This article tests the proposition that there is inherent conflict between the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, specifically those related to equal rights and the self-determination of peoples, territorial integrity and the inviolability of frontiers. For this purpose the drafting history of the Helsinki Accords is revisited to shed light on how the participating States interpreted these principles and what meaning they attributed to them. It is argued that the overall purpose of the Final Act, which is to codify the stability of frontiers principle by prohibiting the use of force against frontiers as well as any unilateral, non-consensual actions as far as the territory of the participating States is concerned, should be kept in mind while interpreting these principles. The article concludes by reviewing the practice of States in interpreting the principles over the past two decades to show that changed political circumstances in Europe have not affected the interpretation of the relevant Helsinki Final Act provisions. © 2014 NHC.