Page - 54 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2017

ALJ 1/2017 Lambert H.B. Asemota 54 times, the phrase, “to open Pandora’s box” means to perform an action that may seem small or innocent, but that turns out to have severely detrimental and far-reaching consequences.63 The author would like to draw this article to a close by referring to the outstanding annotations by Michael C. van Walt van Praag64 whose views may go long way in easing part of the political tension the country faces today. He observes that implementation of (internal) self-determination does not necessarily require a one time act. He opines that the will of the people can be effected within a democratic setting by the use of the existing institutions of the state. He goes further to state that this assumes a truly democratic, fully participatory system, not one that limits the con- cept of democracy to decision by the numerical majority. Where only votes count, a people or community which is numerically inferior has no control over its destiny, he argues. And by way of suggestion, he emphasizes that self-determination can also be realised through one or more processes of negotiation, dialogue, and the conclusion of agreements between the state authori- ties and representatives of the people concerned. To this end, it must be emphasized that all the demands must be legitimate. They must meet human rights standards as well as the require- ments of equity, for he who comes to equity, must come with clean hands as equity will not grant relief from a self-created hardship. These are known maxims the relevance of which are self- explanatory in this case. 63 Definition for Pandora’s box, WIKIPAEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora’s_box (last visited Mar. 27, 2017). 64 Van Walt van Praag, supra note 52.