Editing Self-determination (section)

== Notable cases ==
{{POV section|date=July 2021}}
{{See also|List of historical separatist movements|Decolonization#Independence_movements|l2=Lists of decolonized nations|Lists of active separatist movements}}

=== Artsakh ===
{{Main|Republic of Artsakh}}

[[File:Artsakh Movement, February 13, 1988.jpg|thumb|The first major demonstration in [[Stepanakert]] on February 13, 1988. Traditionally considered the start of the [[Artsakh movement]].]]

The [[Republic of Artsakh]] (also known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), in the [[Caucasus]] region, declared its independence in a [[1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum|1991 referendum]], which had an approval of 99% of voters; however, the breakaway state remained unrecognized by UN states and was disbanded on January 1, 2024, after Azerbaijan's [[2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh|military offensive]] and the [[Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians|evacuation of 99% of the population]]. It was a member of the [[Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations]] along with three other [[Post-Soviet]] disputed republics.

=== Assyria ===
{{Main|Assyrian independence movement|Assyrian People|Assyria}}

The [[Assyrian independence movement]] is a political movement and nationalist desire of the [[Assyrian people]] to live in their traditional Assyrian homeland under the self-governance of an Assyrian state. The Assyrian territory is currently in parts of [[Syria]], [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]].

=== Australia ===
{{Main|Indigenous Australian self-determination}}

Self-determination has become the topic of some debate in Australia in relation to [[Aboriginal Australians]] and [[Torres Strait Islanders]]. In the 1970s, Aboriginal requested the right to administer their own remote communities as part of the [[homelands movement]], also known as the outstation movement. These grew in number through the 1980s, but funding dried up in the 2000s.

===Azawad===
{{Main|Mali War}}

[[File:Les rebelles touaregs joignent leurs forces dans le nord du Mali (8248043080).jpg|thumb|Tuareg rebels in the short-lived [[proto-state]] of Azawad in 2012]]
The traditional homeland of the [[Tuareg people|Tuareg]] peoples was divided up by the modern borders of [[Mali]], [[Algeria]] and [[Niger]]. Numerous rebellions occurred over the decades, but in 2012 the Tuaregs succeeded in occupying their land and declaring the independence of [[Azawad]]. However, their movement was hijacked by the Islamist terrorist group [[Ansar Dine]].

=== Basque Country ===
{{Main|Basque nationalism}}
[[File:Giza katea 3.jpg|thumb|[[2014 human chain for Basque Country's right to decide]]]]
The Basque Country ({{langx|eu|Euskal Herria}}, {{langx|es|País Vasco}}, {{langx|fr|Pays Basque}}) as a [[cultural region]] (not to be confused with the homonym [[Autonomous Community]] of the [[Basque Country (autonomous community)|Basque country]]) is a European region in the western [[Pyrenees]] that spans the border between France and Spain, on the Atlantic coast. It comprises the autonomous communities of the Basque Country and [[Navarre]] in Spain and the [[Northern Basque Country]] in France.
Since the 19th century, [[Basque nationalism]] has demanded the right of some kind of self-determination.{{citation needed|date=January 2008}} This desire for independence is particularly stressed among [[left-wing politics|leftist]] Basque nationalists. The right of self-determination was asserted by the [[Basque Parliament]] in 1990, 2002 and 2006.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24/noticia/en/politics/pp-and-pse-voted-against-basque-parliament-adopts-resolution-on-s?itemId=B24_18787&cl=%2Feitb24%2Fpolitica&idioma=en |title=EITB: ''Basque parliament adopts resolution on self-determination'' |publisher=Eitb24.com |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>
Since{{Citation needed|date=January 2008}} self-determination is not recognized in the [[Spanish Constitution of 1978]], some Basques abstained and some voted against it in the referendum of December 6 of that year. It was approved by a clear majority at the Spanish level, and with 74.6% of the votes in the Basque Country.<ref>[http://www9.euskadi.net/q93TodoWar/q93Desplegar.jsp] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407091254/http://www9.euskadi.net/q93TodoWar/q93Desplegar.jsp|date=April 7, 2010}}</ref> However, the overall turnout in the Basque Country was 45% when the Spanish overall turnover was 67.9%. The derived autonomous regime for the BAC was approved by Spanish Parliament and also by the Basque citizens in referendum. The autonomous statute of Navarre (''Amejoramiento del Fuero'': "improvement of the charter") was approved by the Spanish Parliament and, like the statutes of 13 out of 17 Spanish autonomous communities, it did not need a referendum to enter into force.<!-- There are not many sources on the issue for the French Basque country. -->

''[[Euskadi Ta Askatasuna]]'' or ETA ({{langx|en|Basque Homeland and Freedom}}; pronounced {{IPA|eu|ˈeta|}}), was an armed Basque nationalist, [[separatist]] and [[terrorist]] organization that killed more than 800 people.<!-- Do not add "terrorist" here, that is covered in the very next paragraph --> <!-- I've added "terrorist" here, because there is not a "very next paragraph" --> Founded in 1959, it evolved from a group advocating traditional cultural ways to a [[paramilitary]] group with the goal of [[Basque independence]]. Its ideology was [[Marxist–Leninist]].<ref>[http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv4.htm ¿QUÉ ES EL MLNV? ( y 4)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190115214359/http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv4.htm |date=2019-01-15 }} "What is the MNLV (4)"</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv3.htm |title=What is the MNLV (3) |language=es |publisher=Goizargi.com |date=2002-01-27 |access-date=2012-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201128/http://www.goizargi.com/2003/queeselmlnv3.htm |archive-date=2016-03-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Biafra ===
{{main|Biafra}}

[[File:Starved girl.jpg|thumb|upright|A girl during the [[Nigerian Civil War]] of the late 1960s. Pictures of the famine caused by Nigerian blockade garnered sympathy for the Biafrans worldwide.]]
The [[Nigerian Civil War]] was fought between Biafran secessionists of the [[Biafra|Republic of Biafra]] and the [[Federal government of Nigeria|Nigerian central government]]. From 1999 to the present day, the indigenous people of Biafra have been agitating for independence to revive their country. They have registered a human rights organization known as Bilie Human Rights Initiative both in Nigeria and in the United Nations to advocate for their right to self-determination and achieve independence by the rule of law.<ref name="BBCprofile">{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13949550 | title=Nigeria profile | work=BBC Africa | date=May 1, 2012 | access-date=May 19, 2012}}</ref>

=== Catalonia ===
{{Main|Catalonia|Catalan Countries|Catalan independence movement|Catalan declaration of independence}}

After the [[2012 Catalan march for independence]], in which between 600,000 and 1.5 million citizens marched,<ref>{{cite web|title=Catalunya clama por la independencia|url=http://www.elperiodico.com/es/diada-2012/20120911/manifestacion-diada-en-barcelona-2202293|website=ElPeriodico|date=11 September 2012|publisher=El Periodico|access-date=20 October 2017}}</ref> the [[President of the Generalitat of Catalonia|President of Catalonia]], [[Artur Mas]], called for new [[2012 Catalonian parliamentary election|parliamentary elections on 25 November 2012]] to elect a new [[Parliament of Catalonia|parliament]] that would exercise the right of self-determination for Catalonia, a right not recognised under the [[Cortes Generales|Spanish Cortes Generales]]. The [[Parliament of Catalonia]] voted to hold a vote in the next four-year legislature on the question of self-determination. The parliamentary decision was approved by a large majority of MPs: 84 voted for, 21 voted against, and 25 abstained.<ref>{{cite web|title=Two thirds of the Catalan Parliament approve organising a self-determination citizen vote within the next 4 years |url=http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/two-thirds-catalan-parliament-approve-organising-self-determination-citizen-vote-withi |publisher=Catalan News Agency |date=28 September 2013 |access-date=29 September 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121001020028/http://www.catalannewsagency.com/news/politics/two-thirds-catalan-parliament-approve-organising-self-determination-citizen-vote-withi |archive-date=October 1, 2012 }}</ref> The Catalan Parliament applied to the Spanish Parliament for the power to call a referendum to be devolved, but this was turned down. In December 2013 the President of the Generalitat Artur Mas and the governing coalition agreed to set the referendum for self-determination on 9 November 2014, and legislation specifically saying that the consultation would not be a "referendum" was enacted, only to be blocked by the [[Constitutional Court of Spain|Spanish Constitutional Court]], at the request of the Spanish government. Given the block, the Government turned it into a simple "consultation to the people" instead.

The question in the consultation was "Do you want Catalonia to be a State?" and, if the answer to this question was yes, "Do you want this State to be an independent State?". However, as the consultation was not a formal referendum, these (printed) answers were just suggestions and other answers were also accepted and catalogued as "other answers" instead as null votes. The turnout in this consultation was about 2·3m people out of 6·2m people that were called to vote (this figure does not coincide with the census figure of 5·3m for two main reasons: first, because organisers had no access to an official census due to the non-binding character of the consultation, and second, because the legal voting age was set to 16 rather than 18). Due to the lack of an official census, potential voters were assigned to electoral tables according to home address and first family name. Participants had to sign up first with their full name and national ID in a voter registry before casting their ballot, which prevented participants from potentially casting multiple ballots. The overall result was 80·76% in favor of both questions, 11% in favor of the first question but not of the second questions, 4·54% against both; the rest were classified as "other answers". The voter turnout was around 37% (most people against the consultation did not go to vote). Four top members of Catalonia's political leadership were barred from public office for having defied the Constitutional court's last-minute ban.

[[File:Un any de l'1-O DC89725 (44160742095).jpg|thumb|Protest in [[Barcelona]] on 1 October 2018]]
Almost three years later (1 October 2017), the Catalan government called a [[2017 Catalan independence referendum|referendum for independence]] under legislation adopted in September 2017, despite this legislation had been suspended by the Constitutional Court for "violating fundamental rights of citizens",<ref>{{Cite web|last=López-Fonseca|first=El País, Rebeca Carranco, Óscar|date=2017-10-17|title=Spain's Constitutional Court strikes down Catalan referendum law|url=https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/17/inenglish/1508250970_489373.html|access-date=2021-04-05|website=EL PAÍS|language=en}}</ref> with the question "Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a Republic?". On polling day, the Catalan regional police, which had been accused in the past of [[police brutality]] and impunity during the 15-M protests,<ref>{{Cite web|title=How police brutality helped Spain's 15-M protests {{!}} Iberosphere {{!}} News, comment and analysis on Spain, Portugal and beyond|date=2 June 2011 |url=https://iberosphere.com/2011/06/spain-news-how-police-brutality-helped-spain%e2%80%99s-15-m-protests/2978|access-date=2021-04-05|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-10-03|title=Los Mossos, un historial de abusos e impunidad|url=https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-historial-abusos-impunidad-201710030349_noticia.html|access-date=2021-04-05|website=abc|language=es}}</ref> prevented voting in over 500 polling stations without incidents. In some voting stations, the Catalan regional police did not intervene,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Carranco|first=Rebeca|date=2018-09-30|title=El 1 de octubre: el día del divorcio policial|language=es|work=El País|url=https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/28/catalunya/1538157382_335488.html|access-date=2021-04-05|issn=1134-6582}}</ref> while in other stations they directly confronted the Spanish CNP (National Police Corps) to allow voters to participate.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2017-10-01|title=Vídeo: Encontronazos entre cuerpos de seguridad en el exterior de los colegios electorales|language=es|work=El País|url=https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/01/videos/1506865282_972654.html|access-date=2021-04-05|issn=1134-6582}}</ref> The CNP confiscated ballot boxes and closed down 92,<ref>{{cite web|title=Els Mossos van tancar 600 col·legis electorals; la policia espanyola i la Guàrdia Civil, 92 |url=https://www.rac1.cat/info-rac1/20171005/431811387579/els-mossos-van-tancar-600-collegis-electorals-la-policia-espanyola-i-la-guardia-civil-92.html |publisher=RAC1 |date=6 October 2017 |access-date=22 May 2018 }}</ref> voting centres with violent truncheon charges. The opposition parties had called for non-participation. The turnout (according to the votes that were counted) was 2.3m out of 5.3m (43.03% of the census), and 90.18% of the ballots were in favour of independence.<ref>{{cite web |title=El Govern trasllada els resultats definitius del referèndum de l'1 d'octubre al Parlament de Catalunya |url=http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/303541/ca/govern-trasllada-resultats-definitius-referendum-l1-doctubre-parlament-catalunya.do |publisher=Catalan News Agency |date=6 October 2017 |access-date=22 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180523011210/http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/AppJava/notapremsavw/303541/ca/govern-trasllada-resultats-definitius-referendum-l1-doctubre-parlament-catalunya.do |archive-date=23 May 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref>  The turnout, ballot count and results were similar to those of the 2014 "consultation".

=== Chechnya ===
{{main|Chechen Republic of Ichkeria}}
<!-- [[WP:NFCC]] violation: [[File:Chechnya9268.jpg|thumb|[[Russian Armed Forces|Russian Military]] launch offensive towards a Chechen village during the [[War of Dagestan|Chechen War]].]] -->
Under [[Dzhokhar Dudayev]], [[Chechnya]] declared independence as the [[Chechen Republic of Ichkeria]], using self-determination, Russia's history of bad treatment of [[Chechens]], and a history of independence before invasion by Russia as main motives. Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but the separatist government functions still in exile, though it has been split into two entities: the [[Akhmed Zakayev]]-run secular Chechen Republic (based in Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States), and the Islamic [[Caucasus Emirate]].

===East Turkistan===
{{main|East Turkestan independence movement}}
[[File:Hokumet ilani.jpeg|thumb|[[East Turkistan Government-in-Exile|ETGE]] members at [[Capitol Hill]] on 14 September 2004]]
On November 12, 1933, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Uzbeks declared independence, establishing the [[First East Turkestan Republic]], and again on November 12, 1944, forming the [[Second East Turkestan Republic]]. Their primary motivations included self-determination, a history of Chinese colonization and oppression in East Turkistan, and a legacy of independence prior to the invasion by China (the Manchu [[Qing Dynasty]]). The [[People's Republic of China]] assumed control over East Turkistan in late 1949. However, the Turkic peoples of East Turkistan, predominantly [[Uyghurs]] and Kazakhs, have persistently fought for their independence. There is a robust movement advocating East Turkistani sovereignty, challenging the Chinese occupation since 1949. The [[East Turkistan Government in Exile]] is at the forefront of the [[East Turkistan Independence Movement]].

===Eastern Ukraine===
{{main|War in Donbas (2014–2022)}}
[[File:2015-04-24. День солидарности молодёжи в Донецке 556 .jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|Pro-Russian separatists in [[Donetsk]], April 2015]]
There is an active secessionist movement based on the self-determination of the residents of the eastern part of [[Donetsk Oblast|Donetsk]] and the south-eastern part of the [[Luhansk Oblast|Luhansk]] regions of eastern [[Ukraine]]. However, many in the international community assert that [[2014 Donbass status referendums|referendums held there in 2014]] regarding independence from Ukraine were illegitimate and undemocratic.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Canada Rejects Illegitimate Referendums in Eastern Ukraine|url = http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/05/11b.aspx?lang=eng|access-date = 2015-10-09|first = Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada|last = Government of Canada|date = 11 May 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=EU@UN - EU Council conclusions on Ukraine |url=http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15004_en.htm |website=eu-un.europa.eu |access-date=2015-10-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016041020/http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15004_en.htm |archive-date=2015-10-16 }}</ref> Similarly, there are reports that [[2014 Ukrainian presidential election|presidential elections in May 2014]] were prevented from taking place in the two regions after armed gunmen took control of polling stations, kidnapped election officials, and stole lists of electors, thus denying the population the chance to express their will in a free, fair, and internationally recognised election.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Trepidation, intimidation in eastern Ukraine as Sunday's election nears|url = http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/23/intimidation-easternukrainevote.html|website = america.aljazeera.com|access-date = 2015-10-09}}</ref> There are also arguments that the de facto separation of [[Eastern Ukraine]] from the rest of the country is not an expression of self-determination, but rather, motivated by revival of [[Neo-Sovietism|pro-Soviet sentiment]] and an invasion by neighbouring [[Russia]], with Ukrainian President [[Petro Poroshenko]] claiming in 2015 that up to 9,000 [[Russian Ground Forces|Russian soldiers]] were deployed in Ukraine.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Ukraine's Poroshenko warns of 'full-scale' Russia invasion |work = BBC News|date = 4 June 2015|url = https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33003237|access-date = 2015-10-09}}</ref> Related, Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]] defended [[Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|the annexation of Crimea]] by citing self-determination of the Crimean people.

=== Ethiopia ===
{{Main|Government of Ethiopia}}

The [[Ethiopia|Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia]] is run as a federation of semi-self-governing [[nation state]]s. The [[1995 Constitution of Ethiopia|Constitution of Ethiopia]] firmly mentions the self-determining nature of its states. The actual implementation of its states self-governance is debate-able.

=== Falkland Islands ===
{{Main|Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute}} 
Self-determination is referred to in the [[Falkland Islands Constitution]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2846/contents/made |title=The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 |publisher=Legislation.gov.uk |date=2011-07-04 |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> and is a factor in the [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute]]. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 190 years.<ref name="Bulmer-Thomas1989">{{cite book |author=Victor Bulmer-Thomas|title=Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kfk0AWSaHjoC&pg=PA3 |access-date=11 September 2012|date=17 August 1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-37205-3 |page=3}}</ref>  In the [[2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum|2013 referendum]], organised by the [[Falkland Islands Government]], 99.8% voted to remain British.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/12/overwhelming-turnout-and-yes-vote-in-the-falklands-referendum |title=Overwhelming turnout and YES vote in the Falklands referendum |newspaper=Mercopress |publisher=En.mercopress.com |access-date=2015-01-30}}</ref> As administering power, the [[Government of the United Kingdom|British Government]] deemed that transfer of sovereignty to [[Argentina]] would be counter to the Falkland Islander right to self-determination, since the majority of Falkland Island inhabitants wished to remain British.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/15/self-determination-and-self-sufficiency-falklands-message-to-the-world-on-liberation-day |title="Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day |publisher=En.mercopress.com |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

[[File:Arte por la Paz en el Museo Malvinas (16395806573).jpg|thumb|''Malvinas and South Atlantic Islands Museum'' in Buenos Aires, 2015]]
Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable to the islands since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', compelling the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the islands.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/gacol3047.doc.htm|title=FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS), GIBRALTAR, AMERICAN SAMOA DISCUSSED IN CARIBBEAN REGIONAL SEMINAR ON DECOLONIZATION |publisher=[[United Nations]]}}</ref> This refers to the [[Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)|re-establishment of British rule]] in the year 1833<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html |title=DIMAS |access-date=2008-10-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110531174231/http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html |archive-date=2011-05-31 }} Argentina's Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands</ref> during which Argentina claims the existing population living in the islands was expelled.  Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity [[#Self-determination versus territorial integrity|should have precedence]] over self-determination.<ref name="López1995">{{cite book |author=Angel M. Oliveri López |title=Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-u1ygYbRBHgC&pg=PA38|year=1995|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|isbn=978-1-55587-521-3 |page=38}}</ref> Historical records dispute Argentina's claims and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained at [[Port Louis, Falkland Islands|Port Louis]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Lowell S. Gustafson|title=The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC |access-date=18 September 2012|date=7 April 1988 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-504184-2|page=26|quote=''Sarandi'' sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave.  The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis....Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Julius Goebel |title=The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FM8ZAAAAYAAJ |access-date=18 September 2012|orig-year=1927|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press |page=456|isbn=9780300029437|quote=On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Mary Cawkell|title=The Falkland story, 1592–1982 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wg8aAAAAYAAJ|access-date=18 September 2012|year=1983|publisher=A. Nelson|isbn=978-0-904614-08-4 |page=30|quote=Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced.  This is incorrect.  Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go.  The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.}}</ref><ref>J. Metford; Falklands or Malvinas? The background to the dispute. International Affairs, Vol 44 (1968), pp. 463–481. "Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed an interim commandant to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, the Government's reserve on East Falkland. The British representative immediately lodged a protest..."</ref> and there was no attempt to settle the islands until 1841.<ref name="Harper1998">{{cite book |author=Marjory Harper |title=Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4x2UdzPB4cC&pg=PA91 |year=1998 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-0-7190-4927-9|page=91}}</ref>

=== Gibraltar ===
{{Main|Status of Gibraltar}}

[[File:Gibraltar National Day 027 (9719742224) (2).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Gibraltar National Day, September 2013]]

The right to self-determination is referred to in the pre-amble of Chapter 1 of the [[Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006|Gibraltar constitution]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/constitution/Gibraltar_Constitution_Order_2006.pdf |title=The Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 |publisher=Gibraltarlaws.gov.gi |date=2006-12-14 |access-date=2013-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121115055815/http://www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/constitution/Gibraltar_Constitution_Order_2006.pdf |archive-date=2012-11-15 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and, since the United Kingdom also gave assurances that the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians would be respected in any transfer of sovereignty over the territory, is a factor in the dispute with Spain over the territory.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril/docs/9-1/Leathley.pdf |title=Gibraltar's Quest for Self-Determination: A Critique of Gibraltar's New Constitution |publisher=OREGON REVIEW OF INT’L LAW [Vol. 9, 2007] |year=2007 |access-date=2013-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130117100124/http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril//docs/9-1/Leathley.pdf |archive-date=2013-01-17 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The impact of the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians was seen in the [[2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum]], where Gibraltarian voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to share sovereignty over Gibraltar between the UK and Spain. However, the UK government differs with the Gibraltarian government in that it considers Gibraltarian self-determination to be limited by the [[Treaty of Utrecht]], which prevents Gibraltar achieving independence without the agreement of Spain, a position that the Gibraltarian government does not accept.<ref>[http://www.gbc.gi/upload/pdf/NewGibraltarConstitution.pdf Despatch. Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131107060915/http://gbc.gi/upload/pdf/NewGibraltarConstitution.pdf |date=2013-11-07 }}, section 5</ref><ref name="Fordham">{{Cite journal |last=Lincoln |first=Simon J.  |date=1994 |title=The Legal Status of Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway? |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144226179.pdf |journal=Fordham International Law Journal |volume=18 |issue=1 |page=322}}</ref>

The Spanish government denies that Gibraltarians have the right to self-determination, considering them to be "an artificial population without any genuine autonomy" and not "indigenous".<ref name="Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal">{{cite book|author=Antonio Cassese|title=Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IVDtjzY3r2gC&q=Gibraltar+self-determination&pg=PA206|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn= 9780521637527|page=209}}</ref> However, the [[Partido Andalucista]] has agreed to recognise the right to self-determination of Gibraltarians.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=30023 |title=Andalusian nationalists say 'yes' to Gibraltar's self-determination |publisher=Gibraltar Chronicle |date=11 July 2013 |access-date=11 July 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413144944/http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=30023 |archive-date=13 April 2014 }}</ref>

===Greenland===
{{Main|Greenlandic independence}}

=== Hong Kong ===
{{Main|Hong Kong independence}}
Before the United Nations's adoption of resolution 2908 (XXVII) on 2 November 1972, The People's Republic of China vetoed the former British colony of Hong Kong's right to self-determination on 8 March 1972. This sparked several nations' protest along with Great Britain's declaration on 14 December that the decision is invalid. 
Decades later,{{When|date=August 2019}} an independence movement, dubbed as the Hong Kong independence movement emerged in the now Communist Chinese controlled territory. It advocates the autonomous region to become a fully independent sovereign state.

The city is considered a [[Special administrative regions of China|special administrative region]]&nbsp;(SAR) which, according to the PRC, enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the People's Republic of China (PRC), guaranteed under Article 2 of [[Hong Kong Basic Law]]<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-1|[1]]]</sup> (which is ratified under the [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]]), since the [[handover of Hong Kong]] from the United Kingdom to the PRC in 1997. Since the handover, many Hongkongers are increasingly concerned about Beijing's growing encroachment on the territory's freedoms and the failure of the Hong Kong government to deliver 'true' democracy.<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-rally-2|[2]]]</sup>
[[File:Hong Kong Flag 6048.JPG|thumb|upright=1.05|Pro-independence [[Flag of Hong Kong|Hong Kong flag]] put up before a football match between the [[Hong Kong national football team|Hong Kong Football Team]] and the [[China national football team]]]]
The [[2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform]] package deeply divided the city, as it allowed Hongkongers to have universal suffrage, but Beijing would have authority to screen the candidates to restrict the electoral method for the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong]]&nbsp;(CE), the highest-ranking official of the territory. This sparked the 79-day massive peaceful protests which was dubbed as the "[[Umbrella Revolution]]" and the pro-independence movement emerged on the Hong Kong political scene.<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-rally-2|[2]]]</sup>

Since then, [[Localism in Hong Kong|localism]] has gained momentum, particularly after the failure of the peaceful [[Umbrella Movement]]. Young localist leaders have led numerous protest actions against pro-Chinese policies to raise awareness of social problems of Hong Kong under Chinese rule. These include the sit-in protest against the [[Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014|Bill to Strengthen Internet Censorship]], demonstrations against [[University of Hong Kong pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy|Chinese political interference in the University of Hong Kong]], the [[2015 Yuen Long protest|Recover Yuen Long]] protests and the [[2016 Mong Kok civil unrest]]. According to a survey conducted by the [[Chinese University of Hong Kong]] (CUHK) in July 2016, 17.4% of respondents supported the city becoming an independent entity after 2047, while 3.6% stated that it is "possible".<sup>[[Hong Kong independence#cite note-3|[3]]]</sup>

=== Indigenous peoples ===
[[File:Indigenous march right to self-determination.jpg|thumb|262x262px|[[Lumad]]s in [[Davao City]] marching for the right to self-determination as part of the [[human rights in Philippines]] in 2008]]
[[Indigenous peoples]] have claimed through the 2007 [[Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]] the term peoples, and gaining with it the right to self-determination. Though it was also established that it is merely a right within existing [[sovereign state]]s, after all peoples also need territory and a central government to reach [[sovereignty]] in international politics.<ref>See the following:
* {{Cite book|title=International law|url=https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380|url-access=limited|first1=Malcolm Nathan|last1=Shaw|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=[https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380/page/n320 178]|quote=Article 1 of the [[Montevideo Convention]] on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'}}
* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on international law|editor1-first=Nandasiri|editor1-last=Jasentuliyana|publisher=Kluwer Law International|year=1995|page=20|quote=So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.}}</ref>

=== Israel ===
{{Main|Zionism|Israel|4 = Jewish history}}
[[File:Declaration of State of Israel 1948.jpg|thumb|[[David Ben-Gurion]] [[Israeli Declaration of Independence|proclaiming Israel's independence]] beneath a large portrait of Theodor Herzl]]
[[Zionism]] is a nationalist ideology founded by [[Theodor Herzl]] which claims a right of historic entitlement by descent as a nation, to exercise self-determination for [[Jewish diaspora|all Jewish people]] in the region of [[Palestine (region)|Palestine]]/[[ancient Israel]]/[[land of Israel]].<ref>Chaim Gans, [''A Political Theory for the Jewish People,''] [[Oxford University Press]] 2016 {{isbn|978-0-190-23754-7}} pp.1-18</ref> The successful implementation of this vision led to the establishment of the [[Israel|State of Israel]] in 1948.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Claeys |first=Gregory |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452234168 |title=Encyclopedia of Modern Political Thought |date=2013 |publisher=SAGE Publications, Ltd. |isbn=978-0-87289-910-0 |location=Thousand Oaks, California |doi=10.4135/9781452234168 |hdl=10138/156263}}</ref>

=== Kashmir ===
{{Main|Kashmir conflict}}
Ever since Pakistan and India's inception in 1947 the legal state of [[Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)|Jammu and Kashmir]], the land between India and Pakistan, has been contested as Britain was resigning from their rule over this land. [[Hari Singh|Maharaja Hari Singh]], the ruler of Kashmir at the time of accession, signed the Instrument of Accession Act on October 26, 1947, as his territory was being attacked by Pakistani tribesmen. The passing of this Act allowed [[Jammu and Kashmir (state)|Jammu and Kashmir]] to accede to India on legal terms. When this Act was taken to [[Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma|Lord Mountbatten]], the last viceroy of [[British Raj|British India]], he agreed to it and stated that a referendum needed to be held by the citizens in India, Pakistan, and Kashmir so that they could vote as to where Kashmir should accede to. This referendum that Mountbatten called for never took place and framed one of the legal disputes for Kashmir. In 1948 the United Nations intervened and ordered a plebiscite to be taken in order to hear the voices of the Kashmiris if they would like to accede to Pakistan or India. This plebiscite left out the right for Kashmiris to have the right of self-determination and become an autonomous state. To this date the Kashmiris have been faced with numerous human rights violations committed by both India and Pakistan and have yet to gain complete autonomy which they have been seeking through self-determination.{{POV statement|This whole paragraph is the only edit by a new user on a contentious topic, so I suspect NPOV issues.|date=September 2018}}{{Citation needed|reason=Reliable sources needed for the entire paragraph.|date=April 2018}}

The [[Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir|insurgency in Kashmir]] against Indian rule has existed in various forms. A widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir against India rule in 1989 after allegations of rigging by the Indian government in the [[1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election|1987 Jammu and Kashmir state election]]. This led to some parties in the state assembly forming militant wings, which acted as a catalyst for the emergence of armed insurgency in the region. The conflict over Kashmir has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
[[File:Indian soldiers, Kashmir (8138898130).jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|Indian soldiers on the streets of Kashmir during the [[Kashmir conflict|2016 unrests]]]]
The [[Inter-Services Intelligence]] of [[Pakistan]] has been accused by India of supporting and training both pro-Pakistan and pro-independence militants to fight Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, a charge that Pakistan denies. According to official figures released in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly, there were 3,400 disappearance cases and the conflict has left more than 47,000 to 100,000 people dead as of July 2009. However, violence in the state had fallen sharply after the start of a slow-moving peace process between India and Pakistan. After the peace process failed in 2008, mass demonstrations against Indian rule, and low-scale militancy emerged again.

However, despite boycott calls by separatist leaders in 2014, the [[2014 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election|Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections]] saw highest voters turnout in last 25 years since insurgency erupted. As per the Indian government, it recorded more than 65% of voters turnout which was more than usual voters turnout in other state assembly elections of India. It considered as increase in faith of Kashmiri people in democratic process of India. However, activists say that the voter turnout is highly exaggerated and that elections are held under duress. Votes are cast because the people want stable governance of the state and this cannot be mistaken as an endorsement of Indian rule.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/707|title=A Way Out for Kashmir? - Solidarity|date=30 November 2001|access-date=8 March 2016|archive-date=5 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160805031422/https://www.solidarity-us.org/node/707|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kashmiri.com/newsletters/archive/view/listid-1-mailinglist/mailid-67-joomlacontent44typetitlelink/tmpl-component|title=January 5th – Remembrance of Self-determination in Kashmir|access-date=2016-03-08|archive-date=2016-03-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160308171858/http://www.kashmiri.com/newsletters/archive/view/listid-1-mailinglist/mailid-67-joomlacontent44typetitlelink/tmpl-component|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Kurdistan ===
{{unreferenced section|date=August 2020}}
[[File:YPJ fighters Raqqa (February 2017).jpg|thumb|upright=0.95|Kurdish [[People's Defense Units|YPG]]'s female fighters during the [[Syrian Civil War|Syrian War]]]]
{{Main|Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)|Iraqi–Kurdish conflict|Kurdish separatism in Iran|Rojava conflict}}
[[File:Pre-referendum, pro-Kurdistan, pro-independence rally in Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq 25.jpg|thumb|Pro-independence rally in [[Erbil]], [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] in September 2017]]

[[Kurdistan]] is a historical region primarily inhabited by the [[Kurdish people]] of the Middle East. The territory is currently part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. There are Kurdish self-determination movements in each of the four states. [[Iraqi Kurdistan]] has to date achieved the largest degree of self-determination through the formation of the [[Kurdistan Regional Government]], an entity recognised by the [[Constitution of Iraq|Iraqi Federal Constitution]].

Although the right of the creation of a Kurdish state was recognized following World War I in the [[Treaty of Sèvres]], the treaty was then annulled by the [[Treaty of Lausanne (1923)]]. To date two separate Kurdish republics and one Kurdish Kingdom have declared sovereignty. The [[Republic of Ararat]] ([[Ağrı Province]], Turkey), the [[Republic of Mehabad]] ([[West Azerbaijan Province]], Iran) and the [[Kingdom of Kurdistan]] ([[Sulaymaniyah Governorate]], [[Iraqi Kurdistan]], Iraq), each of these fledgling states was crushed by military intervention. The [[Patriotic Union of Kurdistan]] which currently holds the [[President of Iraq|Iraqi presidency]] and the [[Kurdistan Democratic Party]] which governs the [[Kurdistan Regional Government]] both explicitly commit themselves to the development of Kurdish self-determination, but opinions vary as to the question of self-determination sought within the current borders and countries.

Efforts towards Kurdish self-determination are considered illegal separatism by the governments of Turkey and Iran, and the movement is politically repressed in both states. This is intertwined with Kurdish nationalist insurgencies [[Kurdish separatism in Iran|in Iran]] and [[Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)|in Turkey]], which in turn justify and are justified by the repression of peaceful advocacy. In Syria, a self-governing [[Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria|local Kurdish-dominated polity]] was established in 2012, amongst the upheaval of the [[Syrian Civil War]], but has not been recognized by any foreign state.

=== Nagalim ===
{{Main|Naga nationalism}}

[[Naga people|Naga]] refers to a vaguely defined conglomeration of distinct tribes living on the border of India and Burma. Each of these tribes lived in a sovereign village before the arrival of the [[British India|British]] but developed a common identity as the area was Christianized. After the British left India, a section of Nagas under the leadership of [[Angami Zapu Phizo]] sought to establish a separate country for the Nagas. Phizo's group, the [[Naga National Council]] (NNC), claimed that 99. 9% of the Nagas wanted an independent Naga country according to a referendum conducted by it. It waged a secessionist insurgency against the Government of India. The NNC collapsed after Phizo got his dissenters killed or forced them to seek refuge with the Government.<ref name="SK_Chaube_Naga_Politics">{{cite book | last = Chaube | first = Shibani Kinkar | title = Hill politics in Northeast India | publisher = Orient Longman | orig-year = 1973 | year = 1999 | oclc = 42913576 | isbn = 81-250-1695-3 | pages = 153–161 }}</ref><ref name="Ranabir_Samaddar">{{cite book | last = Samaddar | first = Ranabir | title = The Politics of Dialogue: Living Under the Geopolitical Histories of War and Peace | publisher = Ashgate | year = 2004 | oclc = 56466278 | isbn = 978-0-7546-3607-6 | pages = 171–173 }}</ref> Phizo escaped to London, while NNC's successor secessionist groups continued to stage violent attacks against the Indian Government. The Naga People's Convention (NPC), another major Naga organization, was opposed to the secessionists. Its efforts led to the creation of a separate Nagaland state within India in 1963.<ref name="Hamlet2001">{{cite book | author=Hamlet Bareh | title=Encyclopaedia of North-East India: Nagaland | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=b9-Ie-Vp6NoC&pg=PA78 | year=2001 | publisher=Mittal Publications | isbn=978-81-7099-793-1 | pages=78–79}}</ref> The secessionist violence declined considerably after the [[Shillong Accord of 1975]]. However, three factions of the [[National Socialist Council of Nagaland]] (NSCN) continue to seek an independent country which would include parts of India and Burma. They envisage a sovereign, predominantly Christian nation called "Nagalim".<ref>{{cite book | author=Dr. Kunal Ghosh | title=Separatism in North East India: Role of Religion, Language and Script | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_8ylAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT85 | date=1 January 2008 | publisher=Suruchi Prakashan | isbn=978-81-89622-33-6 | page=85}}</ref>

=== North Borneo and Sarawak ===

Another controversial episode with perhaps more relevance was the British beginning their exit from [[British Malaya]]. An experience concerned the findings of a ''United Nations Assessment Team'' that led the British territories of [[Crown Colony of North Borneo|North Borneo]] and [[Crown Colony of Sarawak|Sarawak]] in 1963 to determine whether or not the populations wished to become a part of the new [[Federation of Malaya|Malaysia Federation]].<ref name="am001">{{cite web|url=http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf |title=United Nations Treaty Series Nr. 10760: Agreement relating to Malaysia |access-date=2010-07-29 |publisher=United Nations |work=United Nations Treaty Collection |date=July 1963 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514204944/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/21/36/00041791.pdf |archive-date=May 14, 2011 }}</ref> The United Nation Team's mission followed on from an earlier assessment by the British-appointed [[Cobbold Commission]] which had arrived in the territories in 1962 and held hearings to determine public opinion. It also sifted through 1600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations and political parties. Cobbold concluded that around two thirds of the population favoured to the formation of Malaysia while the remaining third wanted either independence or continuing control by the United Kingdom. The United Nations team largely confirmed these findings, which were later accepted by the General Assembly, and both territories subsequently wish to form the new Federation of [[Malaysia]]. The conclusions of both the Cobbold Commission and the United Nations team were arrived at without any [[referendums]] self-determination being held.<ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf |title=United Nations General Assembly 15th Session - The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages: 509-510) |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121100604/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf |archive-date=January 21, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf |title=United Nations General Assembly 18th Session - the Question of Malaysia (pages: 41-44) |access-date=2012-03-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111111232635/http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf |archive-date=November 11, 2011 }}</ref> [[1962 Singaporean national referendum|Unlike in Singapore]], however, no referendum was ever conducted in [[Crown Colony of Sarawak|Sarawak]] and [[Crown Colony of North Borneo|North Borneo]].<ref>[[Jeffrey Kitingan]]: [https://web.archive.org/web/20130310053153/http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/03/08/there-was-no-sabah-referendum/ There was no Sabah referendum], published by [[Free Malaysia Today]], March 8, 2013.</ref> they sought to consolidate several of the previous ruled entities then there was [[Manila Accord]], an agreement between the Philippines, [[Federation of Malaya]] and Indonesia on 31 July 1963<ref name="Manila Accord">{{cite web|url=http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20550/volume-550-I-8029-English.pdf|title=United Nations Treaty Registered No. 8029, Manila Accord between Philippines, Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (31 JULY 1963)|publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-05-29}}{{PD-notice}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20608/volume-608-I-8809-English.pdf|title=United Nations Treaty Series No. 8809, Agreement relating to the implementation of the Manila Accord|publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-05-29}}</ref> to abide by the wishes of the people of [[Crown Colony of North Borneo|North Borneo]] and [[Crown Colony of Sarawak|Sarawak]] within the context of [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)]], Principle 9 of the Annex<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320074502/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf|url-status=dead|title=General Assembly 15th Session – The Trusteeship System and Non-Self-Governing Territories (pages: 509 – 510)|archive-date=March 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029214700/http://unyearbook.un.org/1963YUN/1963_P1_SEC1_CH3.pdf|url-status=dead|title=General Assembly 18th Session – the Question of Malaysia (pages: 41 – 44)|archive-date=October 29, 2013}}</ref> taking into account [[referendum]]s in North Borneo and Sarawak that would be free and without coercion.<ref name="Manila Accord" /> This also triggered the [[Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation|Indonesian confrontation]] because Indonesia opposed the violation of the agreements.<ref name="nonselfgov"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/org1469.doc.htm |title=United Nations Member States |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

=== Northern Cyprus ===
{{Main|Northern Cyprus}}
[[File:Pro-TRNC demonstration in Sarayönü North Nicosia.jpg|thumb|[[Sarayönü Square|Atatürk Square]], North Nicosia in 2006, with the [[Northern Cyprus]] and [[Turkey|Turkish]] flags]]
Cyprus was settled by [[Mycenaean Greece|Mycenaean Greeks]] in two waves in the [[2nd millennium BC]]. As a strategic location in the [[Middle East]], it was subsequently occupied by several major powers, including the empires of the [[Assyria]]ns, [[Ancient Egypt|Egyptians]] and [[Achaemenid Empire|Persians]], from whom the island was seized in 333 BC by [[Alexander the Great]]. Subsequent rule by [[Ptolemaic Kingdom|Ptolemaic Egypt]], the [[Roman Empire|Classical]] and [[Byzantine Empire|Eastern Roman Empire]], [[Caliphate|Arab caliphates]] for a short period and the [[House of Lusignan|French Lusignan dynasty]]. Following the death in 1473 of [[James II of Cyprus|James II]], the last Lusignan king, the [[Republic of Venice]] assumed control of the island, while the late king's Venetian widow, Queen [[Catherine Cornaro]], reigned as figurehead. Venice formally annexed the [[Kingdom of Cyprus]] in 1489, following the abdication of Catherine. The Venetians fortified [[Nicosia]] by building the [[Walls of Nicosia]], and used it as an important commercial hub.

Although the Lusignan French aristocracy remained the dominant social class in Cyprus throughout the medieval period, the former assumption that Greeks were treated only as [[Serfdom|serfs]] on the island is no longer considered by academics to be accurate. It is now accepted that the medieval period saw increasing numbers of [[Greek Cypriots]] elevated to the upper classes, a growing Greek middle ranks, and the Lusignan royal household even marrying Greeks. This included King [[John II of Cyprus]] who married [[Helena Palaiologina]].

Throughout Venetian rule, the [[Ottoman Empire]] frequently raided Cyprus. In 1539 the Ottomans destroyed [[Limassol]] and so fearing the worst, the Venetians also fortified [[Famagusta]] and [[Kyrenia]].

Having invaded in 1570, [[Turkish Cypriots|Turks]] controlled and solely governed all of the Cyprus island from 1571 until its leasing to the [[British Empire]] in 1878. Cyprus was placed under [[British Cyprus|British administration]] based on [[Cyprus Convention]] in 1878 and formally annexed by Britain at the beginning of [[World War I]] in 1914. While Turkish Cypriots made up 18% of the population, the partition of Cyprus and creation of a Turkish state in the north became a policy of Turkish Cypriot leaders and the [[Turkey|Republic of Turkey]] in the 1950s.  Politically, there was no majority/minority relation between [[Greek Cypriots]] and [[Turkish Cypriots]];<ref>[http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0001608.pdf Behice Ozlem Gokakin, MS Thesis, Bilkent Univ., 2001] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170306035518/http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0001608.pdf |date=2017-03-06 }} p.36, Vassiliou (the Council of Europe, 30.01.1990; to the question of Keith Speed (Member of the UK Parliament)): "the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities are political equals."</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2004/1-2004Chapter2.pdf |author1=Nathalie Tocci |author1-link=Nathalie Tocci |author2=Tamara Kovziridze |title=Cyprus |access-date=2017-03-05 |archive-date=2011-03-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110302211747/http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2004/1-2004Chapter2.pdf |url-status=dead }} p.14: In July 1989, UN SG Perez de Cuellar stated "Cyprus is a common home for the Greek and Turkish communities, whose relationship would be not of majority and minority but rather of political equality"</ref> and hence, in 1960, [[Cyprus|Republic of Cyprus]] was founded by the constituent communities in Cyprus (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots)<ref>James R. Crawford, "The Creation of States in International Law", 2007. {{doi| 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228423.001.0001}}</ref> as a non-unitary state; the 1960 Constitution set both [[Turkish language|Turkish]] and [[Greek language|Greek]] as the official languages.<ref>Michael Stephen, 1997, The Cyprus Question. The case of Cyprus is sui generis, for there is no other State in the world which came into being as a result of two politically equal peoples coming together by the exercise by each of its sovereign right of self-determination, to create a unique legal relationship, which was in turn guaranteed by international treaty, to which each of them consented. From its very inception the Republic of Cyprus was never a unitary state in which there is only one electorate with a majority and minority. The two communities were political equals and each existed as a political entity.</ref><ref>[http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/Cristv.Turkey.pdf Saltzman and Evinch and Perles Law Firm] The Republic of Cyprus was founded in 1960 as a bicommunal state in which the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities had the status of co-founders and equal partners.</ref> During 1963–74, the island experienced ethnic clashes and turmoil, following the [[Greek nationalism|Greek nationalists]]' coup to unify the island to Greece, which led to the eventual [[Turkish invasion of Cyprus|Turkish invasion]] in 1974.<ref>Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union, p.&nbsp;12</ref> [[Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus]] was declared in 1983 and recognized only by Turkey.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1021835.stm |title=BBC Timeline: Cyprus, accessed 2-26-2008 |work=BBC News |date=2011-12-13 |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> Monroe Leigh, 1990, The Legal Status in International Law of the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot Communities in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot regimes participating in these negotiations, and the respective communities which they represent, are presently entitled to exercise equal rights under international law, including rights of self-determination.<ref>Prof. Elihu Lauterracht, B.E., Q.C.,1990, The Right of Self-Determination of the Turkish Cypriots. There appears to be nothing on the face of that language taken by itself, to suggest that there is any inequality of status between the parties or that either of them is doing anything other than further exercising its right of self-determination by participating in the settlement negotiations.</ref> Before the [[Turkey]]'s invasion in 1974, Turkish Cypriots were concentrated in [[Turkish Cypriot enclaves]] in the island.

Northern Cyprus fulfills all the classical criteria of statehood.<ref>[http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702375.001.0001/acprof-9780198702375 Self-Determination and Secession in International Law] Christian Walter, Antje Von Ungern-Sternberg, Kavus Abushov, Oxford University Press, 2014, p.64</ref> United Nations Peace Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) operates based on the laws of Northern Cyprus in north of Cyprus island.<ref>[http://www.brill.com/international-peacekeeping-yearbook-international-peace-operations-5 Impediments to Peacekeeping: The Case of Cyprus] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170222061554/http://www.brill.com/international-peacekeeping-yearbook-international-peace-operations-5 |date=2017-02-22 }} Stefan Talmon, p.58-59., in "International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations", Vol.8, 2002. Without a status-of-forces agreement (or similar arrangements) between the United Nations and the Government of the TRNC, UNFICYP operates solely within the framework of the laws, rules and regulations of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which may be altered by the TRNC authorities unilaterally and without prior notice.</ref> According to [[European Court of Human Rights|European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)]],  the laws of Northern Cyprus is valid in the north of Cyprus.<ref>[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 European Court of Human Rights 02.07.2013 Decision] A de facto recognition of the acts of the regime in the northern area may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, ''the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory'', may be regarded as ''having a legal basis'' in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention</ref> ECtHR did ''not'' accept the claim that the Courts of Northern Cyprus lacked "independence and/or impartiality".<ref>[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 ECtHR's 02.09.2015 Decision]"..the ''court system'' in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" courts were thus to be considered as ''"established by law"'' with reference to the ''"constitutional and legal basis"'' on which they operated...the Court has already found that the ''court system'' set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been ''"established by law"'' with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has ''not accepted the allegation'' that the "TRNC" courts as a whole ''lacked independence and/or impartiality''...when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.."</ref> ECtHR directed all Cypriots to exhaust "domestic remedies" applied by Northern Cyprus before taking their cases to ECtHR.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103100|title=HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights|website=hudoc.echr.coe.int}}</ref> In 2014, [[Federal judiciary of the United States|United States' Federal Court]] qualified [[Northern Cyprus|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus]] as a "democratic country".<ref>[http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm Courthouse News Service] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141022134345/http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm |date=2014-10-22 }} The news of the Court decision (13.10.2014)</ref><ref>[http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002 Justia, Dockets and Filings] Page of the Court case (The Defendant: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)</ref><ref>[http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 Justia, Dockets and Filings] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025045018/https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 |date=2017-10-25 }} Decision of the Court</ref> In 2017, United Kingdom's High Court decided that "There was no duty in UK law upon the UK's Government to refrain from recognising Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates cooperation between the two parts of the island."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/criminals-fleeing-british-justice-can-no-longer-use-cyprus-safe Telegraph] 03.02.2017</ref> UK's [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] also dismissed the claim that "cooperation between UK police and law agencies in northern Cyprus was illegal".<ref>[http://ambamarblearch-media.com/sites/default/files/dpp_files/TT.pdf Ambamarblearch] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205184501/http://ambamarblearch-media.com/sites/default/files/dpp_files/TT.pdf |date=2017-02-05 }} Media, page 6</ref>

===  Palestine ===
[[File:Stop the genocide, Free Palestine 023 Mielenosoitus palestiinalaisten tueksi (53274234547).jpg|thumb|"[[Palestinian genocide accusation|Stop genocide]], free Palestine" rally in [[Helsinki]], 21 October 2023]]
{{main|Palestinian self-determination|State of Palestine|Palestinian nationalism}}
Palestinian self-determination is the aspiration of some Palestinians and [[Palestinian nationalists]] for increased [[autonomy]] and [[Sovereign state|sovereign independence]],<ref>Dynamics of Self-determination in Palestine, P. J. I. M. De Waart - 1994, p 191</ref> as well as to the international right of self-determination applied to [[Palestine]]. Such sentiments are features of both the [[one state solution]] and the [[two state solution]]. In the two state solution this usually denotes territorial integrity initiatives, such as resisting [[Israeli-occupied territories#West Bank|occupation in the West Bank]], annexation efforts in East Jerusalem or [[Palestinian freedom of movement|freedom of movement]] along borders, as well the preservation of important sites such as [[Qibli Mosque|al-Aqsa mosque]].<ref>The Failure of the Two-State Solution, Hani Faris - 2013, p 177</ref>

=== Quebec===
{{main|Quebec sovereignty movement}}
[[File:Oui1995referendum.jpg |thumb|220x220px|A poster for Quebec sovereignty during the [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995 referendum]]: {{langnf|fr|links=no|Oui, et ça devient possible|Yes, and it becomes possible}}]]
In Canada, many [[French Canadians|Francophone]] citizens in the [[Quebec|Province of Quebec]] have wanted the province to separate from [[Confederation]]. The [[Parti Québécois]] has asserted Quebec's "right to self-determination. " There is debate on under which conditions would this right be realized.<ref>Guy Leblanc. [https://wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/que-m06.shtml Canada: Parti Québécois convention meets as support for separation wanes] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111128163824/https://wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/que-m06.shtml |date=2011-11-28 }}</ref> [[French-speaking]] [[Quebec nationalism]] and support for maintaining [[Culture of Quebec|Québécois culture]] would inspire [[Quebec nationalism|Quebec nationalists]], many of whom were supporters of the [[Quebec sovereignty movement]] during the late-20th century.<ref name="Clift1982">{{cite book|author=Dominique Clift|title=Quebec nationalism in crisis|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ArsBP5Efqx4C&pg=PA106|year=1982|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP|isbn=978-0-7735-0383-0|pages=106–108}}</ref>

=== Sardinia ===
{{main|Sardinian nationalism}}
Sardinian nationalism or Sardism (''Sardismu'' in [[Sardinian language|Sardinian]]; {{Lang|it|Sardismo}} in Italian<ref>[http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=sardismo Sardismo, lemma, Garzanti Linguistica.]</ref>) is a social, cultural and political movement in [[Sardinia]] calling for the self-determination of the [[Sardinian people]] in a context of national [[devolution]], further [[Autonomism (political doctrine)|autonomy]] in Italy, or even outright independence from the latter. It also promotes the [[Environmental protection|protection]] [[Environmentalism|of the island's environment]] and the preservation of its [[Sardinia#Culture|cultural heritage]].

Even though the island has been characterized by periodical waves of ethnonationalist protests against [[Rome]],<ref name="Carlo Pala">Pala, C. 2015. ''Sardinia''. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism. 1–3. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen319/abstract Abstract]</ref> the Sardinian movement has its origins on the [[Left-wing politics|left]] of the political spectrum;<ref>Hechter (M.), ''The Dynamics of Secession'', Acta Sociologica, vol. 35, 1992, p. 267.</ref><ref>[http://xaviercasals.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/entrevista-a-marcel-farinelli-1-corcega-y-cerdena-forman-un-archipielago-invisible-al-tener-sus-islas-nacionalismos-de-signo-opuesto/ Entrevista a Marcel Farinelli: "Córcega y Cerdeña forman un archipiélago invisible al tener sus islas nacionalismos de signo opuesto"]</ref> [[regionalism (politics)|regionalism]] and attempts for Sardinian self-determination historically countered in fact the Rome-centric [[Italian nationalism]] and [[fascism]] (which eventually managed to contain the autonomist and separatist tendencies<ref name="art.torvergata.it">[https://art.torvergata.it/retrieve/handle/2108/1380/6630/capitolo%201.pdf ''La Sardegna durante il ventennio fascista'', Università di Tor Vergata]</ref>).

=== Scotland ===
{{main|Scottish independence}}
[[File:Scottish Independence Rally, George Square, Glasgow, 2019 1.jpg|thumb|Scotland independence march in [[Glasgow]], 2019]]
[[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]] ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707, as did [[Kingdom of England|England]], when the [[Acts of Union 1707|Acts of Union]] (1707) created the unified [[Kingdom of Great Britain]], but has a long-standing [[Scottish independence movement]],<ref name="theg_ScotSummary">{{Cite web |title=Scottish independence: the essential guide |last1=Carrell |first1=Severin |work=The Guardian |date= 23 April 2012|access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-essential-guide}}</ref> with polls suggesting in January 2020 that 52% of eligible voters would vote for an independent Scotland.<ref name="hera_Scot">{{Cite web |title=Scottish independence support maintains lead in latest poll |work=HeraldScotland |date=3 February 2020 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18208221.poll-puts-scottish-independence-support-highest-nearly-four-years/?ref=rss}}</ref> The country's largest political party, the [[Scottish National Party]],<ref name="rese_Memb">{{Cite journal |title=Membership of UK political parties - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament |journal=Researchbriefings.parliament.uk |date= 9 August 2019|access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125|last1= Loft|first1= Philip|last2= Dempsey|first2= Noel|last3= Audickas|first3= Lukas}}</ref> campaigns for Scottish independence. A [[2014 Scottish independence referendum|referendum on independence was held in 2014]], where it was rejected by 55% of voters.<ref name="theg_Scot2014Results">{{Cite news |title=Scottish independence referendum: final results in full |work=The Guardian |date=18 September 2014 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/sep/18/-sp-scottish-independence-referendum-results-in-full}}</ref> The Independence debate continued throughout the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|UK referendum on EU membership]] where the electorate in Scotland voted by 62% to remain a member of the EU, as did Northern Ireland.<ref name="bbc._Scot">{{Cite news |title=Scotland backs Remain as UK votes Leave |work=BBC News |date=24 June 2016 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102}}</ref> Results in England and Wales, however, led to the whole of the United Kingdom leaving the EU.<ref name="econ_Scot">{{Cite news |title=Scotland votes to stay in the EU—but is dragged out by England |newspaper=The Economist |date=24 June 2016 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/06/24/scotland-votes-to-stay-in-the-eu-but-is-dragged-out-by-england}}</ref> In late 2019 the [[Scottish Government]] announced plans to demand a second referendum on Scottish Independence. This was given assent by the [[Scottish Parliament]] but, as of July 2022, British Prime Minister [[Boris Johnson]] has refused to grant the Section 30 powers required to hold another referendum on the argument that both sides accepted beforehand that the 2014 vote would settle the matter for a generation.<ref name="hera_Bori">{{Cite web |title=Boris Johnson says 'No' to Nicola Sturgeon's demand for second Scottish independence referendum |work=HeraldScotland |date=3 November 2019 |access-date=10 February 2020 |url= https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18011390.prime-minister-boris-johnson-says-no-nicola-sturgeons-indyref2-demand/}}</ref>

=== South Africa ===
{{Main|Volkstaat}}

Section 235 of the [[Constitution of South Africa|South African Constitution]] allows for the right to self-determination of a community, within the framework of "the right of the [[South Africans|South African people]] as a whole to self-determination", and pursuant to national legislation.<ref name="section235">{{cite web | title=Section 235 | url=http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons14.htm#235 | work=South African Constitution | year=1996 | access-date=2009-05-17 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090926114134/http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons14.htm#235 | archive-date=2009-09-26 }}</ref> This section of the constitution was one of the negotiated settlements during the handing over of political power in 1994. Supporters of an independent [[Afrikaner]] homeland have argued that their goals are reasonable under this new legislation.<ref name="section235"/>

=== South Tyrol ===
In [[Italy]], [[South Tyrol|South Tyrol/Alto Adige]] was [[Italianization of South Tyrol|annexed]] after the [[World War I|First World War]]. The German-speaking inhabitants of South Tyrol are protected by the [[Gruber–De Gasperi Agreement|Gruber-De Gasperi Agreement]], but there are still supporters of the self determination of South Tyrol, e.g. the party [[Die Freiheitlichen]] and the [[South Tyrolean independence movement]]. At the end of WWII, Italian resistance troops entered South Tyrol and took over the administration against the wishes of the South Tyrolean resistance movement.<ref name="Groge2012">{{cite book |last1=Grote |first1=Georg |title=The South Tyrol question, 1866-2010 : from national rage to regional state |date=2012 |publisher=Peter Lang |location=Oxford |isbn=978-3-0353-0303-2 |page=71 |url=https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/48510/9783035303032.pdf |access-date=2021-07-25}}</ref> The Allies subsequently granted South Tyrol to Italy, with the British foreign minister remarking that "in theory the Austrians have the better argument, however handing over the power stations of South Tyrol to them could openly give the Russians a helping hand with which they could pressurise Italy".<ref name="Groge2012"/> The Allies pushed Italy to grant the region a high degree of autonomy, culminating in the [[Gruber–De Gasperi Agreement]] of 1946.

=== Székely Land ===
{{main|Székely autonomy movement}}
Following the [[World War I|First World War]], large areas of the [[Kingdom of Hungary]] were [[Treaty of Trianon|annexed]] by Romania. Some of these areas were inhabited by an ethnic [[Hungarians|Hungarian]] population called [[Székelys]]. Ever since their homes were integrated into Romania, these people were trying to achieve some form of autonomy or self-governance.

=== Taiwan ===
{{main|Taiwan independence movement}}

=== Tibet ===
{{main|Tibetan independence movement}}
There are several movements in advocacy of the [[Tibetan sovereignty debate|Tibetan sovereignty]] from the [[History of Tibet (1950-present)|Chinese occupation since 1950]]. The [[Central Tibetan Administration|Tibetan Government in-Exile]] is a notable example.

=== United States ===
[[File:Native American Girl.jpg|thumb|upright=0.6|A Native American woman in traditional dress]]
The colonization of the [[North America]]n continent and its [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]] population has been the source of legal battles since the early 19th century. Many Native American tribes were resettled onto separate tracts of land ([[Indian reservation|reservations]]), which have retained a certain degree of [[autonomy]] within the [[United States]].  The [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] recognizes [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States|Tribal Sovereignty]] and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship among the federal, [[State governments of the United States|state]], and tribal governments. The [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] and later federal laws recognize the local sovereignty of tribal nations, but do not recognize full sovereignty equivalent to that of foreign nations, hence the term "domestic dependent nations" to qualify the federally recognized tribes.

Certain [[Chicano nationalism|Chicano nationalist]] groups seek to "recreate" an ethnic-based state to be called [[Aztlán]], after the legendary homeland of the [[Aztecs]]. It would comprise the [[Southwestern United States]], historic territory of [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|indigenous peoples]] and their descendants, as well as colonists and later settlers under the [[Spanish Empire|Spanish colonial]] and [[Mexico|Mexican]] governments.<ref>[http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'], Associated Press, 2000 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107032413/http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm |date=November 7, 2012 }}</ref> Supporters of the proposed state of [[Republic of New Afrika|New Afrika]] argue that the history of African-Americans living in and making productive of several U.S. states in the [[Black Belt in the American South|Black Belt]] entitles them to establish an African-American republic in the area, alongside $400 billion as reparations for slavery.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781405198073 |title=The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest |date=2009-07-28 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-1-4051-8464-9 |editor-last=Ness |editor-first=Immanuel |edition=1 |language=en |doi=10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp1253}}</ref>

There are several active [[Native Hawaiians|Hawaiian]] autonomy or independence movements, each with the goal of realizing some level of political control over single or several islands. The groups range from those seeking territorial units similar to [[Indian reservation]]s under the United States, with the least amount of independent control, to the [[Hawaiian sovereignty movement]], which is projected to have the most independence. The Hawaiian Sovereignty movement seeks to revive the Hawaiian nation under the [[1840 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom|Hawaiian constitution]].

[[File:Protest against Washington football team name at TCF Stadium (15692618845).jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|Native Americans and their supporters protest during the [[Washington Redskins name controversy]]]]
Since 1972, the [[Special Committee on Decolonization|U.N. Decolonization Committee]] has called for [[Puerto Rico]]'s "decolonization" and for the US to recognize the island's right to self-determination and independence. In 2007 the Decolonization Subcommittee called for the United Nations General Assembly to review the [[political status of Puerto Rico]], a power reserved by the 1953 Resolution.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3160.doc.htm |title=Special Committee on Decolonization Calls on United States to Expedite Puerto Rico's Self-determination Process – General Assembly GA/COL/3160 – Department of Public Information – June 14, 2007 |publisher=Un.org |access-date=2012-03-04}}</ref> This followed the 1967 passage of a [[plebiscite]] act that provided for a vote on the status of Puerto Rico with three status options: continued [[Commonwealth (U.S. insular area)|commonwealth]], [[Statehood movement in Puerto Rico|statehood]], and [[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|independence]]. In the first plebiscite, the commonwealth option won with 60.4% of the votes, but US congressional committees failed to enact legislation to address the status issue. In subsequent plebiscites in 1993 and 1998, the status quo was favored.<ref>For complete statistics of these plebiscites, see [http://electionspuertorico.org/cgi-bin/events.cgi Elections in Puerto Rico: Results].</ref>

In a [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum|referendum]] that took place in November 2012, a majority of Puerto Rican residents voted to change the territory's relationship with the United States, with the statehood option being the preferred option. But a large number of ballots—one-third of all votes cast—were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. Supporters of the commonwealth status had urged voters to blank their ballots. When the blank votes are counted as anti-statehood votes, the statehood option would have received less than 50% of all ballots received.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html|title=Puerto Ricans favor statehood for the first time|work=[[CNN]]|author=Castillo, Mariano|date=November 8, 2012}}</ref> As of January 2014, Washington has not taken action to address the results of this plebiscite.

Many current U.S. [[Secession in the United States|state, regional and city secession groups]] use the language of self-determination. A 2008 [[Zogby International]] poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."<ref>[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1531 Middlebury Institute/Zogby Poll: "One in Five Americans Believe States Have the Right to Secede"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080814090142/http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1531 |date=2008-08-14 }}, [http://zogby.com/ Zogby International], July 23, 2008.</ref><ref>Alex Mayer, [https://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/editorial-writers-notebooks/2008/07/secession-still-a-popular-idea/ "Secession: still a popular idea?"] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20080804015722/http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/editorial-writers-notebooks/2008/07/secession-still-a-popular-idea/ |date=2008-08-04 }}, ''[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]],'' July 25, 2008.</ref>

On December 15, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the Puerto Rico Status Act. The act sought to resolve Puerto Rico's status and its relationship to the United States through a binding plebiscite.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-status-act-house-vote-territory-plebiscite-rcna61871|title=House votes in favor of resolving Puerto Rico's territorial status|website=NBC News|date=December 15, 2022}}</ref>

Since the late 20th century, some states periodically discuss desires to [[secession in the United States|secede from the United States]]. Unilateral secession was ruled [[constitutionality|unconstitutional]] by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[Texas v. White]]'' (1869).

===Western Sahara===
{{Main|Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}
[[File:Manifestation in Madrid for the independence of the Western Sahara (13).jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.1|A demonstration in [[Madrid]] for the independence of Western Sahara, 2007]]
There is an active movement based on the self-determination of the [[Sahrawi people]] in the [[Western Sahara]]n region. [[Morocco]] also claims the entire territory, and maintains control of about two-thirds of the region.

===West Papua===
{{Main|Papua conflict|Free Papua Movement}}
[[File:Free West Papua Protest Melbourne August 2012.jpg|thumb|A Free West Papua protest in [[Melbourne]] in August 2012]]
The self-determination of the [[Western New Guinea|West Papuan]] people has been violently suppressed by the [[government of Indonesia|Indonesian Government]] since the withdrawal of [[Dutch colonial empire|Dutch colonial rule]] under the [[Dutch New Guinea]] in 1962.

=== Western Cape ===
{{Main|Cape Independence}}
[[File:Cape independence march cpt.jpg|thumb|A march for Cape Independence, January 2023|alt=Cape Freedon March in January 2023]]
Since the late 2000s there has been growing calls for the people of the [[Western Cape]] province of [[South Africa]] to become an independent state. South Africa in its current form was created in 1910 after the [[South Africa Act 1909]] was passed in the British parliament. The Cape Colony ceased to exist, however many of its unique political and cultural quirks such as the [[Cape Qualified Franchise#The Cape Liberal Tradition|Cape Liberal Tradition]] nevertheless continued to exist. Recent polling has shown that over 46% of Western Cape voters back independence outright.