Self-determination under International law
According to international law, self-determination means the right to decide for those people submitted to foreign domination (colonisation or occupation with weapons). This principle cannot be applied for people occupied before the end of WWII. According the international law, the right of self-determination belongs to people, but there's no legal definition for "people". In this way, States have the law on their side when there is part of its territory claiming for self-determination. By the way, new Countries also need official recognition from the other indipendent Countries.
Regarding Catalunya and Spanish laws, Article 2 of the Spanish constitution claims the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation". So any kind of referendum for indipendence is totally against Spanish law
So these are the reason why so many Countries don't allow the right of self-determination, and for me all this is totally against human rights
First of all, English is not my native language, but I will do my best:
Well, I think the main problem is not discussing whether a declaration of independence is legal or not in accordance with applicable laws. Of course it would help if it's legal, but that's not the point. We need a new perspective on some rights. I am not a lawyer, but I try to explain my opinion
I would discuss the current intention of current international law in relation to the right to territorial integrity and / or the right to self-determination. For some opinion leaders, these rights today seem to be in incompatible hostility. To solve this problem, we should consider the question of who is entitled by what right.
The owner of the right to territorial integrity and the owner of the right to self-determination is, in my view, the sovereign. But who is it and how many?
In times of absolutism it was pretty clear and easy. The sovereign was the monarch. Any attack on the right of territorial integrity was therefore an attack on the sovereign. Today, the sovereign is the electorate. What seems to be ignored is that the sovereign in the sub-sovereigns would have to be split according to the "challenged" law. But today we are still looking at territorial integrity with the eyes of an absolute monarch
If an attack on territorial integrity comes from outside, it is an attack on all electorate of the current state / authority. Another characteristic is when the attack on territorial integrity comes from within. Then we have to divide the sovereign into two parts. When a party declares independence because it has a right to self-determination, it no longer attacks the territorial integrity of the previous ruler, claims new territorial integrity and begins to defend it. Therefore, it is not the duty of a foreign sovereign to decide on the right of territorial integrity of another sovereign.
In the end, the aim of the EFA should be to discuss the importance of the interplay of the right to territorial integrity and the right to self-determination and the importance of sovereignty and sovereignty on the road to an integrated Europe. The internal enlargement of the EU as an opportunity for the EU.
Constancy eternals are undemocratic and prevent appropriate responses to changing societal views. It cements the spirit of a (past) time and thereby blocks its further development.