The Concept of Self-Determination in International Law Before the Creation of the

United Nations

Introduction

It must be noted that the principle of self-determination signifies a fundamental right in

The notion of self-determination emerged alongside nationalist movements and the struggle
against colonial and imperial domination. While theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and
John Stuart Mill lent conceptual power to the principle by advocating that legitimate
governance exists whereby the will of the people is expressed, the late 19th and early 20th
centuries saw the rise of countless national movements in Europe and elsewhere advancing
claims to self-governance and autonomy. Theoretical recognition was also sought on the
international plane, for example, in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points of 1918,
wherein self-determination was intended to become a guiding principle for post-World War I
territorial settlements. However, over time, even as the idea began to attain wider currency,
its application remained uneven, at times denying self-determination to colonies, which were
often subjected to alien rule, while recognizing it in semi-colonies or aspiring states with
European linkages.

Hence, this topic examines the historical evolution of self-determination before the UN’s
creation, highlighting key legal precedents such as the Aaland Islands Case and the impact of
decolonization, particularly in the Indian subcontinent.

Self-Determination Before the Creation of the United Nation

Self-determination before the United Nations was treated more as a political principle than a
legal right. It had its roots in Enlightenment philosophy, which espoused ideas about human
rights and governmental authority by popular will. The philosophical ideas were carried
forward furiously by the revolutions in France and America, both of which stressed that the
people needed to be able to determine their political future. Self-determination became a
popularly held principle of nationalism in Europe and other places during the 19th and early
20th centuries. By this time, the intervening idea was granted that a distinct ethnic group or
cultural group could be allowed to exercise some form of self-rule. However, there was never
an effective realization of self-determination. If anything, it vogued as an ideal, often
embraced for powerful states' strategic interests. The First World War saw an increase in the
debate surrounding self-determination, especially when many colonial powers like the
Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires ruled over multiple ethnic groups aspiring
to gain autonomy.

President Woodrow Wilson was an important figure in taking the self-determination principle
to a more global context with the so-called Fourteen Points speech in 1918. Wilson, in his
address before the U.S. Congress, laid out a vision for a new world order founded upon
democratic principles, open diplomacy, and nations' rights to self-governance. He called
directly, in this presentation, for the reorganization of territories according to the wishes of
those who live in such territories. In this sense, he had a special emphasis on encouraging the
dissolution of imperial powers being exercised over the oppressed nationalities. Wilson's self-
determination argument was a strong factor in the postwar reconstruction of Europe and
particularly the remapping of frontiers after the disastrous ending of the Austro-Hungarian
and Ottoman empires. But it is unfortunate that Wilson's plan was only applied selectively.
While some states in Europe gained independence, many non-European colonies were
entrusted instead with League of Nations mandates and not with full sovereignty. Despite the
limitations, Wilson did push the agenda for the right of self-determination and this became a
basis for the later recognition of that right as a fundamental principle of international law
with its inclusion in the UN Charter in 1945.

The usage of self-determination faced even further difficulties during interwar years. Though
some ethnic groups in Central and Eastern Europe were granted self-rule after the dissolution
of empires, the colonial subjects remained under foreign domination. Any attempts to
internationalize self-determination were promptly resisted by the major powers, which were
more concerned with sustaining global stability and their own geopolitical interests. Hence,
self-determination, before the UN, remained a politically charged phrase far more than a
standard legal right, largely contingent upon the strategic interests of dominating nations
rather than upon the aspirations of the affected peoples.

Legal Framework for Self-Determination Before Creation of UN

The self-appointing process started with the Treaty of Versailles-(1919), this treaty actually
mentioned this concept in their application of self-determination but it was the consistent and
often geo-politically driven hitch of major powers that they all carry. Established by that
treating, the League of Nations introduced the mandate system by paragraph 22 of the
Covenant of the League of Nations on what governs former territories of defeated Central
Powers until otherwise declared ready and able to rule themselves. In all realities, however,
such a system could not attach or promise total independence but converted these lands to the
continued administrative control of Western powers very much like former colonial
territories. The treaty aimed to redefine international boundaries, especially in Europe, where
Article 87 pertained to the status of Poland, making it independent: Article 119 transferred
overseas colonies of Germany under the League's mandate system, rather than giving them
the right to self-determination. Article 156 of the treaty similarly transferred German
concessions in China to Japan rather than returning them to Chinese control. This drew out
huge outrage and led to nationalist mobilization in China, as the protests that came to be
known as the May Fourth Movement. The selective applications of self-determination further
perpetuated inequalities in the world and fueled anti-colonial struggles in both Asia and
Africa. The mandate system, despite the League's claims that it was a step toward self-
governance, primarily excluded colonial subjects from the right to self-determination. The
first part of the Covenant of the League of Nations restricted full membership to sovereign
states and thus excluded colonized nations from direct representation in international
decision-making. Further, the categorization of mandated territories into three classes,
namely Class A, B, and C mandates, imposed structural inequalities: closer to independence
were Class A mandates like Iraq and Palestine, whereas Class B and C mandates mainly
reserved for lands in Africa remained much under European control. This framework
conveniently ignored the burgeoning nationalist movements and aspirations for independence
such as in India where the cries for self-rule gained momentum under the conditions
orchestrated by Mahatma Gandhi. Alongside, Article 10 of the Covenant obliges states-
members to respect and maintain the territorial integrity of states as such, but more often for
the entrenchment of repressive colonial rule. The limits of the approach itself did not fail to
create a lot of public discontent, laying the foundation for subsequent developments: for
instance, Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945) which incorporated into
provisions of guidance self-determination in decolonization efforts post-World War-II.

The Aaland Islands Case Concerning Self-Determination

The Aaland Islands Case (1920–1921) is one of the early legal adjudications regarding self-
determination before the founding of the United Nations. The issue was between Finland and
Sweden concerning the sovereignty of the Aaland Islands. The majority of the islands'
residents were Swedish-speaking but under Finnish rule. After the year England started
modifying the terms of trade, the Aaland Islanders set out to declare independence from
Sweden based on self-determination and continued to get Swedish support based on the
concept of an island people most closely tied to Sweden linguistically and culturally. On the
other hand, Finland refused to allow secession as it said they were part of Finnish territory
historically, thereby maintaining Finnish sovereignty over the islands. This created a case in
the League of Nations, which instituted a Commission of Jurists to consider the legal aspect
of self-determination in territorial disputes.

The Commission of Jurists ruled that while self-determination was an important principle, it
did not automatically grant a population the right to secede from an existing state. The
Commission made it clear that self-determination could never be used as a ground for
outright secession unless the people were oppressed, had been denied basic rights, or were
suffering extreme abuse by the state governing them. Finland had offered cultural and
linguistic freedoms, the Commission found, thus supporting its rejection of claims for
secession. Instead, the League of Nations decided in 1921 that the islands would remain
under Finnish sovereignty, on the condition that Finland should take care to protect the
Swedish language, culture, and local traditions of the islanders. The ruling thus set a
precedent in international law that self-determination, as at its inception, did not refer to an
unlimited right to independence, but rather required balancing against state territorial
integrity to which it was subjected.

This case illustrates the limitations of self-determination in international law at the time and
upholds state sovereignty above unilateral claims for secession. It also highlighted that self-
determination was, in fact, a political rather than legal right at that particular time, used
selectively, within existing international norms. The international precedent set by the
League's deduction would feature as a major influence in subsequent self-determination
measures, especially in minority rights plus territorial disputes. The reasoning in the Aaland
Islands conclusion found its reflection in UN resolutions, which stressed that self-
determination should not be invoked to compromise the sovereignty of established states
unless compelling humanitarian grounds exist. This legal rationale would endure in
international law through to other later cases such as Katanga's secession from Congo (1960)
and the Quebec independence referendum (1995), where unilateral secession was opposed as
preserving the unity of territorial units.

Decolonisation and the Indian Sub-continent

Thereby it becomes a typical case study that has proved the historical evolution of self-
determination long before the advent of the UN. British rule in India continued for nearly two
centuries, during which period the nationalist movements invoked self-determination
increasingly as a basis for independence.
Self-rule (Swaraj) was demanded through political means or mass civil disobedience by the
Indian National Congress, represented at that time by leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and
Jawaharlal Nehru. The Muslim League under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah
demanded the creation of a separate nation for Muslims thereby leading to the demand for the
creation of Pakistan. 'Self-determination' was an inextricable aspect of the conditions leading
into independence and partitioning of India in 1947.
Despite the reluctance of Britishers, international pressures and World Wars brought forward
the speed of decolonization. The Atlantic Charter (1941) signed those days by the United
States and the United Kingdom also proclaimed the right of peoples to self-determination and
thereby indirectly contributed to the decision of Britain to give independence to India and
Pakistan. However, partition of the subcontinent was also testimony that self-determination is
a very complicated phenomenon, as mass dislocation, violence, and geopolitical tensions
continue until today.
Conclusion
The principle of self-determination evolved through political, philosophical, and legal
landmarks before the institution of the United Nations, although it was not uniformly applied.
Selected international cases, however, had brought it to bear in the colonial struggles that
increasingly laid the groundwork for its eventual acceptance in post-World War II
international law. While the Aaland Islands Case showed the limitation of self-determination
in territorial disputes, the decolonization of the Indian subcontinent showed up its power in
the introduction of a new era of world history: the demise of colonialism. With the formation
of the UN, self-determination entered a new epoch wherein laws are made cornerstones of
international law frameworks; however, understanding its historical significance for
contemporary applications and difficulties will have to take account of its pre-1945 history.