Introduction
Overseas territories remain one of the most significant arenas in which states are sometimes compelled to choose between the fundamental principles of international law and their own strategic interests. In this context, the right to self-determination, as one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law—whose customary status and erga omnes character have been established in international practice—comes into tension with the political, economic, and security considerations of states and other actors. Against this backdrop, New Caledonia, as one of France’s overseas territories, represents a notable example of an attempt to institutionalize the process of decolonization within a distinctive legal and political framework.
The Nouméa Accord (1998) was designed as a mechanism for the gradual transfer of powers from Paris to the local population, the recognition of the Indigenous identity of the Kanak people, and the creation of conditions conducive to the realization of the right to self-determination. In this respect, it occupies a distinctive place in the legal literature on decolonization. Nevertheless, developments following the 2024 crisis—including the Bougival Accord in 2025, the Élysée-Oudinot Accord, electoral reforms, and the 2026 provincial elections—have demonstrated that the question of New Caledonia’s final status remains unresolved and continues to be redefined. This situation indicates that the realization of the right to self-determination depends not merely on the establishment of legal mechanisms, but also on the structural, political, and social conditions necessary for the free expression of the will of the people of New Caledonia, with particular regard to the historical position and collective rights of the Indigenous Kanak people.
The Right to Self-Determination in International Law
The right to self-determination has its roots in the French Revolution and the American War of Independence. During the American struggle for independence, it was asserted that governmental authority derived from the consent of the people and that the people themselves possessed the right to alter or abolish their government. The establishment of many European states was also based on this idea, according to which every people should have the right to establish an independent nation[1]. The right to self-determination is regarded as one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law, under which peoples have the right freely to determine their political, economic, social, and cultural destiny. The principle acquired particular significance in the context of decolonization and has become established as one of the foundations of the international legal order. At the same time, the realization of this right cannot be reduced to its formal recognition; rather, it requires conditions in which the will of the people can be formed freely and without fundamental impediments. From this perspective, the right to self-determination may be understood as possessing both a normative and an operational dimension within the international legal system.
This human right is set forth in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Article provides that “all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; all peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.” In addition, the States Parties to the Covenant, including those responsible for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories and Trust Territories, are required to promote the realization of the right to self-determination and to respect that right in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations[2]. The same principle is also set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
In recent decades, international legal scholars have repeatedly argued that Indigenous peoples possess a right to exert direct influence on processes of international law-making; such claims are not new. As early as 1923, a North American Indigenous leader, acting on behalf of the Six Nations Confederacy, petitioned the League of Nations for admission as an independent state and requested that it address Canada’s violations of the sovereignty of those nations. The League of Nations also received a comparable petition from an Indigenous Māori religious leader from New Zealand, but generally rejected such claims. Nevertheless, in more recent periods, Indigenous peoples have participated in the international arena in various forms[3]. Contemporary understandings of the right to self-determination generally distinguish between “internal self-determination” and “external self-determination.” Internal self-determination may refer to a range of political and social rights; external self-determination, by contrast, refers to full legal independence or the secession of a “people” from the existing political and legal structure of a state. More broadly, the scope and purpose of this principle evolved significantly over the course of the twentieth century. During the early decades of the 1900s, international support for the right of all peoples to self-determination increased. This development contributed to successful movements for separation during and after the First and Second World Wars and ultimately helped pave the way for the process of decolonization in the 1960s[4].
It should be noted that, in the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination gives rise to obligations for the administering Power, while the United Nations, pursuant to the Charter and relevant resolutions, also bears specific institutional responsibilities for supervising and facilitating the decolonization process. Despite this framework, the right to self-determination continues to face interpretive and practical challenges in international law, one of the most significant being how its effective implementation can be guaranteed in the face of political and structural considerations of states. Despite its fundamental character, the principle of self-determination has remained sufficiently elusive that it is rarely challenged directly. International actors are therefore often compelled to move around the question of self-determination and seek legitimacy for a particular position through other legal frameworks. For example, a number of scholars have argued that Israel’s conduct toward Palestine constitutes apartheid. This framework is useful for the protection of certain Palestinian rights because it has an established basis in international law. Nevertheless, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 has explained that this framework overlooks the rights of Palestinian refugees and, more importantly, does not address the violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. A more damaging strategy for circumventing the principle of self-determination is to portray a situation as a “conflict between two opposing parties”, as occurred in the case of Palestine and Israel, rather than acknowledging the reality of occupation. In its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) not only recognized the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination but also regarded the Palestinian territories at issue, including East Jerusalem, as occupied territory and Israel as the occupying Power. The Court concluded that the construction of the wall and its associated régime severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination and constituted a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right[5].
The right to self-determination has likewise been emphasized in international judicial practice. In particular, in the International Court of Justice’s 1975 Advisory Opinion in Western Sahara, the Court stressed that the realization of self-determination requires the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned. The Court held that Western Sahara was not terra nullius at the time of its colonization by Spain. It further concluded that the existence of certain historical legal ties between Western Sahara and Morocco or the Mauritanian entity was not of such a nature as to preclude the exercise by the people of Western Sahara of their right to self-determination through the free and genuine expression of their will. Accordingly, the decisive factor was not the existence of historical ties, but the genuine expression of the will of the people of the territory in the process of decolonization[6].
Accordingly, the mere establishment of legal mechanisms or the conduct of formal procedures cannot, by itself, be regarded as sufficient to constitute the realization of this right. Rather, the conditions under which the will of the people is formed are of fundamental importance. This approach may also inform the analysis of the situation in New Caledonia, particularly where changes in the composition of the electorate or political restrictions may affect the genuine expression of the will of the Indigenous Kanak population.
Moreover, in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the right to self-determination has been recognized as an obligation of an erga omnes character, meaning that respect for this right is owed not merely to a particular state but to the international community as a whole[7]. This characteristic demonstrates that a violation of the right to self-determination cannot be treated solely as a domestic matter but has broader transnational and legal implications. From this perspective, the situation of New Caledonia cannot be analyzed exclusively within the framework of France’s domestic sovereignty; it must also be assessed in light of France’s international obligations concerning the right to self-determination.
- The 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration
The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations is one of the principal instruments adopted by the United Nations General Assembly for the clarification of fundamental principles of international law governing relations among States. The Declaration establishes the right to self-determination as one of these fundamental principles and emphasizes that it must be realized on the basis of the freely expressed will of peoples. At the same time, the instrument seeks to strike a balance between the right to self-determination and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. In other words, while safeguarding the rights of peoples, it also seeks to prevent instability within the international system. Accordingly, the Declaration is regarded as an important interpretive framework for understanding the scope and dimensions of the right to self-determination. The principles set forth in the Declaration are as follows:
- The principle that States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State;
- The principle that international disputes shall be settled by peaceful means;
- The legal duty of States not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of other States;
- The duty of States to cooperate with one another;
- The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
- The principle of the sovereign equality of States;
- The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith their international obligations[8].
- Resolution 1514
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), adopted in 1960 under the title Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, constituted a landmark in the consolidation of the right to self-determination in international law. The Resolution emphasizes the need for the immediate termination of colonialism and the right of all peoples to attain political independence. Under the Resolution, colonial domination is regarded as a violation of fundamental human rights and as lacking legitimacy. It also requires States to facilitate the process of transferring power to colonized peoples.
A significant part of the Resolution provides that, in Trust Territories, Non-Self-Governing Territories, and all other territories that have not yet attained independence, immediate steps shall be taken to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without distinction as to race, creed, or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom. It further provides that all States shall faithfully and strictly observe the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity[9]. Resolution 1514 thus established a normative framework for the process of decolonization and played an important role in the political developments of the subsequent decades.
- United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is also of particular importance to an analysis of the situation in New Caledonia, since it emphasizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, preservation of their cultural identity, protection of their customary institutions, and effective participation in decision-making concerning their future. The Declaration recognizes that Indigenous peoples enjoy fundamental rights such as freedom, equality, and non-discrimination, as well as rights relating to self-determination, life, land, religion, and culture. It emphasizes the interconnected nature of these rights and demonstrates that ensuring a life free from violence, the ability to care for children, the revitalization of languages, and participation in legislative processes affecting Indigenous peoples are all mutually interdependent[10].
From this perspective, the situation of the Indigenous Kanak people cannot be understood solely as a political or electoral dispute; rather, it is directly connected to the collective rights of Indigenous peoples. Concepts such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), meaningful participation, and respect for historical ties to land may provide important criteria for assessing the implementation of the Nouméa Accord and recent electoral reforms. Accordingly, any alteration of mechanisms for political participation undertaken without genuine consultation with the Indigenous Kanak people may be inconsistent with the protective rationale of the Declaration. Article 18 provides that Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that may affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as the right to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions[11]. Although the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a non-treaty instrument and does not, in itself, create an independent set of directly binding treaty obligations, it occupies an important normative, interpretive, and political position in the development of international standards concerning the rights of Indigenous peoples[12].
Decolonization in International Law
Decolonization is a process aimed at bringing colonial status to an end and enabling the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self-determination. The outcome of this process is not necessarily limited to full independence. Under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), independence, free association with an independent State, or integration with an independent State may, provided the relevant legal conditions are fulfilled and the outcome is based on the freely expressed will of the people, constitute means by which a territory attains a full measure of self-government. Decolonization in the mid-twentieth century created the expectation that newly independent States would be able to reshape international law[13]. As a result of this process, more than 700 million people have attained independence since the end of the Second World War[14]. Nevertheless, 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories remain, with approximately two million people living in these territories[15].
Decolonization emerged in international law as one of the most significant processes transforming the global order in the twentieth century, following the dismantling of colonial systems and in furtherance of the right of peoples to self-determination. The process is founded upon principles emphasizing the termination of foreign domination, the gradual or immediate transfer of power to colonized peoples, and the guarantee of an opportunity freely to determine their political status. Within the framework of international law, decolonization is not regarded merely as a political transformation; rather, it possesses a legal and normative character that obliges States to respect and facilitate the process. Practical experience, however, demonstrates that decolonization has not always been a linear or complete process and has, in many instances, been accompanied by challenges such as the persistence of structural dependency, indirect forms of intervention, and differing interpretations of legal concepts. From this perspective, decolonization may be understood as an ongoing and evolving process that remains contested and subject to redefinition in certain parts of the world, including overseas territories.
At the international level, New Caledonia remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and continues to be considered by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, commonly known as the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24). This status indicates that, from the perspective of international law, the process of decolonization in the territory has not been fully concluded and remains subject to international assessment and oversight. In this context, the United Nations has continued to emphasize the need to realize the right of the people of New Caledonia to self-determination on the basis of their freely expressed will. This demonstrates that the question of New Caledonia extends beyond a purely domestic matter and has an international dimension within the legal framework of the United Nations.
The Nouméa Accord and Subsequent Developments
The Nouméa Accord (1998) constituted the principal legal-political framework agreed between the French State and the two main political currents in New Caledonia, namely the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (Front de libération nationale kanak et socialiste – FLNKS) and the Rally for Caledonia in the Republic (Rassemblement pour la Calédonie dans la République – RPCR). It was concluded with the aim of organizing a gradual process for the transfer of powers, recognizing Kanak identity, and establishing a framework for determining the territory’s political future. The Accord emphasized recognition of the Indigenous Kanak identity and the strengthening of local institutions, while providing for the phased transfer of certain governmental powers to the local level over a period of twenty years. It also envisaged successive consultations to determine the territory’s political future as one of its principal mechanisms. At the same time, areas such as defence, foreign affairs, and certain other sovereign matters remained within the competence of the French central authorities. Institutions empowered under the Nouméa Accord included the Congress of New Caledonia, the provincial assemblies, and a Kanak institution known as the Customary Senate (Sénat coutumier). From this perspective, the Nouméa Accord represented an attempt to strike a balance between the continuation of French sovereignty and the gradual realization of the right to self-determination[16].
One of the most important mechanisms provided for under the Nouméa Accord for determining New Caledonia’s final status was the organization of popular consultations concerning the territory’s accession to full sovereignty and independence. Under the logic of the Accord, this process was linked to the transfer of the remaining sovereign powers, New Caledonia’s attainment of an independent international status, and the transformation of New Caledonian citizenship into nationality. The first referendum was held on 4 November 2018, when voters were asked whether they wanted New Caledonia to attain full sovereignty and become independent. In that vote, 56.67% voted “No” and 43.33% voted “Yes,” while turnout exceeded 81%[17]. The second referendum was held on 4 October 2020. Although independence was again rejected, this time by 53.26% of the votes, support for independence increased to 46.74%, and the gap between the two options narrowed considerably compared with 2018. Turnout in that vote was approximately 85.7%[18].
The third and final consultation envisaged under this framework was held on 12 December 2021, but the political and social circumstances surrounding it differed fundamentally from those of the two preceding votes. Following the intensification of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the Kanak community, the principal pro-independence movements, including the FLNKS, called for the vote to be postponed, arguing that pandemic-related circumstances, customary periods of mourning within Kanak society, and practical restrictions on electoral campaigning had undermined the possibility of conducting a normal and consensual process. After the French Government declined to postpone the vote, the principal pro-independence camp abstained from participation. As a result, turnout fell to approximately 43.9%, while 96.5% of votes cast were for “No.” Compared with the two previous referendums, this result should be understood less as evidence of a sudden shift in political preferences than in light of the widespread non-participation of the pro-independence camp. United Nations sources have likewise recorded that more than 56% of eligible voters did not participate and that representatives of the pro-independence movement did not regard the result as reflecting the genuine will of the people of the territory[19].
From a legal perspective, the significance of these three referendums cannot be reduced merely to their numerical outcomes. The 2018 and 2020 votes, characterized by high turnout and a comparatively close contest between the two options, formed a significant part of the Nouméa Accord’s mechanism for ascertaining the will of the people. The 2021 referendum, by contrast, brought into sharper focus the distinction between the formal legal validity of a vote and its political legitimacy and representativeness as an expression of the will of the population concerned. The third result was formally recognized under French domestic law; however, a significant part of the pro-independence movement considered that it lacked the political legitimacy necessary to bring the decolonization process to an end. This interpretive divide over the implications of the third referendum subsequently became one of the principal sources of disagreement concerning the post-Nouméa framework, the reform of the electoral body in 2024, and new negotiations over New Caledonia’s future institutional structure[20].
One of the most significant disputes to arise following the conclusion of the referendum cycle prescribed by the Nouméa Accord concerned the proposed reform of the special electorate (corps électoral spécial) for elections to the Congress and the provincial assemblies in 2024. The proposal, which was adopted in identical terms by both chambers of the French Parliament in May 2024, sought to extend eligibility beyond those already entitled to vote by allowing persons registered on the general electoral roll who had either been born in New Caledonia or had resided there for at least ten years to participate in elections to the Congress and provincial assemblies. This reform did not concern the independence referendum electorate. Strong opposition from a significant part of the Kanak pro-independence movement to the proposed modification of the electoral body was among the factors contributing to the crisis of May 2024. Nevertheless, the constitutional amendment process was halted following the dissolution of the National Assembly in June 2024, and the French Government abandoned the proposal in October of that year[21].
Within the same institutional framework, the Nouméa Accord also provided for an Economic and Social Council and a Customary Senate, composed of representatives from each of New Caledonia’s eight customary areas. Under the institutional arrangements established by the Accord, the institutions of New Caledonia and the French State are required to consult the Customary Senate on matters relating to Kanak identity[22]. From the perspective of Kanak pro-independence movements, expanding the electoral body for elections to the Congress and provincial assemblies could increase the political weight of populations that settled in the territory after the reference period established under the Nouméa Accord and could therefore alter the specific political balance established through the special electorate within the decolonization process. This concern constituted one of the important factors underlying the escalation of unrest and the political crisis of May 2024, which was accompanied by the declaration of a state of emergency and large-scale intervention by French security forces.
This dispute is also significant from the perspective of international law, since electoral arrangements in a Non-Self-Governing Territory must be assessed in light of the requirement to guarantee the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned and the requirements inherent in the process of self-determination. At the same time, neither a mere change in electoral rules nor even recourse by the State to law-enforcement measures can, without an assessment of the nature, necessity, and proportionality of those measures, be regarded in itself as a violation of the right to self-determination. The legally decisive question is whether the arrangements adopted, or the coercive measures employed by the State, have in practice impeded the free exercise of the right to self-determination[23].
In this context, the legal status of the Nouméa Accord within the French legal order should not be equated with that of an organic law (loi organique). Articles 76 and 77 of the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic place the Accord within a specific constitutional framework and provide for the enactment of organic laws and other measures necessary to implement its orientations. Accordingly, the Nouméa Accord itself is not an organic law; however, because it is expressly referred to in the Constitution, its orientations occupy a distinctive position within the French legal order and may be taken into account when assessing the constitutionality of rules relating to New Caledonia. Organic Law No. 99-209 of 19 March 1999 relating to New Caledonia constitutes the principal implementing instrument of this framework[24].
With regard to civil-status rights relating to the Indigenous Kanak population and incorporated within the French constitutional framework, the Nouméa Accord also provides that what had previously been referred to as “special civil status” (statut civil particulier) would henceforth be known as “customary status” (statut coutumier). Any person eligible for customary status who had renounced it, or who had been deprived of it as a result of renunciation by his or her ancestors, through marriage, or for any other reason—including children whose births had been registered in metropolitan France—would be entitled to recover that status. The constitutional amendment would authorize this exception to Article 75 of the French Constitution[25].
It should also be noted that, prior to the Nouméa Accord, the decolonization process in New Caledonia had entered a new phase with the signing of the Matignon Agreements (Accords de Matignon) in 1988. Named after the Hôtel Matignon in Paris, where the negotiations took place, these agreements were concluded following a period of political violence and internal confrontation between Kanak pro-independence groups and forces supporting the continuation of French sovereignty. They established a framework for restoring peace, sharing power to a certain extent, and initiating the gradual transfer of powers[26]. By emphasizing balanced economic development and the reduction of structural inequalities, the Matignon Agreements created conditions for more sustained political dialogue. In this sense, they may be regarded as marking the beginning of a transition from confrontation to political engagement, which ultimately culminated in the more comprehensive Nouméa Accord of 1998.
Finally, developments after 2024 demonstrate that New Caledonia’s institutional framework can no longer be analyzed solely within the confines of the original mechanisms established by the Nouméa Accord. Following the suspension and subsequent abandonment of the 2024 constitutional reform proposal concerning the electoral body, renewed political negotiations culminated on 12 July 2025 in the Bougival Accord, which proposed a different framework for New Caledonia’s future, including the creation of a “State of New Caledonia”, a reconfiguration of its relationship with the French Republic, and reforms to certain institutional and electoral mechanisms. The subsequent opposition of the FLNKS to the Accord, however, prevented the emergence of a durable consensus.
In January 2026, the Élysée-Oudinot Accord, as a supplementary agreement to the Bougival Accord, was reached in an effort to clarify certain institutional arrangements and readjust the timetable for the process. A constitutional amendment bill intended to implement this framework was approved by the French Senate in February 2026, but was rejected by the National Assembly on 2 April 2026. Although the text was subsequently referred back to the Senate for further consideration, this development effectively created a major obstacle to the implementation of the Bougival framework and redirected subsequent developments toward more limited electoral reforms and the holding of provincial elections[27].
At the same time, more limited changes to the rules governing the electoral body were introduced through Organic Law No. 2026-410 of 28 May 2026, under which persons born in New Caledonia and registered on the general electoral roll were also added to the special electorate for elections to the Congress of New Caledonia and the provincial assemblies. Elections to the Congress and provincial assemblies were subsequently held on 28 June 2026. Accordingly, as of September 2026, New Caledonia’s final status remains undetermined, and the territory continues to be listed by the United Nations as a Non-Self-Governing Territory under consideration by the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24)[28].
Existing Legal Challenges
Despite the numerous legal frameworks developed at the international level to protect the right to self-determination and advance the process of decolonization, the practical implementation of these principles has faced significant challenges. The experience of New Caledonia demonstrates that a gap continues to exist between legal obligations and political realities. These challenges arise not only from the complexity of concepts in international law, but are also shaped by structural, economic, and geopolitical considerations. The principal legal challenges relating to this issue are examined below.
- Conflict between the Right to Self-Determination and the Territorial Integrity of States
One of the fundamental challenges in international law concerns how to strike a balance between the right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Although international instruments recognize both principles, determining the boundary between them is difficult in practice. States often invoke the preservation of territorial integrity to limit the scope within which the right to self-determination may be exercised. This issue also arises in the case of New Caledonia, where France presents the continuation of its sovereignty within a legitimate legal framework. As a result, the full realization of this right is subject to structural constraints.
This tension is also reflected in the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration[29], which, on the one hand, recognizes the principle of equal rights and the right of peoples to self-determination and, on the other, emphasizes respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of States. The significance of the Declaration lies in the fact that it does not place the right to self-determination in an absolute and unqualified opposition to territorial integrity; rather, it seeks to establish a balance between the freely expressed will of peoples and the stability of the international order.
From this perspective, the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity in the case of New Caledonia must be analyzed in light of its status as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. In the context of decolonization, the principle of the territorial integrity of existing States cannot be invoked in the same manner as it is in secessionist claims arising within independent States. The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, particularly its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, demonstrates that the territorial integrity of the Non-Self-Governing Territory itself is also an element relevant to the exercise of the right to self-determination. Accordingly, the central issue in New Caledonia is not so much a simple conflict between the “territorial integrity of France” and “Kanak independence,” but rather the determination of the territory’s final status through the free and genuine expression of the will of the population concerned, within the framework of the rules governing decolonization.
- The Challenge of Ensuring the Free Expression of the Will of the People
International law emphasizes that the right to self-determination must be exercised on the basis of the freely expressed will of the people; in practice, however, the conditions required for the realization of this principle remain contested. Factors such as demographic composition, political conditions, access to information, and the existence of an open political environment may affect the formation of the popular will. In New Caledonia, changes in the composition of the electorate and electoral reforms have raised concerns as to whether the will of the Indigenous Kanak people is being genuinely and equally reflected. This issue affects the legitimacy of decision-making processes. Accordingly, the distinction between a merely formal process and the genuine realization of this right becomes particularly important.
This issue may also be analyzed in light of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which safeguards the right to participate in public affairs, the right to vote, and the holding of genuine elections based on the “free expression of the will of the electors.” In General Comment No. 25, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that any restrictions or electoral arrangements must be based on objective and reasonable criteria and must not be applied in a manner that undermines the genuine participation of a particular group of citizens[30]. From this perspective, the 2024 electoral reforms in New Caledonia raise the question of whether changes to the composition of the electorate, in the absence of genuine consensus with the Indigenous Kanak people, may affect the principle of the free expression of the will of the people.
- The Question of the Binding Force of the Nouméa Accord
Although principles such as the right to self-determination are firmly established in international instruments, their implementation in practice has not always been consistent. In some cases, such principles are pursued seriously, whereas in others they are disregarded under the influence of political considerations. This situation reflects a form of selective implementation of international law that may undermine the legitimacy of the international legal system.
The implementation of the Nouméa Accord cannot be analyzed directly on the basis of the principle of pacta sunt servanda under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since the Accord is not an interstate treaty within the meaning of the Vienna Convention. Its distinctive binding status within the French domestic legal order derives from Articles 76 and 77 of the French Constitution, the implementing organic laws, and the jurisprudence of the French Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel).
At the same time, France’s international obligations concerning the right to self-determination must be assessed independently on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, the international human rights covenants, customary rules relating to decolonization, and New Caledonia’s status as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. This challenge reveals the relationship between law and power.
- The Non-Binding Legal Status of Certain International Instruments
The fact that certain international instruments are formally non-binding should not be equated with the absence of legal force in respect of the rules they contain. Resolutions and declarations of the United Nations General Assembly may, in certain circumstances, reflect or contribute to the formation of customary international law. For example, in its Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice emphasized the role of Resolution 1514 (XV) in the consolidation of the customary rule of the right to self-determination.
By contrast, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), as a non-treaty instrument, does not in itself transform all of its provisions into treaty obligations, although some of its principles may overlap with existing customary rules or treaty obligations. From this perspective, international protection of the rights of the Indigenous Kanak people cannot be regarded as resting solely on soft law. Rather, a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, binding rules arising from treaty law and customary international law and, on the other, the normative and interpretive standards contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
- Continuing Structural Dependency in the Decolonization Process
In many cases, decolonization has not resulted in complete independence and has instead been accompanied by new forms of economic, political, and institutional dependency. Even within frameworks such as the Nouméa Accord, certain key powers have remained in the hands of the central government. This issue may also be examined in light of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), which sets out principles concerning the determination of the status of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Under this instrument, the attainment of a full measure of self-government may be regarded as legitimate where the final political status is based on the freely expressed will of the people concerned and is accompanied by genuine capacity to determine their political future[31]. From this perspective, although the Nouméa Accord transferred certain governmental powers to local institutions, the continued retention by the French central authorities of key areas such as defence, foreign affairs, and parts of the economic structure raises the question of whether the decolonization process in New Caledonia has reached a stage of genuine and complete self-government, or whether forms of structural dependency continue to persist. Such a situation may be regarded as an obstacle to the full realization of the right to self-determination. In New Caledonia, dependence on French economic and administrative structures remains evident. From this perspective, decolonization as a complete and final process remains open to question.
- Tension between Indigenous Rights and Nation-State Structures
The rights of Indigenous peoples, particularly in areas such as identity, land, and customary institutions, may at times come into tension with classical nation-state structures. The international legal system, which remains predominantly State-centered, faces challenges in fully recognizing and protecting the collective rights of Indigenous peoples. This issue is also addressed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Under Article 5 of UNDRIP, Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions, while retaining the right, if they so choose, to participate fully in the political, economic, social, and cultural life of the State. Article 4 of the Declaration likewise recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs[32].
From this perspective, the tensions existing in New Caledonia may be understood as arising from an effort to reconcile two different logics: on the one hand, the centralized structure of the French nation-state and, on the other, the demands of the Indigenous Kanak people to preserve their collective identity, customary institutions, and effective role in determining the political future of their territory. More generally, in New Caledonia this tension is manifested in the divergence between Kanak identity and the structures of French governance. Institutions such as the Customary Senate seek to narrow this gap, but significant limitations remain. This challenge demonstrates the need to rethink concepts of sovereignty and participation in international law.
Conclusion
An examination of the situation in New Caledonia demonstrates that the question of the territory’s self-determination cannot be analyzed solely within the framework of an internal dispute between the French State and pro-independence movements. New Caledonia’s continued inclusion on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, the distinctive status of the Nouméa Accord within the French constitutional order, and the obligations arising under the international law of decolonization all point to the international character of this process. By recognizing the historical status of the Kanak people, providing for the gradual transfer of certain powers, establishing distinctive institutional arrangements, and creating mechanisms for determining the territory’s political future, the Nouméa Accord developed a differentiated framework for the gradual management of decolonization. Subsequent developments, however, demonstrated that the Accord was less a final settlement than a foundation for managing a lengthy and complex political-legal process.
The disputes surrounding the third referendum, the reform of the electoral body, and the political crisis of 2024 demonstrated that the legitimacy of a self-determination process cannot be secured solely through compliance with the formal requirements of domestic law. Rather, the free and genuine expression of the will of the people remains the central criterion by which such a process must be assessed. At the same time, a distinction must be drawn between the right to self-determination of the people of New Caledonia as the population of a Non-Self-Governing Territory, and the specific rights of the Indigenous Kanak people relating to identity, participation, customary institutions, and self-government. These two categories of rights are interconnected, but they are not synonymous. Any arrangement governing the territory’s political future must therefore take account of existing demographic realities while also effectively safeguarding the historical status and collective rights of the Kanak people.
The developments of 2025 and 2026—from the Bougival Accord and the subsequent opposition of the FLNKS to it, to the Élysée-Oudinot Accord, electoral reforms, and the holding of provincial elections—demonstrate that the conclusion of the initial cycle established under the Nouméa Accord did not bring the decolonization process to an end. Under present circumstances, the central issue is not merely the choice between independence and the continuation of ties with France, but the achievement of a legal and political arrangement capable of determining the territory’s final status on the basis of valid consent, effective participation, and the free expression of the people’s will. Until such an arrangement is established, and for as long as New Caledonia remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, the process of determining the territory’s final status cannot be regarded as complete from the perspective of international law.
References
[1] Law Teacher. (2018, February 2). The Concept of Self-determination in International Law. Law Teacher. From: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/the-right-of-self-determination-is-a-moral-and-legal-right-international-law-essay.php
[2] UN. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UN. From: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
[3] Jones, N. (2021, November 20). Self-Determination and the Right of Peoples to Participate in International Law-Making. British Yearbook of International Law. From: https://academic.oup.com/bybil/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bybil/brab004/6432499
[4] Cornell Low School. (n.d). self determination (international law). LII. From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)
[5] Sidlauskaite, G. (2023, September 5). The fallacies of the law on self-determination – an incoherent combination of historical considerations and destabilizing idealism. International Law Blog. From: https://internationallaw.blog/2023/09/05/the-fallacies-of-the-law-on-self-determination-an-incoherent-combination-of-historical-considerations-and-destabilizing-idealism/
[6] Weston Janis, M. (2008, March 10). International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara. SSRN. From: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1103207
[7] Britannica. (n.d). erga omnes, law principle. Britannica. From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/erga-omnes
[8] Carlos Felipe Law Firm. (n.d). Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Carlos Felipe Law Firm. From: https://fc-abogados.com/en/declaracion-sobre-los-principios-de-derecho-internacional-referentes-a-las-relaciones-de-amistad-y-a-la-cooperacion-entre-los-estados-de-conformidad-con-la-carta-de-las-naciones-unidas/
[9] UN. (1960, December 14). Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. UN. From: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-granting-independence-colonial-countries-and-peoples
[10] U.S. Department of the Interior. (2025, January 20). Advancing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. U.S. Department of the Interior. From: https://www.doi.gov/blog/advancing-united-nations-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples
[11] Australian human rights Commission. (2021, September). UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Australian human rights Commission. From: https://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/search-all-our-publications/reports-and-projects/projects2/un-declaration-rights
[12] Advisory Council On Historic Preservation. (2026, May 5). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Background. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation. From: https://www.achp.gov/united-nations-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-background
[13] Manamela, S. (2025, December 4). Decolonisation of International Law: The Unfinished Revolution of the Global Justice in the 21st Century. Record of Law. From: https://recordoflaw.in/decolonisation-of-international-law-the-unfinished-revolution-of-the-global-justice-in-the-21st-century/
[14] Khan, R. (2011, May). Decolonization. Oxford Public International Law. From: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e922?p=emailAGYkOt3uT1LjM&d=/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e922&print
[15] UN. (n.d). United Nations and decolonization. UN. From: https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about
[16] French Republic. (1998, May 5). Accord sur la Nouvelle-Calédonie signé à Nouméa le 5 mai 1998. Légifrance. From: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000555817
[17] French Ministry of the Interior. (2018, November 6). Résultats de la consultation des électeurs de la Nouvelle-Calédonie du 4 novembre 2018. Ministère de l’Intérieur. https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Elections/Les-resultats/Locales/Resultats-de-la-consultation-des-electeurs-de-la-Nouvelle-Caledonie-du-4-novembre-2018
[18] French Ministry of the Interior. (2020, October 4). Résultats de la 2e consultation sur l’accession à l’indépendance de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Ministère de l’Intérieur. https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Elections/Les-resultats/Locales/Resultats-de-la-2e-consultation-sur-l-accession-a-l-independance-de-la-Nouvelle-Caledonie
[19] United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization. (2022). Summary record of the 5th meeting: Question of New Caledonia (A/AC.109/2022/SR.5). United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3987645/files/A_AC.109_2022_SR.5-EN.pdf
[20] United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization. (2022). Summary record of the 5th meeting: Question of New Caledonia (A/AC.109/2022/SR.5). United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3987645/files/A_AC.109_2022_SR.5-EN.pdf
[21] Blair, C. (2025, April 29). Settler Sovereignty by Statute: France’s Constitutional Threat to the Nouméa Accord. Black Pre-Law Society. From: https://blackprelaw.studentgroups.columbia.edu/news/settler-sovereignty-statute-frances-constitutional-threat-noumea-accord
[22] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (n.d). New Caledonia country brief. Australian Government. From: https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/new-caledonia/new-caledonia-country-brief
[23] IHL Centre. (n.d). International law and self-determination. IHL Centre. From: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-law/self-determination-international-law/
[24] French Republic. (1958, October 4). The Constitution of the Fifth French Republic. French Republic. From: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000571356
[25] Peace Agreement Access Tool. (n.d). Agreement on New Caledonia (Noumea Accord). Jurist. From: https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/09/BC_980505_Noumea_Accord.pdf
[26] Sörens Mekaniska. (2023, February 5). Matignon Agreement 1988. Sörens Mekaniska. From: http://www.sorensmekaniska.se/matignon-agreement-1988/
[27] French Senate. (2026). Projet de loi constitutionnelle relatif à la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Sénat. https://www.senat.fr/travaux-parlementaires/textes-legislatifs/la-loi-en-clair/projet-de-loi-constitutionnelle-relatif-a-la-nouvelle-caledonie.html
[28] French Republic. (2026, May 28). Loi organique n° 2026-410 du 28 mai 2026 portant régularisation des natifs dans le corps électoral pour les élections au congrès et aux assemblées de province de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Légifrance. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2026/5/28/2026-410/jo/texte
[29] UN General Assembly. (1970, October 24). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. UNHCR. From: https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/1970/19494
[30] UN Human Rights Committee. (1996, July 12). CCPR General Comment No. 25: Article 25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote), The Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right of Equal Access to Public Service. UN Human Rights Committee. From: https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/1996/28176
[31] UN General Assembly. (1960, December 15). Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter. UNHCR. From: https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/1960/en/7191
[32] UN General Assembly. (2007, October 2). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly. UNHCR. From: https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/2007/49353
