{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019103600293901544, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.16289592760181, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Territory and People or People and Territory?

The identities of large groups of people often are not really coincident with politically bounded territories in the international system of states. International law has developed to the point whereby priority of recognition is given to total populations of states and their governments rather than to sub-state groups. Self-determination is acceptable for the total population in a colonial territory—external self-determination-but self-determination may be granted only once for that territory or any of its parts. Such limitations as laid out in international law are not acceptable to many sub-state groups as they push for self-determination, up to and including secession. The latter process causes disruptions in the international system of states, yet there are alternatives to such drastic change. Increasingly, internal self-determination is being called for, and this can be achieved in a number of ways. Part of the challenge to international law as currently delineated is that increasingly, there is a call for a return to a people-over-territory emphasis instead of the current primacy of territory over people. This article reviews how self-determination came to be understood in international law and then identifies the emerging challenges that could force a reformulation of international law.