighter and happier future, to merge in oblivion all past differences of whatever character, or attributable to whatever source. In appealing to our fellow-colonists to unite with us in this our most needful duty, we solemnly conjure them, as they desire a successful issue and the welfare of their country, to enter upon the task at this momentous crisis in the same fraternal spirit.
The reversal of the ancient policy of Great Britain, whereby she withdrew from the colonies their wonted protection in her markets, has produced the most disastrous effects upon Canada. In surveying the actual condition of the country, what but ruin or rapid decay meets the eye I Our provincial government and civic corporations, embarrassed; our banking and other securities greatly depreciated; our mercantile and agricultural interests alike unprosperous; real estate scarcely saleable upon any terms; our unrivalled rivers, lakes and canals almost unused; whilst commerce abandons our shores; the circulating capital amassed under a more favourable system is dissipated with none from any quarter to replace it. Thus, without available capital, unable to effect a loan with foreign states, or with the Mother Country, although offering security greatly superior to that which readily obtains money both from the United States and Great Britain, when other colonists are the applicants; – crippled, therefore, and checked in the full career of private and public enterprise, this possession of the British Crown – our country – stands before the world in humiliating contrast with its immediate neighbours, exhibiting every symptom of a nation fast sinking to decay.
With superabundant water power and cheap labour, especially in Lower Canada, we have yet no domestic manufactures; nor can the most sanguine, unless under altered circumstances, anticipate the home growth, or advent from foreign parts, of either capital or enterprise to embark in this great source of national wealth. Our institutions, unhappily, have not that impress of permanence which can alone impart security and inspire confidence, and the Canadian market is too limited to tempt the foreign capitalist.
Whilst the adjoining States are covered with a network of thriving railways, Canada possesses but three lines, which, together, scarcely exceed 50 miles in length, and the stock in two of which is held at a depreciation of from 50 to 8o per cent-a fatal symptom of the torpor overspreading the land.
Our present form of provincial government is cumbrous and so expensive as to be ill suited to the circumstances of the country; and the necessary reference it demands to a distant government, imperfectly acquainted with Canadian affairs, and somewhat indifferent to our interests, is anomalous and irksome. Yet, in the event of a rupture between two of the most powerful nations of the world, Canada would become the battlefield and the sufferer, however little her interests might be involved in the cause of quarrel or the issue of the contest.
The bitter animosities of political parties and factions in Canada, often leading to violence, and, upon one occasion, to civil war, seem not to have abated with time; nor is there, at the present moment, any prospect of diminution or accommodation. The aspect of parties becomes daily more threatening towards each other, and under our existing institutions and relations, little hope is discernible of a peaceful and prosperous administration of our affairs, but difficulties will, to all appearance, accumulate until government becomes impracticable. In this view of our position, any course that may promise to efface existing party distinctions and place entirely new issues before the people, must be fraught with undeniable advantages.
Among the statesmen of the Mother Country – among the sagacious observers of the neighbouring Republic – in Canada – and in all British North America – amongst all classes there is a strong pervading conviction that a political revolution in this country is at hand. Such forebodings cannot readily be dispelled, and they have, moreover, a tendency to realise the events to which they point. In the meanwhile, serious injury results to Canada from the effect of this anticipation upon the more desirable class of settlers, who naturally prefer a country under fixed and permanent forms of government to one in a state of transition.
Having thus adverted to some of the causes of our present evils, we would consider how far the remedies ordinarily proposed possess sound and rational inducement to justify their adoption:
1. “The revival of protection in the markets of the United Kingdom.” This, if attainable in a sufficient degree, and guaranteed for a long period of years, would ameliorate the condition of many of our chief interests, but the policy of the empire forbids the anticipation. Besides, it would be but a partial remedy. The millions of the Mother Country demand cheap food; and a second change from protection to free trade would complete that ruin which the first has done much to achieve.
2. “The protection of home manufactures.”
Although this might encourage the growth of a manufacturing interest in Canada, yet, without access to the United States market, there would not be a sufficient expansion of that interest, from the want of customers, to work any result that could be admitted as a “remedy” for the numerous evils of which we complain.
3. “A federal union of the British American provinces.”
The advantages claimed for that arrangement are free trade between the different provinces, and a diminished governmental expenditure. The attainment of the latter object would be problematical, and the benefits anticipated from the former might be secured by legislation under our existing system. The markets of the sister provinces would not benefit our trade in timber, for they have a surplus of that article in their own forests; and their demand for agricultural products would be too limited to absorb our means of supply. Nor could Canada expect any encouragement to her manufacturing industry from those quarters. A federal union, therefore, would be no remedy.
4. “The independence of the British North American colonies as a federal republic.”
The consolidation of its new institutions from elements hitherto so discordant-the formation of treaties with foreign powers – the acquirement of a name and character among the nations – would, we fear, prove an over-match for the strength of the new republic. And, having regard to the powerful confederacy of states conterminous with itself, the needful military defences would be too costly to render independence a boon, whilst it would not, any more than a federal union, remove those obstacles which retard our material prosperity.
5. “Reciprocal free trade with the United States, as respects the products of the farm, the forest, and the mine.”
If obtained, this would yield but an installment of the many advantages which might be otherwise secured. The free interchange of such products would not introduce manufactures to our country. It would not give us the North American continent for our market. It would neither so amend our institutions as to confer stability nor ensure confidence in their permanence nor would it allay the violence of parties, or, in the slightest degree, remedy many of our prominent evils.
6. Of all the remedies that have been suggested for the acknowledged and insufferable ills with which our country is afflicted, there remains but one to be considered. It propounds a sweeping and important change in our political and social condition involving considerations which demand our most serious examination. THIS REMEDY CONSISTS IN A FRIENDLY AND PEACEFUL SEPARATION FROM BRITISH CONNECTION AND A UNION UPON EQUITABLE TERMS WITH THE GREAT NORTH AMERICAN CONFEDERACY OF SOVEREIGN STATES. We would premise that towards Great Britain we entertain none other than sentiments of kindness and respect. Without her consent we consider separation as neither practicable nor desirable. But the colonial policy of the parent state, the avowals of her leading statesmen, and public sentiments of the Empire, present unmistakable and significant indications of the appreciation of colonial connection. That it is the resolve of England to invest us with the attributes and compel us to assume the burdens of independence is no longer problematical. The threatened withdrawal of her troops from other colonies – the continuance of her military protection to ourselves only on the condition that we shall defray the attendant expenditure, betoken intentions towards our country, against which it is weakness in us not to provide. An overruling conviction, then, of its necessity, and a high sense of the duty we owe to our country, a duty we can neither disregard nor postpone, impel us to entertain the idea of separation; and whatever negotiations may eventuate with Great Britain, a grateful liberality on the part of Canada should mark every proceeding.
The proposed union would render Canada a field for American capital, into which it would enter as freely for the prosecution of public works and private enterprise as into any of the present states. It would equalize the value of real estate upon both sides of the boundary, thereby probably doubling at once the entire present value of property in Canada, whilst, by giving stability to our institutions, and introducing prosperity, it would raise our public corporate and private credit. It would increase our commerce, both with the United States and foreign countries, and would not necessarily diminish to any great extent our intercourse with Great Britain, into which our pro ducts would for the most part enter on the same terms as at present. It would render our rivers and canals the highway for the immigration to, and exports from, the West, to the incalculable benefit of our country. It would also introduce manufactures into Canada as rapidly as they have been introduced into the northern states; and to Lower Canada, especially, where water privileges and labour are abundant and cheap, it would attract manufacturing capital, enhancing the value of property and agricultural produce, and giving remunerative employment to what is at present a comparatively non-producing population. Nor would the United States merely furnish the capital for our manufactures. They would also supply for them the most extensive market in the world, without the intervention of a custom house officer. Railways would forthwith be constricted by American capital as feeders for all the great lines now approaching our frontiers; and railway enterprise in general would doubtless be as active and prosperous among us as among our neighbours. The value of our agricultural produce would be raised at once to a par with that of the United States, whilst agricultural implements and many of the necessities of life, such as tea, coffee and sugar, would be greatly reduced in price.
The value of our timber would also be greatly enhanced by free access to the American market, where it bears a high price, but is subject to an onerous duty. At the same time, there is every season to believe that our shipbuilders, as well at Quebec as on the Great Lakes, would find an unlimited market in all the ports of the American continent. It cannot be doubted that the shipping trade of the United States must greatly increase. It is equally manifest that, with them, the principal material in the construction of ships is rapidly diminishing, while we possess vast territories, covered with timber of excellent quality, which would be equally available as it is now, since under the free trade system our vessels would sell as well in England after annexation as before.
The simple and economical state government, in which direct responsibility to the people is a distinguishing feature, would be substituted for a system, at once cumbrous and expensive.
In place of war and alarms of war with a neighbour, there would be peace and amity between this country and the United States. Disagreements between the United States and her chief if not only rival among nations would not make the soil of Canada the sanguinary arena for their disputes, as under our existing relations must necessarily be the case. That such is the unenviable condition of our state of dependence upon Great Britain is known to the whole world, and how far it may conduce to keep prudent capitalists from making investments in the country, or wealthy settlers from selecting a fore-doomed battle-field for the home of themselves and their children, it needs no reasoning on our part to elucidate.
But other advantages than those having a bearing on our material interests may be foretold. It would change the ground of political contest between races and parties, allay and obliterate those irritations and conflicts of rancour and recrimination which have hitherto disfigured our social fabric. Already in anticipation has its harmonious influence been felt – the harbinger may it be hoped of a lasting oblivion of dissensions among all classes, creeds and parties in the country. Changing a subordinate for an independent condition, we would take our station among the nations of the earth. We have now, no voice in the affairs of the Empire, nor do we share in its honours or emoluments. England is our parent state, with whom we have no equality, but towards whom we stand in the simple relation of obedience. But as citizens of the United States the public services of the nation would be open to us,-a field for high and honourable distinction on which we and our posterity might enter on terms of perfect equality.
Nor would the amicable separation of Canada from Great Britain be fraught with advantages to us alone. The relief to the parent state from the large expenditure now incurred in the military occupation of the country, – the removal of the many causes of collision with the United States, which result from the contiguity of mutual territories so extensive, – the benefit of the larger market which the increasing prosperity of Canada would create, are considerations which, in the minds of many of her ablest statesmen, render our incorporation with the United States a desirable consummation.
To the United States also the annexation of Canada presents many important inducements. The withdrawal from their borders, of so powerful a nation, by whom in time of war the immense and growing commerce of the lakes would be jeopardized – the ability to dispense with the costly but ineffectual revenue establishment over a frontier of many hundred miles – the large accession to their income from our customs – the unrestricted use of the St. Lawrence, the natural highway from the western states to the ocean, are objects for the attainment of which the most substantial equivalents would undoubtedly be conceded.
Fellow-Colonists, We have thus laid before you our views and convictions on a momentous question-involving a change, which, though contemplated by many of us with varied feelings and emotions, we all believe to be inevitable; one of which it is our duty to provide for, and lawfully to promote.
We address you without prejudice or partiality,- in the spirit of sincerity and truth-in the interest solely of our common country,-and our single aim is its safety and welfare. If to your judgment and reason our object and aim be at this time deemed laudable and right, we ask an oblivion of past dissensions; and from all, without distinction of origin, party, or creed, that earnest and cordial cooperation in such lawful, prudent, and judicious means as may best conduct us to our common destiny.
John Torrance Jacob De Witt, M.P.P. J. Redpath John Molson David Torrance William Workman D. L. Macpherson L.H.Holton Benj. Holmes John Rose, Q.C. Edward Goff Penny William Molson D.Lorn Macdougall Benj. Workrnan J.W.Torrance Peter Redpath James Torrance (and 308 other signatories)