Yet treaties were selectively applied because rights remain a concern ‘Minorities’ and an international interest so that they do not become foyers of irredentism’.The danger of minorities seceding is implicit. Firstly because minorities’ aim is and secondly this gives the impression to other communities of the same territory that a minority resented conforming to the political unity and does not support the territorial integrity of the state. This has been recognised by the UN resolutions, advocating internal self-determination always conditional to the observance of the sanctity of political unity and territorial integrity of the State concerned. Irregular application, of minorities’ rights in a state-centric international order meant conditionally applying the concept as long as it did not threaten the political unity and territorial integrity of the state. Once more conditionality of the international law emerges supporting the hypothesis as proven in the above sections and as will be argued below. 2.4.2 Aspects Versailles Treaty; Territory and the Protection of Minorities When the Treaty of Versailles was concluded, between the victors and Germany, one cannot but ask if internal and external self-determination were taken into account when dealing with territorial issues, or the war indemnities and Article 22, thus the Mandate system, and the Protection of the Minorities. As Baron Heyking and Loewenfeldargued in Stockholm’[R]acial self-determination’, after Paris peace treaty had become the public law of Europe. Temperley agreed with this assertion. Thus the principle of equality demanded that it should apply to the minorities of all member nations and not to the victors alone. The territorial adjustments between Germany, Poland, Belgium and France and Denmark were controversial and a contributory factor in future conflicts. According to the substantive terms of the treaty, Germany ceded Alsace-Lorraine to France, without an initial plebiscite. Furthermore, the German province of the Northern Schleswig province was ceded to Denmark, yet when a plebiscite was held, South Schleswig reverted to Germany. Thus a degree of consultation with people, which was envisaged by the Covenant, was not implemented appropriately, or implemented at all. For instance, the Saar and Ruhr District were placed under the French administration without any plebiscite. This action had two legal effects. First, it had a negative effect in the political self-determination of the German people. Second,
Yet treaties were selectively applied because ‘Minorities’ rights remain a concern and an international interest so that they do not become foyers of irredentism’.The danger of minorities seceding is implicit. Firstly because minorities’ aim is and secondly this gives the impression to other communities of the same territory that a minority resented conforming to the political unity and does not support the territorial integrity of the state. This has been recognised by the UN resolutions, advocating internal self-determination always conditional to the observance of the sanctity of political unity and territorial integrity of the State concerned. Irregular application, of minorities’ rights in a state-centric international order meant conditionally applying the concept as long as it did not threaten the political unity and territorial integrity of the state. Once more conditionality of the international law emerges supporting the hypothesis as proven in the above sections and as will be argued below. 2.4.2 Aspects Versailles Treaty; Territory and the Protection of Minorities When the Treaty of Versailles was concluded, between the victors and Germany, one cannot but ask if internal and external self-determination were taken into account when dealing with territorial issues, or the war indemnities and Article 22, thus the Mandate system, and the Protection of the Minorities. As Baron Heyking and Loewenfeldargued in Stockholm’[R]acial self-determination’, after Paris peace treaty had become the public law of Europe. Temperley agreed with this assertion. Thus the principle of equality demanded that it should apply to the minorities of all member nations and not to the victors alone. The territorial adjustments between Germany, Poland, Belgium and France and Denmark were controversial and a contributory factor in future conflicts. According to the substantive terms of the treaty, Germany ceded Alsace-Lorraine to France, without an initial plebiscite. Furthermore, the German province of the Northern Schleswig province was ceded to Denmark, yet when a plebiscite was held, South Schleswig reverted to Germany. Thus a degree of consultation with people, which was envisaged by the Covenant, was not implemented appropriately, or implemented at all. For instance, the Saar and Ruhr District were placed under the French administration without any plebiscite. This action had two legal effects. First, it had a negative effect in the political self-determination of the German people. Second,
Mustafa%2C%20Ahmet.docx