Jubilant Juba

The new State of South Sudan came into existence on 9 July 2011. Independence of Southern Sudan, with Juba as its capital, is the consequence of a self determination referendum that was outlined in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 and signed between the Government of Sudan and the South Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM) representing Southern Sudan. Apart from ending the civil war between North and South Sudan, the CPA provided for Interim National Constitution, Government of National Unity, transition period of seven years, defacto autonomy for South Sudan, incorporated agreements on boundaries, security, and revenue sharing from oil fields in the South. The referendum was conducted in January 2011 in which vast majority of people voted to secede from North Sudan. This brings to the fore significant issues for international law and governance - implications of South Sudan on the right of secession of States under international law; other problems that concerns at the present time is the way Juba manages its boundaries, and conflicts within the region. Juba will have to find a solution to these issues if South Sudan should be secure and prosper. Unless the complementary nature of peace, justice and development is not realized, it is difficult to make progress.

Was it legal for South Sudan to secede from Sudan? Historically secession has been the usual method of State creation particularly in the cases of decolonization. Eminent international law professor James Crawford in his highly acclaimed book “The Creation of States in International Law” lays down the usually accepted viewpoint of international law on secession. He observed that ‘secession is neither legal nor illegal in international law, but a legally neutral act the consequences of which are, or may be regulated internationally’. New problems thrown up by contemporary developments in international law contributed to ambiguity over legality of secession. Of relevance here is the opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. On July 22, 2010, the Court rendered its nonbinding opinion on the question that was posed to the Court by the General Assembly. The question was as follows: Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the provisional institutions of self-government in Kosovo in compliance with international law? The opinion expressed by the Court was in a way narrow in scope. It held that there was no rule of international law prohibiting the declaration of independence and that in the circumstances Kosovo’s unilateral declaration was not in violation of international law. The World Court, however, gave its ruling on the legality of the unilateral declaration and unequivocally refrained from ruling on the legality of secession itself. ‘In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination, which has, in turn, led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states’, says Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Although the legal basis for secession is based upon the UN principle of right of self determination, it neither prescribes modalities for making decisions nor would guide the nature of outcome of the envisaged process of secession. In the conduct of international relations, it could be argued that a nation’s history, ideologies and expectations become the source to conceptualize claims of legality and intent of State secession.

It will have to be seen if South Sudan is considered a onetime exception or would set a precedent for secession movements across the world. Amongst other things the African continent is besieged with tensions of disputed boundaries and claims for self determination. Conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, civil war in Chad, violence in Nigeria are few illustrations. It is also feared that groups elsewhere in the world like for example - South Ossetia and Abhkazia will claim secession rights. Although not identical to the current situation but the recent democratic uprisings in the Arab world also have the influence to fuel the moral and material energy of secession movements.

Formation of two independent States will lead to separation of people and division of resources will lead to varied experiences and national sentiment. For now the only thing that should succeed in South Sudan is the political manifesto of the new country that could respect and promote human rights. It might be a challenge for a region embroiled in long and turbulent civil war but hope of return to peace and stability should be the supreme ideal. It should be the uniting factor of South Sudanese national sentiment. The declaration of South Sudan’s independence is an endorsement of a new era in Sudanese politics that should lead to transformation towards rule of law and international juridical norms.

Picture credit: Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images