Long after the height of the global decolonization wave that swept the world in the decades following World War II, there still exists a number of smaller island territories around the world where the full political independence route has not been taken, but where constitutional ties to colonizing states have instead been retained. This has mainly been attributed to a range of observed relative benefits of staying affiliated with a larger, richer mainland metropole, often related to material gains, security, and citizenship. The status of affiliated territories has been described as offering a potential “best of both worlds”, combining such benefits with a degree of autonomy. At the same time, however, territory-metropole relationships have been found to frequently give rise to controversies and fears of re-colonization, and concerns related to identity and nation-building appear difficult to balance with development considerations. With the literature remaining divided about the merits of metropolitan affiliation, questions persist as to how contemporary territory-metropole relationships should be construed. Do they indeed constitute a “best of both worlds”, or are they better understood as (neo)colonial arrangements? While academic debates are ongoing with many, sometimes conflicting, arguments being made about this over the past decades, the perceptions of those living under such arrangements have rarely been directly considered. This article analyses the political arrangements in 15 non-self-governing (island) territories (NSGTs) from the experiences and voices of territory representatives themselves, as expressed in addresses to UN decolonization committees, to examine which of the perspectives and arguments put forward in the academic debates are validated, or challenged, by these characterizations of metropolitan affiliation.

Mucho después del apogeo de la ola de descolonización global que arrasó el mundo en las décadas posteriores a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, todavía existen varios territorios insulares de pequeño tamaño en todo el mundo donde aún no se ha tomado la ruta de la independencia política completa, pero donde se han mantenido en cambio vínculos constitucionales con los Estados colonizadores. Esto se ha atribuido, principalmente, a una serie de beneficios relativos observados de permanecer afiliado a una metrópoli continental más grande y rica. Estos beneficios, con frecuencia, están relacionados con ganancias materiales, seguridad y ciudadanía. Se ha descrito el estatus de territorios afiliados como una opción que ofrece lo «mejor de ambos mundos», ya que combina dichos beneficios con un cierto grado de autonomía. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, se ha descubierto que las relaciones entre territorio y metrópoli provocan, con frecuencia, controversias y temores con respecto a una posible recolonización. Además, aquellas preocupaciones relacionadas con la identidad y la construcción de la nación parecen difíciles de equilibrar con las consideraciones de desarrollo. Mientras la literatura sigue dividida sobre las ventajas de la afiliación a una metrópoli, aún persisten preguntas con relación a cómo deben interpretarse las relaciones contemporáneas entre territorio y metrópoli. ¿Constituyen realmente estas relaciones «lo mejor de ambos mundos» o es mejor entenderlas como acuerdos (neo)coloniales? Si bien en las últimas décadas se han llevado a cabo debates académicos en los que se han proporcionado numerosos argumentos, a veces contradictorios, sobre este tema, rara vez se han considerado directamente las percepciones de quienes viven en esos contextos. Este artículo analiza los acuerdos políticos en 15 territorios (insulares) no autónomos (TNA) a partir de las experiencias y de las voces de los propios representantes de estos territorios, expresadas a través de discursos ante los comités de descolonización de la ONU, con el fin de estudiar cuáles de las perspectivas y argumentos presentados en los debates académicos son validados o cuestionados por estas caracterizaciones de la afiliación metropolitana.

Longtemps après l'apogée de la vague de décolonisation mondiale qui a traversé le monde dans les décennies suivant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il existe encore un certain nombre de petits territoires insulaires dans le monde où la trajectoire menant à une indépendance politique complète n'a pas été prise, et qui ont plutôt conservé des liens constitutifs avec les États colonisateurs. Cette réalité a notamment été attribuée à un éventail d'avantages constatés du fait de rester affilié à une métropole continentale plus grande et plus riche, souvent liés à des gains matériels, à la sécurité et à la citoyenneté. L'on a décrit le statut des territoires affiliés comme pouvant offrir « le meilleur des deux mondes », en combinant ces avantages avec un certain degré d'autonomie. En même temps, cependant, les relations entre territoires et métropoles donnent souvent lieu à des polémiques et des peurs de recolonisation, et il paraît difficile de compenser les craintes liées à l'identité et la construction de la nation par des considérations de développement. La littérature restant divisée quant aux mérites de l'affiliation à la métropole, des questions persistent concernant l'interprétation des relations contemporaines entre territoires et métropoles. Constituent-elles réellement un « meilleur des deux mondes » ? Ou s'agit-il plutôt d'arrangements (néo)coloniaux ? Tandis que les débats académiques se poursuivent avec la proposition de nombreux arguments, parfois contradictoires, à ce propos ces dernières décennies, les points de vue de ceux qui vivent ces arrangements sont rarement pris directement en compte. Cet article analyse les arrangements politiques dans 15 territoires (insulaires) non autonomes (TNA) d'après les expériences et voix des représentants des territoires eux-mêmes, telles qu'elles s'expriment dans les discours devant les comités de décolonisation de l'ONU. Ainsi, l'on souhaite examiner quels sont les perspectives et arguments exprimés dans les débats académiques qui sont validés ou remis en question par ces caractérisations d'affiliation métropolitaine. 

Since the height of the post-Second World War (WWII) decolonisation wave, self-determination has emerged as a cardinal principle in international law. Today, the realisation of self-determination for all peoples is viewed as an unexceptionable goal and an imperative for the full enjoyment of all human rights. At the same time, scholars have identified the very concept of self-determination as particularly vague and ill-defined. While it is a cornerstone of international law, it is paradoxically also one of its most unsettled norms. 

This thesis argues that self-determination’s unsettled nature hampers peoples’ abilities to exercise or call out violations of it, even where there is an undisputed right. This becomes evident if one considers the peoples of the world’s remaining non-self-governing territories (NSGTs), defined by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) as not yet decolonised, which make up the empirical focus of the thesis. NSGT peoples have an unalienable right to self-determination as part of their right to decolonisation. While the vast majority of colonies transferred to independent statehood in the post-WWII decades, NSGTs to this day remain in constitutional relationships with their respective administering (colonising) powers. Studies have found that movements and electoral support for full independence in NSGTs now tend to be limited. Metropolitan states have relatedly objected to the categorisation of their affiliated territories as colonies, seeking to portray the very retention of constitutional ties as a voluntary act – perhaps even an act of self-determination? The thesis argues that such a binary view is overly limited and risks obscuring self-determination violations that still occur within these relationships, as well as the limited opportunities for major constitutional change that have existed in practice.

International law on decolonisation stipulates a set of political status options that NSGT peoples may pursue. However, it is less clear regarding what self-determination entails and legitimises in relation to contemporary arrangements for metropolitan affiliation, for as long as they may persist. Using various types of qualitative and field data, including addresses by NSGT representatives to UN decolonisation committees, local news articles and interviews with key actors in two NSGTs and British Overseas Territories – the British Virgin Islands and Anguilla – this thesis inquires into these arrangements. It considers how they are experienced on the territory-level, how they shape local discourses and concepts of self-determination, and how they are in turn thought to promote or undermine it. By analysing this data in light of writings from law and political theory pertaining to Indigenous self-determination and decolonisation, the thesis develops an understanding of self-determination and its requirements within frameworks for metropolitan affiliation. Building on legal scholar James Anaya’s ideas about self-determination as having an ongoing and a constitutive aspect, it argues that this needs to be considered in regards to how the governing institutional order is structured and who hold power in both modifying and upholding it. Identifying shortcomings pertaining to both ongoing and constitutive self-determination in NSGT-metropole relationships, the thesis demonstrates the value of conceptualising this in a more elaborate way, aside from a choice for a permanent political status.

Previous literature explains the fact that sub-national elections tend to be more inclusive than national elections by reference to the level of the election. This paper argues that the constitutional status of the election is more decisive. This is illustrated by evidence from the British Overseas Territories (BOTs) where resident citizens without ‘belonger’ status are excluded from the vote. Elections in BOTs are less inclusive because they are significant to the future constitutional status of the territory. Finally, the paper considers the implications of our thesis for the ongoing dispute on belongership between the UK and BOTs.