There's no settled international law on declaring independence, but there are cases for both sides:

On the one hand, the UN still considers the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, among other places, to be "non-self-governing territories" and subject to "decolonization", even in cases where there was no pre-colonial population and the current population voted overwhelmingly to keep the current arrangement. This suggests that external parties may have a say in the independence of a region without regard for the opinions of the locals.

Also, in the aftermath of both WWI and WWII, the victorious factions (re-) established a number of (at least nominally) independent states in eastern Europe and Asia without paying too much attention to the opinions of the locals, generally by handing power off to some favoured faction and helping them suppress rival factions until they'd established enough control to stand on their own.

On the other hand, most places that are currently "independent" are so because some faction of locals wanted to be independent in some way:

• They were formerly dominated or occupied by some faction seen as outsiders, declared independence, then went through some process that may have involved violence before the outsiders consented to recognize their independence.
• They were formerly dominated or occupied by some faction seen as outsiders but negotiated a settlement with the outsiders that included agreed-upon terms of independence.
• Some faction seen as outsiders attempted to assert control over them but were successfully repelled.
• Etc.

There's no settled international law on declaring independence, but there are cases for both sides:

On the one hand, the UN still considers the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, among other places, to be "non-self-governing territories" and subject to "decolonization", even in cases where there was no pre-colonial population and the current population voted overwhelmingly to keep the current arrangement. This suggests that external parties may have a say in the independence of a region without regard for the opinions of the locals.

Also, in the aftermath of both WWI and WWII, the victorious factions (re-) established a number of (at least nominally) independent states in eastern Europe and Asia without paying too much attention to the opinions of the locals (though much was said about self-determination during the process), generally by handing power off to some favoured faction and helping them suppress rival factions until they'd established enough control to stand on their own.

On the other hand, most places that are currently "independent" are so because some faction of locals wanted to be independent in some way:

• They were formerly dominated or occupied by some faction seen as outsiders, declared independence, then went through some process that may have involved violence before the outsiders consented to recognize their independence.
• They were formerly dominated or occupied by some faction seen as outsiders but negotiated a settlement with the outsiders that included agreed-upon terms of independence.
• Some faction seen as outsiders attempted to assert control over them but were successfully repelled.
• Etc.

There's no settled international law on declaring independence, but there are cases for both sides:

On the one hand, the UN still considers the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, among other places, to be "non-self-governing territories" and subject to "decolonization", even in cases where there was no pre-colonial population and the current population voted overwhelmingly to keep the current arrangement. This suggests that external parties may have a say in the independence of a region without regard for the opinions of the locals.

Also, in the aftermath of both WWI and WWII, the victorious factions (re-) established a number of (at least nominally) independent states in eastern Europe and Asia without paying too much attention to the opinions of the locals, generally by handing power off to some favoured faction and helping them suppress rival factions until they'd established enough control to stand on their own.

On the other hand, pretty much every place that is currently "independent" is such because some faction of locals wanted to be independent in some way:

• They were formerly occupied by some faction seen as outsiders, declared independence, then went through some process that may have involved violence before the outsiders consented to recognize their independence.
• They were formerly occupied by some faction seen as outsiders but negotiated a settlement with the outsiders that included agreed-upon terms of independence.
• Some faction seen as outsiders attempted to assert control over them but they were successfully repelled.
• Etc.

There's no settled international law on declaring independence, but there are cases for both sides:

On the one hand, the UN still considers the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, among other places, to be "non-self-governing territories" and subject to "decolonization", even in cases where there was no pre-colonial population and the current population voted overwhelmingly to keep the current arrangement. This suggests that external parties may have a say in the independence of a region without regard for the opinions of the locals.

Also, in the aftermath of both WWI and WWII, the victorious factions (re-) established a number of (at least nominally) independent states in eastern Europe and Asia without paying too much attention to the opinions of the locals, generally by handing power off to some favoured faction and helping them suppress rival factions until they'd established enough control to stand on their own.

On the other hand, most places that are currently "independent" are so because some faction of locals wanted to be independent in some way:

• They were formerly dominated or occupied by some faction seen as outsiders, declared independence, then went through some process that may have involved violence before the outsiders consented to recognize their independence.
• They were formerly dominated or occupied by some faction seen as outsiders but negotiated a settlement with the outsiders that included agreed-upon terms of independence.
• Some faction seen as outsiders attempted to assert control over them but were successfully repelled.
• Etc.