The right of self-determination of peoples does not refer to an individual but rather to a collective as the subject of this right. But can one speak of collective self-determination at all? Surely not in the same way as one speaks of individual self-determination. It makes sense to regard persons who meet specific prerequisites, such as soundness of mind and being of full legal age, as self-determined. If one would say the same in reference to a collective, the statement would be much too vague. A collective can comprise anything from two people to the whole of humanity and can function in many different ways. If collective self-determination is to have a meaning, it needs to be defined more precisely. In principle, the idea of a self-determined collective agent is by no means unfounded – as is evidenced in the traditional notion of the body politic, which equates the collective in its functions with an organism. Whereas in the case of an individual, self-determination can be presupposed with the existence of the individual, a collective by no means automatically has the capacity to act or is an entity that has decided to act. It first needs to undertake to achieve goals that require action according to a unitary will. Following that, it must achieve a condition in which it is capable of acting, by means of rules for converting the individual wills of the participants into a general will of the collective.

At this point, it becomes evident that the relationship between individual and collective self-determination is definitely open. On the one hand, there is the question of who, and with which weight, should be a participant in the determination of the collective will: Should all members of a collective, the absolute or relative majority, a substantial majority, or only a few or just one member participate? If one regards the collective subject as an entity, then it only matters that this entity is capable of acting with a unitary will externally. Whether one or all members of a collective determine that will is irrelevant here – the unitary will and not the mode of its formation is proof of the self-determination of the collective.