Health Blog

Tips | Recommendations | Reviews

What Is Psda In Healthcare?

What Is Psda In Healthcare
Similar articles –

Advance directives. Torchia DM. Torchia DM. Physician Assist.1992 May;16(5):79-80, 83-4, 87. Physician Assist.1992. PMID: 10136572 Patient Self-Determination Act. Koch KA. Koch KA. J Fla Med Assoc.1992 Apr;79(4):240-3. J Fla Med Assoc.1992. PMID: 1588296 The Patient Self-Determination Act. Advance directives available to Minnesota patients. McInerney DJ Jr. McInerney DJ Jr. Minn Med.1992 Aug;75(8):27-9. Minn Med.1992. PMID: 1406526 Advance directives: implications for critical care. Silverman HJ, Vinicky JK, Gasner MR. Silverman HJ, et al. Crit Care Med.1992 Jul;20(7):1027-31. Crit Care Med.1992. PMID: 1617972 Review., Fang HF, Jhing HY, Lin CC. Fang HF, et al. Hu Li Za Zhi.2009 Feb;56(1):17-22. Hu Li Za Zhi.2009. PMID: 19221996 Review. Chinese.

What is a patient’s right to self-determination?

Abstract – The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view.

  • decision-making
  • autonomy
  • competence/incompetence
  • clinical ethics
  • paternalism

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial.

What are the principles of self-determination in nursing?

The Ethical Principle of Autonomy – Patient self-determination is based on the principle of respect for autonomy. Autonomy in health care refers to the patient’s right to “accept, refuse, or terminate treatment without deceit, undue influence, duress, coercion, or prejudice” (Code of Ethics, 2015, pg 2).

What is the California Patient Self Determination Act?

The Patient Self Determination Act (PDSA) requires certain facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to notify patients about their rights to engage in health care decision making, and the facility’s policy regarding advance directives.

What is an example of right to self-determination?

The Right of Self-determination and the Right to Freedom – I consider the origin of both the right of self-determination and the right to freedom to be the same thing. The ancient Greeks were the first to reflect most deeply on freedom. As a result, ancient Greeks considered that nothing was as important as freedom and they invented a system of society called democracy to protect their freedom.

Why did the ancient Greeks deliberate over freedom? Perhaps because they were constantly exposed to the risk of losing it. At that time there were several hundred cities (polis) in Greece and the cities were incessantly at war with one another. The city was the state for the Greeks and wars never ceased due to conflicts of state interests.

Naturally there were occasional wars with alien races but most of the fighting was among the Greeks themselves. When captured in a war, payment of a ransom would usually bring release. If unable to pay the ransom, the prisoner would be sold as a slave.

  1. Thus even a free person couldn’t tell when he might be reduced to the status of a slave.
  2. Even among slaves, their circumstances varied.
  3. In the case of Athens, ordinary families owned only one or two slaves, so many of the slaves lived with the master or his family.
  4. Some slaves were treated as members of the family by a magnanimous master.

Many slaves, however, received inhumane treatment. For example, slaves who worked at mines were forced to labor strenuously in dangerous underground shafts. But quite often a slave would supervise these mining slaves. A slave who was entrusted by the master with the management of the mine would rule over many slaves and earn a high income.

  1. To do business with the mine, even a citizen had to please the manager-slave.
  2. Athens was a commercial metropolis and also one of the centers of world trade and businesses and trades thrived there.
  3. In many cases, a slave was appointed to manage the businesses and trades.
  4. Such slaves would control many other slaves and enjoy good wages.

So more than a few slaves were richer than ordinary citizens and ruled over numerous underlings. Observing such conditions, some citizens must have thought about the difference between themselves and slaves. Even in the case of rich and somewhat powerful slaves, such privileges were given to them by their master.

When the master changed his mind or when he was angered, a slave who had been acting as a manager might suddenly find himself working in the mine shaft or be demoted to a low class laborer in business or trade. In contrast, a citizen would not have his life style dictated by another even if he was poor.

The ancient Greeks must have considered this the dissimilarity between slaves and free men. Slaves have their life style decided by their master. Citizens who can determine their own lifestyle are free men. Therefore, I believe the origins of the right of self-determination and of the right to freedom are one and the same.

The ancient Greeks, who considered having or not having the right to freedom as the difference between free men and slaves, reasoned “even the pompous governor of Egypt or Syria who reigns over tens of thousands of troops and bureaucrats is nothing but a slave of the great king of Persia.” At that time Egypt and Syria took pride in their ancient civilizations and were wealthier than the whole of Greece.

Still they were just a part of the Persian empire, then the world’s only superpower. No matter how great the wealth and power possessed by the governors, these were merely things bestowed by the great king of Persia. Once the governors aroused the dis­pleasure of the great king, their heads were immediately chopped off.

  1. Thus the ancient Greeks called people who were ruled by a dictator “king’s subjects” and despised them, because unlike the Greeks who could determine their own way of life as free men, these people were all slaves.
  2. In order for a people to determine their own way of life, it will be necessary for them to decide the laws and policies of their country by themselves.

For example, if a country declares war on another, its citizens will be obligated to serve in the armed forces. However, if a people is com­pelled to risk their lives and fight due to a decision made by someone else, then such people do not have the right of self-determination.

  • To ensure their own right of self-determination, a people must hold in their grasp the right to decide on laws and policies of their country.
  • This is why the ancient Greeks created the democratic system.
  • Because the ancient Greeks deemed freedom precious above all and were proud to be living as free men, they resisted the invasion by the superpower Persia, proclaiming “liberty or death.” The Persian War was like a war between a gigantic elephant and a mouse.

Miraculously the ancient Greeks beat back the Persian force and won the war. But for this historical event demo­cracy would have been forgotten in human history and the Europeans would not have rediscovered democracy after the Renaissance.

What is the right to self-determination of?

Image Source- https://bit.ly/2wr0vxo This article is written by Shristi Suman, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. In this article, the importance of the right to self-determination has been discussed. The right to self-determination refers to the right of an individual to determine his own destiny.

The right allows people to choose their own political status and to determine their own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence to full integration within a state. The importance of the right lies in the right of people to make a choice.

In practice, however, the possible outcome of the exercise of self-determination often determines the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a person or nation. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is a right that is recognized in international law as a right of the process belonging to people and not to states or governments.

Article I of the Charter of the United Nations explains the principle of self-determination. The principle was first incorporated under the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which subsequently evolved into the United Nations Charter, Its inclusion in the United Nations Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle of self-determination as a fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among the states.

It is a right which is recognized in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. Paragraph 1 of this Article provides that every person has the right to self-determination. What Is Psda In Healthcare It can be said that an individual has realized his right to self-determination when he either: (1) establishes a sovereign and independent state; (2) freely associates with another state; or (3) have freely integrated with another state after expressing their will to do so.

  • The definition of realization of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of Friendly Relations.
  • The right to self-determination of the people is also recognized under other international and regional instruments.
  • The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1970, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in the year 1975, the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights of 1981, the CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in the year 1990, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993 also includes the concept of the right to self-determination.

Furthermore, the scope and content of the right to self-determination have been elaborately explained by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The right to self-determination which has been included in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action emphasizes that the right to self-determination is an integral part of human rights law and it has a universal application. Click Above Whenever self-determination is involved, a confusion between political goals and basic human rights norms, humanitarian issues evolve. There is also a potential impact of self-determination that it claims to encourage violent conflict. Although it is a truism, it also needs to be reiterated that more human rights are violated during the time of wars than at any other time.

  1. If the policymakers do not come to a better understanding of how to respond to the claims for self-determination, then such claims are likely to increase.
  2. It is also possible that the number of violent conflicts increases, and if the conflicts will increase then it will have a direct impact on the entire gamut of international human rights.

At the same time, if human rights alone are concentrated upon then it is possible that all the human rights that we want to protect can be protected and violence can be curbed. By doing so it is not possible that the disputes over self-determination will disappear, but they can be resolved by the countries.

  1. If one creates a genuinely democratic rights-respecting regime, it is less likely that people will want to leave it.
  2. If, however, they do leave it, it is also more likely that any separation will occur peacefully.
  3. This approach suggests that even when self-determination is purportedly the issue, it is better to try to address denials of human rights before trying to address the denial of so-called self-determination.

As a practical matter, a nongovernmental organization or human rights activist is more likely to be able to influence a government by focusing on respect for human rights than by entering the quagmire of self-determination and secession. I think that one is also more likely to protect what we would all agree are human rights – for example, physical integrity, use of language, and protection of culture without confusing those rights with political goals.

Even if we may share some of the latter goals, it is essential to keep them distinct from the universally recognized and legally articulated provisions of international human rights law. By the virtue of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any person can freely determine his/her political status and can pursue social, cultural and economic development.

There was not much controversy when this principle was applied for the nations struggling for liberation at the time of colonial rule. After the post-war period, colonial rule had lost its morality, ethics and political legitimacy. Colonial rule handed over the independence to the colonies after violent or nonviolent protests and struggles made by the people living in the colonies for their right of self-determination.

Till the time the colonial rule was in operation, the right of self-determination was synonymous with independence. In some countries, ethnic consciousness, inequitable growth, the concentration of political power or some other grievances of the people has encouraged them to seek for the right of self-determination.

But after decolonization, the right of self-determination became controversial either through constitutional or non- constitutional means or through the support of a foreign power. In the contexts of decolonization and anti-racism movements in the twentieth century, the common aspect of human rights was the right to self-determination.

Article 1(2) of both covenants on Human Rights (1966) states that all people may freely dispose of their wealth for the benefit of International economic cooperation which is based on mutual benefit and International Law. People cannot be deprived of their own basis of profit. Every individual has a right to economic independence.

Article 1 was drafted at that time when colonial rule was prevalent and people were struggling for independence. When people became independent they realized that only political independence is not enough and economic independence is also necessary for their growth and development.

Without economic independence, political independence is of no use. Every individual has the right to exist in the real world. The right to self-determination is provided to the citizens in developing countries to achieve economic independence. The right to economic self-determination opened the gates for the national and international transformation of the developing countries both economically and socially.

Every person is entitled to have the right to economic self-determination and political self-determination. If both these self-determination rights are not given to people, then once more the colonial rule will become prevalent in the country. The economic self-determination provides the ability to the people to have the mineral resources and usage of those minerals in their hands.

  • This right has been dominated by other rights of self-determination for years.
  • Economic self-determination is now also recognized as discourse on democratization, anti-colonialism, and liberalization.
  • Self-determination consists mainly of two components i.e.
  • Participation, and identity.
  • Both Self-determination and cultural rights are exercised simultaneously.

The most neglected human rights are cultural rights in the world. It is announced by the International Court of Justice that the right to people’s self-determination is an obligation to the entire community. Cultural rights came into existence primarily for the vulnerable groups, colonized and native people.

It is for the groups whose right to self-determination is denied and suppressed by the world for several years. Any interpretation of the right to self-determination can be understood by referring to the Covenant of the League of Nations according to the peace treaties signed by the countries prior to the First World War.

There was legal protection of cultural rights by the international community. The concept was moved only when the right to self-determination of cultural rights was being treated more than a political conception and human rights had not yet entered the public domain.

The provisions made were not applicable for the entire world but it only covered Central and East Europe, and German and Ottoman territories. The International Commission of Jurists found the common object between the right to self-determination and protection of minorities. When the Cold War ended in 1989, then the exercise of the right to self-determination and the advantages of the minority population was reconsidered.

Since several new States became a part of the international community by 1989, ICJ for the first time recognized the ‘right to self-determination beyond colonialism’. In the UN Minority Declaration, it is mentioned that self-determination is also for the people who belong to the minority in order to preserve and develop their group identity.

UN Minority Declaration confirms non- discrimination and effective participation of people in both public and political life. It is also mentioned in the declaration that the aim of the right is to provide equal distribution of resources to minorities to achieve the aims of the development of their culture, language, religion, traditions, and customs.

The declaration has taken certain measures to protect the cultural rights of minorities. Self-determination is the ultimate safeguard protection of the identity of particular groups and the cultural rights of their members. The right to self-determination is a powerful tool in making human rights available in all mineral-rich countries.

The right to self-determination faded during the 1960s and 1970s because of anti-colonialism movements but now it has been again established in democratic countries and should continue to survive as it is one of the most important tools for the progress of a democratic nation. The right to self-determination is a fundamental tool for understanding human rights.

The attitude towards the right to self-determination changed rapidly after the Cold War between countries. The right to self-determination has the ability to implement and provide basic fundamental human rights to people and it also protects the natural resources of the country.

  1. It is also contended that if there would be a violation of the right to self-determination, it will also have adverse effects on other human rights and will in return diminish the people’s ability to enjoy the other basic human rights.
  2. Even after knowing the importance of the right to self-determination in one’s life, this right has still not taken its rightful place in the converse of human rights.
See also:  How To Improve Nps In Healthcare?

The right to self-determination provides alternative theoretical justifications of using the minerals of the country in which there would be very less exploitation of minerals with maximum profits. The right to self-determination has the power to take legal action against governments or international sectors who are exploiting the resources of the countries in unreasonable ways.

https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/39.2-Farmer.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329153669_The_basis_of_right_to_Self_determination https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/335882129

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: What Is Psda In Healthcare

What are 4 self-determination skills?

Developing Self-Determination Skills – The development of self-determination skills is a process that begins in childhood and continues throughout one’s life. Self-determination is important for all people, but it is especially important, and often more difficult to learn, for young people with disabilities.

  1. Well-meaning individuals sometimes “protect” children with disabilities by making all their decisions for them.
  2. Also, sometimes people assume that people with disabilities can’t think for themselves.
  3. Self-determination involves many attitudes and abilities including: self-awareness, assertiveness, creativity, and pride, and problem solving and self-advocacy skills.

To take charge of your own life, you must be able to set goals, evaluate options, make choices and then work to achieve your goals. Since self-determination skills are most effectively learned and developed by practicing them, students with disabilities should be given ample opportunity to use their self-advocacy, decision-making and socialization skills well before they leave high school to prepare themselves for working and living in their community.

What are the three pillars of self-determination?

Psychological Needs – Self-determination theory suggests that all humans have three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—that underlie growth and development.

Autonomy refers to feeling one has choice and is willingly endorsing one’s behavior. The opposite experience is feeling compelled or controlled in one’s behavior. Competence refers to the experience of mastery and being effective in one’s activity. Finally, relatedness refers to the need to feel connected and a sense of belongingness with others.

The social environment (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, health care professionals, culture, etc.) can promote or get in the way of people’s strivings by the extent to which they support a person’s basic psychological needs.

Autonomy is supported by attempting to grasp and acknowledge the person’s wishes, preferences and perspectives, conveying understanding of their point of view, providing a rationale for engaging in a behavior, and providing choice in how to behave. Supporting someone’s autonomy also means refraining from trying to control or pressure them to act in a certain way. Competence is supported by providing the person with optimal challenges and opportunities (specific goals that are challenging enough, but not overwhelming), encouraging their sense of initiation (try it out!), providing structure (for example, evidence-based health recommendations) to mobilize and organize behavior and providing relevant feedback. Finally, relatedness is supported when others are involved and show interest in the person’s activities, are empathic in responding to their feelings and convey that the person is significant, cared for, and loved.

When these needs are optimally supported, evidence suggests that people are more autonomous in their behaviors, are more likely to persist at their behaviors, and feel better overall. Here at the Center for Community Health & Prevention, our approach is focused on providing you with evidence-based information and supporting your psychological needs so that we can help you discover what works for you on your journey to making healthy changes in your life.

What is the five step model of self-determination?

The individual knowledge, skills, and beliefs that lead to self-determination are delineated according to five components: know yourself, value yourself, plan, act and experience outcomes, and learn.

What is the definition of a patient California?

2007 California Evidence Code Article 6. :: Physician-patient Privilege EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 990-1007 990. As used in this article, “physician” means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized, to practice medicine in any state or nation.991.

As used in this article, “patient” means a person who consults a physician or submits to an examination by a physician for the purpose of securing a diagnosis or preventive, palliative, or curative treatment of his physical or mental or emotional condition.992. As used in this article, “confidential communication between patient and physician” means information, including information obtained by an examination of the patient, transmitted between a patient and his physician in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the patient is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the patient in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the physician is consulted, and includes a diagnosis made and the advice given by the physician in the course of that relationship.993.

As used in this article, “holder of the privilege” means: (a) The patient when he has no guardian or conservator. (b) A guardian or conservator of the patient when the patient has a guardian or conservator. (c) The personal representative of the patient if the patient is dead.994.

Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and physician if the privilege is claimed by: (a) The holder of the privilege; (b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege; or (c) The person who was the physician at the time of the confidential communication, but such person may not claim the privilege if there is no holder of the privilege in existence or if he or she is otherwise instructed by a person authorized to permit disclosure.

The relationship of a physician and patient shall exist between a medical or podiatry corporation as defined in the Medical Practice Act and the patient to whom it renders professional services, as well as between such patients and licensed physicians and surgeons employed by such corporation to render services to such patients.

  • The word “persons” as used in this subdivision includes partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, associations, and other groups and entities.995.
  • The physician who received or made a communication subject to the privilege under this article shall claim the privilege whenever he is present when the communication is sought to be disclosed and is authorized to claim the privilege under subdivision (c) of Section 994.996.

There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by: (a) The patient; (b) Any party claiming through or under the patient; (c) Any party claiming as a beneficiary of the patient through a contract to which the patient is or was a party; or (d) The plaintiff in an action brought under Section 376 or 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure for damages for the injury or death of the patient.997.

  1. There is no privilege under this article if the services of the physician were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a tort or to escape detection or apprehension after the commission of a crime or a tort.998.
  2. There is no privilege under this article in a criminal proceeding.999.

There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the patient in a proceeding to recover damages on account of the conduct of the patient if good cause for disclosure of the communication is shown.1000.

  • There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue between parties all of whom claim through a deceased patient, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction.1001.
  • There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue of breach, by the physician or by the patient, of a duty arising out of the physician-patient relationship.1002.

There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the intention of a patient, now deceased, with respect to a deed of conveyance, will, or other writing, executed by the patient, purporting to affect an interest in property.1003.

There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the validity of a deed of conveyance, will, or other writing, executed by a patient, now deceased, purporting to affect an interest in property.1004. There is no privilege under this article in a proceeding to commit the patient or otherwise place him or his property, or both, under the control of another because of his alleged mental or physical condition.1005.

There is no privilege under this article in a proceeding brought by or on behalf of the patient to establish his competence.1006. There is no privilege under this article as to information that the physician or the patient is required to report to a public employee, or as to information required to be recorded in a public office, if such report or record is open to public inspection.1007.

There is no privilege under this article in a proceeding brought by a public entity to determine whether a right, authority, license, or privilege (including the right or privilege to be employed by the public entity or to hold a public office) should be revoked, suspended, terminated, limited, or conditioned.

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site.

What is patient abandonment in California?

Sometimes a doctor-patient relationship doesn’t work out. Maybe a patient owes payment for six months of service. Maybe they’ve become unruly or won’t comply with medical advice, or perhaps it’s as simple as your retirement and the need to close your practice.

No matter the reason for terminating the relationship, you must handle it correctly. California laws allow a physician to stop seeing a patient as long as the decision doesn’t involve discrimination or prejudice, but you’ll need to follow proper procedures. Without them, the Medical Board of California can charge you with unprofessional conduct for patient abandonment.

In such instances, you may need to hire a medical license defense attorney to protect your license. What California Law Considers Patient Abandonment California defines patient abandonment as terminating the relationship without written notice to the patient.

You end the relationship without providing a reasonable opportunity for the patient to find a new doctor You verbally express to the patient that you won’t treat them anymore but don’t follow up in writing You won’t schedule a follow-up with a non-compliant patient but you haven’t followed the legal steps for termination You won’t schedule a follow-up with a patient who owes back payments but you haven’t properly discharged them You close your practice without giving your patients notice or instructing them on how they can retrieve their medical records

If the Medical Board of California (MBC) decides that you abandoned your patient, they may put you on probation, or even suspend or revoke your license. Not only that, but the patient can sue you for medical malpractice if they feel their abandonment caused them harm.

Provide written notice of the termination date Give the patient at least 15 days to get emergency treatment and medication Provide written recommendations of other practices where the patient may seek care Instruct the patient of specific steps they need to take to obtain their medical records

If you have written proof that you did everything possible for that patient to find adequate medical elsewhere, any claim they may file against you isn’t likely to hold. What to Do If You’re Contacted By a Medical Board Investigator If you receive a letter or call from a Board Investigator, assume there was a complaint filed against you.

Don’t offer them information without your lawyer present. No matter how friendly they may seem, remember that their job is finding evidence to use against you.  To have the best chance of beating a patient abandonment allegation, contact an attorney as soon as you get that first phone call or letter.

With legal assistance, you may be able to resolve the issue at the interview stage. A lawyer will advocate that they close the complaint in a manner that allows you to keep your license. When you make the uncomfortable decision to terminate your relationship with a patient, be careful and follow legal procedures to avoid allegations of unprofessional conduct.

What is the California patient privacy law?

The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) is a state law that adds to the federal protection of personal medical records under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). CMIA protects the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information obtained by a health care provider and includes the following:

CMIA prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient, enrollee, or subscriber without first obtaining an authorization, except as specified. CMIA requires a health care provider, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor who creates, maintains, preserves, stores, abandons, destroys, or disposes of medical records to do so in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the information contained within those records. CMIA defines “medical information” to mean any individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor regarding a patient’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment. “Individually identifiable” means that the medical information includes or contains any element of personal identifying information sufficient to allow identification of the individual, such as the patient’s name, address, electronic mail address, telephone number, or social security number, or other information that reveals the individual’s identity. Any individual may bring an action against any person or entity that has negligently released confidential information or records, for either or both nominal damages of $1,000 and the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the patient. It shall not be necessary to prove that the plaintiff suffered or was threatened with actual damages to recovery nominal damages. Any person or entity who knowingly and willfully obtains, discloses, or uses medical information in violation of CMIA shall be liable for an administrative fine not to exceed $2,500 per violation.*

* https://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_439_bill_20120922_chaptered.html CMIA Loopholes _ Read more:

Your Medical Privacy Rights Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) 2013 HIPAA Omnibus Rule Who Must Comply With HIPAA Privacy Rules? Concerns With HIPAA How to Submit a Medical Privacy Complaint

What is an important characteristics of the right to self-determination?

Legal Aspects of Self-Determination Introduction / Definition Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external. Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference. External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state.

However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination. In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the 1960s was interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose.

Ethnic or other distinct groups within colonies did not have a right to separate themselves from the “people” of the territory as a whole. Today, the right of groups to govern themselves is increasingly intertwined with human rights norms, in particular the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples.

While no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law, it is possible that such a right may be accepted in the future as an exceptional measure, if a distinct group of people is systematically denied the right to participate in the government of the state or if individuals within such a group suffer systematic and gross violations of human rights that make their participation in that state impossible.

Other entries in this Encyclopedia trace the political development of the concept of self-determination and related issues. This short essay is confined to a discussion of attempts to define this elusive phrase in legal terms, through international treaties and other texts.

  1. Those looking for “the” definition of self-determination will be disappointed, for many of the texts are deliberately ambiguous or even contradictory.
  2. Nonetheless, we must ultimately try to articulate the international norm of self-determination in terms that are sufficiently precise so that it continues to be relevant in the post-colonial era.
See also:  How To Measure Kpi In Healthcare?

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous “Fourteen Points” speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term “self-determination” does not appear), he proclaimed: “Self-determination” is not a mere phrase.

It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril. Despite Wilson’s injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a “mere phrase” into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law.

In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.

The scope of the principle of self-determination was analyzed by two groups of international experts appointed by the League of Nations to examine the case of the Åland Islands, a culturally and linguistically Swedish territory that wished to reunite with its cultural motherland, Sweden, rather than remain part of the new Finnish state, which became independent of the Russian Empire in December 1917.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that lthough the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations.

The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations. The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed “a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion.” To concede to minorities, either of language or religion, or to any fractions of a population the right of withdrawing from the community to which they belong, because it is their wish or their good pleasure, would be to destroy order and stability within States and to inaugurate anarchy in international life; it would be to uphold a theory incompatible with the very idea of the State as a territorial and political unity.

However, this commission did suggest that, at least under extreme oppression, a kind of self-determination by Åland citizens might be possible “as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort when the State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees.” The “principle” of self-determination is mentioned only twice in the Charter of the United Nations, both times in the context of developing “friendly relations among nations” and in conjunction with the principle of “equal rights.

of peoples.” The reference to “peoples” clearly encompasses groups beyond states and includes at least non-self-governing territories “whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” As decolonization progressed, however, the vague “principle” of self-determination found in the Charter soon evolved into a “right” to self-determination.

This evolution culminated in the decade between 1960 and 1970, when the great majority of former colonies became independent. The first notable text, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (“Declaration on Colonial Independence”), was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1960.

Premised, inter alia, on the need for stability, peace, and respect for human rights, the Declaration on Colonial Independence “olemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations” and declares that “ll 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.” It further declares that “nadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.” Paragraph 6 of the declaration sets forth another fundamental principle, without which one almost never finds a UN reference to self-determination: “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.” The final paragraph reiterates “the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.” While the thrust of the resolution may be clear – all colonial territories have the right to independence – a closer reading reveals a host of uncertainties.

First, although the title of the resolution refers only to “colonial” countries and peoples, operative paragraph 2 refers expansively to the right of “ll peoples” to self-determination. Operative paragraph 5 goes even farther, in its call for the transfer of all powers to trust and non-self-governing territories “or all other territories which have not yet attained independence.” Are peoples to be equated with territories, as suggested by the final paragraph? Are there self-governing territories that are nonetheless entitled to independence? What is “alien” subjugation: subjugation by non-citizens? foreigners? a group ethnically distinct from the group being “subjugated”? Is subjugation permissible so long as it is not by aliens? The answers to some of these questions might be sought in General Assembly resolution 1541, which was adopted the day after the Declaration on Colonial Independence.

Resolution 1541 sets forth a list of principles to guide states in determining whether they should transmit information under article 73e of the Charter on “non-self-governing” territories; in effect, it defines at least one of the categories of peoples entitled to self-determination. The resolution first notes that Chapter XI of the Charter is applicable “to territories which were then known as the colonial type” and that the obligation to report continues until “a territory and its peoples attain a full measure of self-government.” Principle IV states, “Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it”, and Principle V mentions a number of other factors.

There is no mention of the right of self-determination, nor is there any reference to the Declaration on Colonial Independence adopted only a day before. The remaining principles concern territories, not peoples, and the quotation immediately above clearly suggests that a single territory can be home to many peoples, implicitly rejecting any separate right to self-determination for peoples within existing colonial territories.

Ethnic difference between a colony and its metropolitan state is relevant, however, as one of the factors to be weighed in determining whether that colony is non-self-governing. Self-determination was addressed, if not necessarily clarified, ten years later in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (“Declaration on Friendly Relations”).

This declaration is believed by many legal commentators to reflect customary international law, and it remains the most authoritative statement on the meaning of self-determination. The Declaration on Friendly Relations reiterates that “all peoples” have the right to self-determination and identifies two purposes which will achieved by its realization: 1) promoting friendly relations and co-operation among States and 2) bringing a speedy end to colonialism.

  • No definition of peoples is offered, and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state.
  • The resolution reaffirms that self-determination may be achieved through independence, free association, or integration, as well as through “the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people.” The principle of territorial integrity or political unity would seem to be superior to that of self-determination, since “othing in the foregoing paragraphs” shall be construed to authorize or encourage “any action” which would impair this principle.

However, this restriction applies only to those states which conduct themselves “in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.” (emphasis added) The requirement of representativeness suggests internal democracy, but it cannot mean that the only government that can be deemed “representative” is one which specifically recognizes all of the various ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other communities within a state.

A more persuasive interpretation, which would be consistent with the concerns of most UN member states when the declaration was adopted in 1970, is that a state will not be considered to be representative if it formally excludes a particular group from participation in the political process, based on that group’s race, creed, or color; the paradigm at the time was apartheid in South Africa, which was a major international concern until the transition to majority rule in the mid-1990s.

The mere fact that a democratic, non-discriminatory voting system results in the domination of political life by an ethnic majority in a particular state does not necessarily mean that the state is unrepresentative within the terms of the Declaration on Friendly Relations, although it may violate subsequent norms of minority rights that have been proclaimed, beginning in the 1990s.

For example, the Indo-Pakistan war which led to the independence of Bangladesh broke out only two months after the adoption of the Declaration on Friendly Relations, but the vast majority of UN members did not consider that Pakistan’s treatment of East Pakistan/Bangladesh fell within the proscriptions of the cited paragraph; thus, Bangladesh was deemed not to have a right to self-determination as it was defined in the Friendly Relations Declaration.

In between its adoption of these two declarations, the General Assembly concluded its work on two major human rights conventions, the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Both entered into force in 1976 and now have more than 160 state parties.

While most of the debates on the texts of the new covenants occurred in the UN Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly itself directed that an identical first article be included in each of the covenants: Article 1 i) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of the right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

ii) 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 cooperation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Iii) 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.

The relatively straightforward language of the first paragraph, in particular, is commonly cited as evidence of the universality of the right to self-determination, although its formulation does little to make the scope of the right more precise. Nevertheless, both the reference to “all” peoples and the fact that the article is found in human rights treaties intended to have universal applicability suggest a scope beyond that of decolonization.

  • The Human Rights Committee, the body of experts created to oversee implementation of the CCPR, adopted a “General Comment” on article 1 in 1984, but the eight-paragraph document does little more than restate the text of the covenant.
  • The committee created to oversee the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted an equally short but somewhat more substantive General Comment in 1996.

The committee recalled that self-determination had both internal and external aspects but emphasized that none of its actions should be construed as being inconsistent with the principles of territorial integrity and national unity. “In the view of the Committee, international law has not recognized a general right of peoples unilaterally to declare secession from a State.” Neither committee attempted to define “peoples” or otherwise address the definitional difficulties inherent in the right of self-determination as it has been articulated by the United Nations.

  1. In 1975, the International Court of Justice was presented with a limited opportunity to address more fully the content of the right or principle of self-determination, in the context of competing claims to the colony of the Spanish Sahara.
  2. The Court was not called upon to determine the actual content of self-determination (which it refers to variously as a “principle” and a “right”), however, and it simply defined the principle as “the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples.” At the regional level, the Helsinki Final Act, adopted by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975, was a significant political agreement on a broad range of issues of concern to the Soviet Union, eastern and western Europe, Canada, and the United States.

Among the “Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” was respect for the “equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Principle VIII states: By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The reference to “all” peoples “always” having the right to determine their internal and external political status goes beyond the more terse formulation found in the covenants on human rights, but an expansive interpretation of this formulation is difficult to square with the principles of the inviolability of frontiers (Principle III) and the territorial integrity of states (Principle IV), which are also proclaimed in the Helsinki Final Act.

Given the reality of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe until the late 1980s, the 1975 Helsinki formulation is more properly seen as reaffirming the right of the people of a state to be free from external influence in choosing its own form of government.

  • In any event, commitments by states in the CSCE process were clearly meant to be political only, and neither the 1975 Helsinki Final Act nor subsequent CSCE/OSCE documents are legally binding treaties.
  • In Africa, where decolonization obviously was a paramount concern for decades, it is the principle of territorial integrity that has been supreme in practice.

In 1964, at the second Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the Organization of African Unity (with the notable exception of Somalia, which had irredentist claims against Ethiopia and Tanzania) decided to accept the existing colonial frontiers as definitive.

The confusion between Africa’s commitment to the self-determination of peoples and the territorial integrity of states was noted by the International Court of Justice in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) case, where it concluded: At first sight this principle of uti possidetis juris or the inviolability of colonial frontiers conflicts outright with another one, the right of peoples to self-determination.

In fact, however, the maintenance of the territorial status quo in Africa is often seen as the wisest course, to preserve what has been achieved by peoples who have struggled for their independence, and to avoid a disruption which would deprive the continent of gains achieved by much sacrifice.

The essential requirement of stability in order to survive, to develop and gradually to consolidate their independence in all fields, has induced African States judiciously to consent to the respecting of colonial frontiers, and to take account of it in the interpretation of the principle of self-determination of peoples.

The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, which was adopted in 1981, also contains an article that addresses self-determination, but it does little more than repeat earlier formulations, with all their ambiguities. Article 20 1. All peoples shall have the right to existence.

They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.2. Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community.3.

All peoples shall have the right to the assistance of the States Parties to the present Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination, be it political, economic or cultural. Again, given both the history and subsequent practice of African states in rejecting any right to secession from existing states, this article is best understood as reflecting the right of a state to be free from outside interference, rather than as an ethnically specific right for a group to choose its own political status.56 Congressional Record at 8671 (Feb.11, 1918).

  • See generally Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations (Chicago: Univ.
  • Of Chicago Press, 1930); R.N.
  • Chowdhuri, International Mandates and Trusteeship Systems: A Comparative Study (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955).
  • Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off.J., Spec.
See also:  What Is Life Sciences In Healthcare?

Supp. No.3 (Oct.1920) at 5. The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc.B.7.21/68/106 (1921) at 27. Id. at 28. Id. United Nations Charter, arts.1(2), 55. Curiously, however, the French text of the Charter does refer to respect for the “right” of self-determination, the “principe de l’égalité de droits des peuples et leur droit à disposer d’eux-mêmes” (literally, the “principle of equality of the rights of peoples and their right to dispose of themselves”).

UN Charter, art.73. UN G.A. Res.1514 (14 Dec.1960). UN G.A. Res.1541 (XV) (20 Dec.1960). Id., Principles I and II. Id., Principle IV. UN G.A. Res.2625, Annex (24 Oct.1970). See, e.g., Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, adopted 29 June 1990, reprinted in 29 Intl.

Legal Mat.1305 (1990), paras.35-39; Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, UN G.A. Res.47/135 (1992); European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, signed 5 Nov.1992, entered into force 1 Mar.1998, Europ.T.S.

  1. No.148; Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, signed 1 Feb.1995, entered into force 1 Feb.1998, Europ.
  2. Europ.T.S. No.157. UN G.A.
  3. Res.545 (VI) (5 Feb.1952).
  4. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.12: The right to self?determination of peoples (Art.1), adopted 13 March 1984, UN Doc.

A/39/40, Annex VI (1984). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No.21: Right to self?determination, adopted 23 August 1996, UN Doc. A/51/18 (1996). Id., para.6. Id. Id., para.59. See Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, adopted 1 Aug.1975, reprinted in 14 Int’l Legal Materials 1292 (1975).

  1. This language was repeated in Principle 4 of the Concluding Document of the 1989 Vienna Follow-Up Meeting, reprinted in 28 Int’l Legal Materials 527 (1989).O.A.U.
  2. Assembly of Heads of State and Government, AGH/Res.16(1) (1964).
  3. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J.
  4. Reports 1986, p.554, at 567.

African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 Oct.1986, O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev.5. United Nations and state practice up to the 1990s provides evidence that the international community thus far has recognized only a very limited right to self-determination which includes 1) freedom from a former colonial power, and, once independence has been achieved, 2) freedom of the whole state’s population from foreign intervention or undue influence.

  1. Although the latter proposition is sometimes phrased as freedom from colonial, alien, or foreign domination, in practice it has been invoked successfully only in cases of actual invasion by foreign military forces.
  2. Whether in the context of decolonization (e.g., Katanga, Biafra) or subsequent to independence, there is no legal support for the proposition that the right to self-determination encompasses a right of a region of a state to secede from that state.

This conclusion was affirmed by the 1996 General Comment by the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and was reiterated in 1998, when the Supreme Court of Canada (in the context of an erudite advisory opinion regarding the possible existence of a right of Quebec to secede unilaterally from Canada) stated: The existence of the right of a people to self-determination is now so widely recognized in international conventions that the principle has acquired a status beyond “convention” and is considered a general principle of international law.

The international law principle of self-determination has evolved within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of existing states. he international law right to self-determination only generates, at best, a right to external self-determination in situations of former colonies; where a people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military occupation; or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development.

In all three situations, the people in question are entitled to a right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination. Such exceptional circumstances are manifestly inapplicable to Quebec under existing conditions.

The mention by the court of the possibility of secession “where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government” remains untested. None of the post-Cold-War divisions of the Soviet Union, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia were deemed by the international community to involve secession.

The divisions of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union were by agreement, and the Yugoslav federation was said to have dissolved, with new states emerging from that dissolution. The primary challenge to defining self-determination as excluding secession is perhaps the situation of Kosovo, which was governed by a UN-authorized force since the end of the NATO bombing campaign in 1999 until Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008.

  • Osovo’s independence had been recognized by almost 100 states as of mid-2010, but not by Serbia, which adopted a constitutional amendment in 2006 reasserting the fact that Kosovo remained an integral part of Serbia.
  • In part based on the level of human rights violations that occurred in Kosovo between 1989 and 1999 and during the NATO campaign, most Western observers are sympathetic to Kosovo’s claimed independence; for example, 22 EU member states, the United States, Australia, and Canada are among the countries that have recognized the new state.

However, none has specifically linked Kosovo’s secession to the level of human rights violations, and the declaration of independence itself observes that “Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia’s non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation.” In October 2008, the General Assembly adopted a resolution submitted by Serbia that requested an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the following question: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Kosovo in accordance with international law?” In its 2010 Opinion, the Court specifically notes the ‘radically different views’ expressed to it on the question of whether either a contemporary form of ‘self-determination’ or a right of ‘remedial secession’ exists that might grant part of an existing state a right to separate from that state.

  • However, the Court concludes simply that ‘it is not necessary to resolve these questions in the present case,
  • Is beyond the scope of the question posed by the General Assembly’, thus offering no guidance as to how the substantive right to self-determination should be understood.
  • The other major contemporary debate is whether self-determination should be interpreted as incorporating a right to democratic governance and/or certain rights of self-governance by minorities and indigenous peoples, short of a right to independence.

This position has been strengthened by inclusion of a right of effective political participation in a number of documents dealing with these two groups, and there is no logical reason why similar considerations should not apply to geographic regions as well as to ethnically distinct groups.

As yet, however, neither the principle nor its application has been widely accepted in practice, although there are indications that a number of governments and/or international human rights bodies in Latin America and Africa are sympathetic to the claims of indigenous peoples for self-government and control over their traditional territories.

Self-determination remains a rhetorical tool utilized by groups within states seeking independence, autonomy, or simply a greater degree of control over issues that directly affect them. Many of these groups share ethnic, linguistic, or other characteristics, but the international law of self-determination – as opposed to a few non-binding declarations and recommendations – has never accorded to such groups any special right of self-governance.

Given the widely divergent situations within states, it is unlikely that self-determination will acquire a sufficiently determinate definition to enable it to be used as a legal tool for adjudicating disputes, even if it continues to be interpreted as excluding unilateral secession. However, the political appeal of the term is unlikely to fade, and it is possible that its use will lead to an expansive interpretation of human rights norms concerning identity and effective participation and thus offer new opportunities for accommodating conflicting principles of diversity and unity.

See note 17 Reference re Secession of Quebec, 2 S.C.R.217, at 66, 71, 67 International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion), 22 July 2010, para.82. Id., para.82.

See the UN Declaration on Minorities, note 14; European Framework Convention, note 14. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 in resolution 61/295, does state explicitly that “ndigenous peoples have the right to self-determination.” (Article 3) However, concern over this language delayed adoption of the declaration for nearly a year after it had been adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2006.

The compromise was to retain the original language but to add a new paragraph as Article 46, in which the oft-repeated phrase regarding territorial integrity is repeated: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.” A preambular paragraph also was added, recognizing that “the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and from country to country and that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical and cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration.” Article 4 of the declaration does provide that indigenous peoples, “in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.” : Legal Aspects of Self-Determination

What is the inalienable right to self-determination?

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

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,Aware 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 endDeclares 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.

: Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

Why is self-determination important?

Self-determination is an idea that includes people choosing and setting their own goals, be­ing involved in making life decisions, self-advocating, and working to reach their goals. Although people often say it, self-determination is really not about control.

  • It is about taking action in your life to get the things you want and need.
  • For example, if someone says: “If you do this I’ll give you a soda” even if you decide to do it you are not the person who took the action in the first place.
  • Self determination is when you set things up to get what you want.
  • It is important to understand that self-determination usually contributes to positive results in areas like employment, educa­tion, community living, and an improved quality of life.

(Wehmeyer et al., 2003). “Much can be done when we raise our voices and join together. We cannot simply stand by and wait for someone else to take action. We must make our own history.” -Ken Ervin

Is the right to self-determination absolute?

Neither the right of self-determination nor the principle of territorial integrity is absolute. Both must be applied in the context of the Charter and human rights treaties so as to serve the purposes and principles of the United Nations. the territorial integrity of the previous State entity.

What are the 8 self-determination skills?

Self-Determination Approaches – Self-determination skills can be approached by promoting the areas of choice making, decision making, goal setting, problem solving, self-advocacy, self-awareness, self-efficacy, and self-regulation within structured and unstructured contexts (aka – through explicit instruction as well as natural experiences).

What is meant by self-determination?

Relevant Articles: 3,4,5 – Self-determination is the central right of the Declaration. All other rights support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ exercise of self-determination. All Indigenous peoples have this right. Self-determination can mean different things to different groups of people.

At its core, self-determination ‘is concerned with the fundamental right of people to shape their own lives’. In a practical sense, self-determination means that we have the freedom to live well, to determine what it means to live well according to our own values and beliefs. In recognising that Indigenous peoples have this right, governments are required to recognise our collective/group identities such as our nations, language groups, clans, family alliances or communities.

Self-determination means that:

  1. We have choice in determining how our lives are governed and our development paths.
  2. We participate in decisions that affect our lives. This includes a right to formal recognition of our group identities.
  3. We have control over our lives and future including our economic, social and cultural development.

Our citizenship rights and our Indigenous rights cannot be separated. We cannot have one without the other. Professor Lowitja O’Donoghue The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner conducted a survey of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s perspectives on the Declaration in 2012.

  • through our own representative bodies
  • through our own schools, justice systems, health systems
  • by having control over our lives
  • by being able to participate in decisions that affect us
  • through being subject to our own laws
  • by establishing our own government
  • by establishing our own sovereign state.

: Self-determination

Which ethical principle is related to the idea of self-determination?

Respect for autonomy is a norm that obliges us to respect the decisions (self-determination) of adults who have decision-making capacity.

Adblock
detector