Colonial Legacies
What is happening?
The political autonomy exercised by sovereign states is the cornerstone of the modern international order. The Charter of the United Nations codifies this principle in Article 2, Section 1, which states that the UN and its related bodies are “based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members.”1 A number of fundamental international norms, including the prohibition of cross-border aggression and intervention in the internal affairs of states, also stem from the universal recognition of sovereignty.
Despite its role in shaping global affairs, the determination of sovereign status is not a straightforward process. Instead, it is contingent upon political, social, and economic power dynamics among and within polities, which have emerged in the colonial and postcolonial eras. Beyond the mainstream definition of sovereignty associated with nation-states, political communities around the world have obtained distinctive degrees of autonomy and independence through varied decolonization processes. This reality highlights the necessity of expanding the understandings of sovereignty to account for territories with diverse political traditions, cultures, and communities, even as they are not “sovereign” states in a conventional sense.
An illustrative case includes polities that are under the jurisdiction of “parent” nations, regardless of their capacity for self-governance and geographic adjacency. These relationships have developed in the postcolonial era, with former colonies choosing to remain associated with imperial powers as the latter transitioned to representative government structures. Overseas France, which is composed of twelve French-administered regions outside of continental Europe, is a fitting example. Colloquially referred to as DROM-COM, Overseas France includes five “departments,” namely French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and La Réunion. It also hosts five “communities,” like French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and Saint-Martin.2 Together, DROM-COM covers close to 120,000 square kilometers of territory, approximately one-fifth of mainland France, and is inhabited by nearly three million people.3
DROM-COM territories maintain differing degrees of political rights compared to mainland France, and to each other. These designations were determined in the 1940s through an array of political reforms in the metropole, and have been updated in the past decades with ideological or strategic objectives. All DROM-COM territories have jurisdiction and legislative powers, with representation in the French National Assembly and the Senate, as well as the right to vote in the presidential elections.4 The decision-making power of some also extends to making their own laws in certain cases, although key functions, such as defense and foreign policy, are managed by the central government in Paris.5 Overall, the administrative status of Overseas France territories is a balance between autonomy from and dependence on France. These territories have the ability to govern themselves and make decisions that affect their local communities, while also being supported by and integrated with France.
Another case study regarding postcolonial degrees of sovereignty can be found in the United States and the regions that are known as its “unincorporated territories.” These are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.6 The terminology refers to the fact that these territories have not been consolidated with the United States. Most were obtained in the 19th and early 20th centuries through “cessation,” whereby the indigenous people residing in the territories, or colonial empires that have previously conquered them, would cede the islands to the U.S. after military defeat.7 In the 20th century, various Supreme Court verdicts established the territories’ relationship with the mainland, determining that the U.S. Constitution applies only partially unless they were to become federal states.8 Today, the five polities are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. but are not part of any of the fifty states or the District of Columbia.9 Further to this, they possess different degrees of representation in the American government and various administrative designations. Those residing in Puerto Rico, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands, for instance, are American citizens, even as they do not pay federal income taxes.10 Those in the U.S. Virgin Islands hold both U.S. and Virgin Islander citizenship.11 However, American Samoans “owe allegiance to the state,” although they are not given the full extent of citizenship rights and protections.12 It is also important to note that representatives from the islands are not granted decision-making power in Congress. When it comes to making or passing federal laws, house members from the five overseas territories do not have voting rights, and they can only participate in debates.13
A related example of contemporary ties to former imperial metropoles is the Commonwealth Realm, composed of fifteen nations across the globe, including New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and a majority of Caribbean countries.14 Although these states are sovereign and function as independent nations, they recognize King Charles III, the King of the United Kingdom, as their monarch and head of state. Despite being largely ceremonial positions, King Charles III retains certain powers across the Commonwealth with regard to the legislative branch of each country.15 The United Kingdom appoints a representative, often a Governor-General, in consultation with a popularly elected leader or the parliament in the said countries.16 Even as political matters concern the elected parliaments and prime ministers, King Charles III, or his representative, has the authority to approve new governments. Depending on the country, he also has the power to appoint officials, approve legislative decisions, and grant state honors.17
Although these polities fall under the full or partial jurisdiction of “parent” nation-states, they possess distinct cultures, traditions, and languages of their own. For example in Puerto Rico, more than 95% of the population are Spanish speakers, although English is primarily spoken in continental U.S.18 Similarly in the French Caribbean territories, such as Martinique, French is the only official language even as indigenous Creole languages are widespread.19 The differences among the polities oftentimes extend into the political and economic spheres. Across the Commonwealth Realm, though the British monarch is the head of state, each country has specific political regimes and traditions. In Antigua and Barbuda, there are no taxes for personal income, estates, or capital gains.20 Conversely in Australia, taxation is widespread, with personal income taxed at more than 30%.21 These examples illustrate the impacts of the colonial and postcolonial periods on arrangements of sovereignty and autonomy in the contemporary era. Despite significant differences between these polities and their “parent” nations, colonial dynamics persist. Each polity possesses distinct degrees of autonomy and independence, which continues to impact internal and external decision-making processes to this day.
Why it is happening?
Present arrangements of autonomy and self-determination go back to several waves of decolonization. The persistence of these arrangements relates to a number of key strategic and economic considerations. To begin with, the French Overseas departments are former colonies, which have been incorporated into the French Republic through decolonization processes that began in the 1940s and continued into the 1960s. While some colonies of the French Empire gained independence, such as Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the early 1950s, others opted to remain in France as overseas territories, including French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and La Réunion.22 Likewise, all countries in the Commonwealth Realm were colonies of the British Empire until the 20th century.23 The foundations of the association were built as early as the 19th century, when the British Empire began implementing “responsible” governance in some of its colonies, whereby a British-appointed governor would take domestic policy decisions in consultation with officials of the elected chamber.24
The colonial history between semi-autonomous territories and their “parent” nations produces significant questions. Particularly in the Caribbean, calls for removing the British monarch as head of state have critically brought to light the British Empire’s legacy of slavery. In particular, Caribbean statesmen and activists have questioned the Crown’s role in perpetuating the transatlantic slave trade. Between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries, the Royal African Company, established by the British, transported more enslaved people than “any other single institution.”25 Estimates show that close to 2.3 million enslaved people from Africa were moved to the British Caribbean, primarily for harvesting key exports for the British, such as sugar.26 Even as many Caribbean nations remained in the Commonwealth in the postcolonial period, the islands have repeatedly sought an official apology from the British monarchy. Calls for reparations have also been raised. However, none have been delivered thus far by the United Kingdom.27
In spite of colonial histories, considerations of realpolitik have played a role in maintaining the relationships between nation-states and such polities into the 21st century. Former imperial metropoles have gained significant advantages through expanding their core territories in the decolonization era, especially with regard to seas and oceans.28 An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a maritime zone extending 370 kilometers from a coastal state’s baseline, where the state has special rights to explore, use, conserve, and manage the natural resources, both living and non-living.29 By maintaining overseas territories, states can exponentially increase their EEZs. As the central government can exploit the natural resources within the zone, including fish stocks, and oil and gas reserves, these resources can provide a significant source of income for the “parent” nation.30 The full control of marine resources granted through EEZs provides strategic advantages for “parent” nations as well.
Semi-autonomous territories tied to nation-states also benefit from existing governance arrangements, in particular through fiscal support from the latter. In the case of Overseas France, for instance, territories are financially dependent on the French government. They receive subsidies to support their economies, which are often less developed than those of metropolitan France.31 These subsidies help cover the territories’ expenses, such as infrastructure development and social services, as well as to support the standard of living of the local population. This means that maintaining ties with “parent” nations can sometimes be seen to be in the best interest of small island communities, especially in the economic sphere. To name one example, in a referendum held in New Caledonia in 2021, 96.49% of the people in the archipelago voted to remain a French territory.32 This is the third such vote in recent years, and the victory for the “stay French” option was the highest this time compared to the previous votes, where 56.7% chose to remain a French territory in 2018 and 53.26% in 2020.33
The complex relationships between semi-autonomous territories and their “parent” nations demonstrate the enduring impact of colonialism on global governance. The colonial histories underlying these relationships also raise important questions about accountability and reparations.
What’s being done about it?
In 2021, the debate on whether Guam and Puerto Rico should become American states was reignited.34 Advocates for statehood argue that it would give residents of the territories the same rights and representation as those in the continental U.S., including the right to vote in presidential elections and the right to have voting representatives in Congress. Opponents argue that statehood would not be in the best interest of the territories, and that they should instead be granted greater autonomy or independence. Although there is support for both perspectives from the island territories, it is ultimately up to Congress to decide whether to admit new states, as the islands themselves do not have voting rights on the matter.
Nations in the Caribbean are also taking steps to potentially leave the Commonwealth Realm. In Jamaica, a committee has been created to oversee the process of the required constitutional change on this front. The committee is set to conduct a thorough review of Jamaica’s constitution, including the 2011 Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.35 This year, the review will be presented to the Jamaican Parliament. After this consultation, a referendum is planned to be held in 2025, when Jamaica’s next general elections are set to take place.36 The most recently approved federal budget in Belize also put aside funds for the same purpose. The People’s Constitutional Commission has been mandated to consult with stakeholders across Belize on the continuation of the “decolonization process.”37 On the matter, the country’s Minister of the Public Service, Constitutional and Political Reform, Henry Charles Usher, said in a parliamentary session, “The decolonization process is enveloping the Caribbean. Perhaps it is time for Belize to take the next step in truly owning [its] independence.”38 Politicians in Grenada have also called for a referendum to vote on becoming a republic. Last year, Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, proposed that in the case of demonstrable bipartisan support, he will pursue a “single-item referendum” on this issue.39 The next few years will show whether these collective efforts will ultimately prove successful.
For Overseas French territories, the calls for independence have been few and far between. One example is the case of French Guiana, which has a significant population of people of Creole descent.40 There have been calls for greater autonomy for the territory, with some activists advocating for full independence. However, concrete action towards independence has not yet been taken.
These three case studies illustrate that attitudes toward greater autonomy and independence remain varied.
What’s next?
The concept of sovereignty has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Technological development and globalization have meant that territorial size, economic development, and political power are no longer strictly correlated. Even without access to traditional sources of economic and political capital, nation-states have developed new means of acquiring power and influence in an increasingly multipolar world order, which will produce significant implications on how the international community will continue to operate.
In this context, the issue of political autonomy and self-governance, combined with decreased dependence on “parent” states, are challenging the traditional concepts of power in international relations. The emergence of new forms of governance, such as regional integration and supranational organizations, are also encouraging localities to seek greater autonomy on the world stage. Evidently, independence movements in the Caribbean continue to gain momentum. Likewise, some unincorporated territories are seeking statehood in the U.S., especially those with large populations like Puerto Rico and Guam. Although public sentiment across the French Overseas communities points to the desire to remain tied to France, repeated referenda in recent years showcase that position is not shared by a majority, especially among the political elite.
Going forward, these challenges to strict interpretations of autonomy highlight the need for new understandings of state-to-state relations, which can better reflect the realities of contemporary times. New concepts of political autonomy that are more flexible, dynamic, and responsive will be necessary to effectively manage current complex governance dynamics. Colonial legacies are important factors to consider in this reflective process. Traditional conceptions are rooted in the idea of the nation-state as a sovereign entity with full control over its territory and people. However, the colonial period saw the imposition of foreign rule over territories and communities often without their consent or input. The legacy of colonialism continues to influence many of these territories and their relationship to pursuing further sovereignty and self-governance. As such, reimagined concepts of political autonomy in the postcolonial era need to take into account historical contexts and ongoing challenges faced by formerly colonized nations. This includes recognizing the impact of colonization on the extent of their political and economic realities, as well as their culture, language, and customs.
To access the endnotes, download the full report.
