Reconsidering Contested Secessions: unfeasibility and indeterminacy

Political Studies, 2003

Liberal egalitarians should support a right to secession while seeking to discourage secessions. The coherence of these apparently opposed stances depends upon three important distinctions that are under-explored in existing secession literature: between the right to secede and the choiceworthiness of secessions; between moral considerations relevant in advising would-be secessionists and those relevant in advising leaders of existing states; and between the legitimacy of a secession and the means that might be legitimately employed in advancing or resisting it. There is a strong but conditional right to secession rooted in the principle of associational freedom, but there are good reasons usually not to exercise it. Would-be secessionists should normally be advised against secession, but leaders of existing states should be advised to grant secessions that satisfy certain conditions. Only certain means are legitimate in resisting even secessions that fail to satisfy these condition...

Like many other social and political phenomena, secession has been a subject of inquiry by separate and often unrelated disciplines: legal studies, political science and applied philosophy. This diversity of approaches to secession has yielded different and sometimes incompatible definitions of secession. All definitions however agree that secession involves the creation of a new state by the withdrawal of a territory and its populations from an existing state. Restrictive definitions tend to restrict secessions to withdrawals carried out by force, or threat thereof, or to withdrawals subject to the rational choice of secessionists and host states. Permissive definitions allow almost any withdrawal of territory/population, including decolonization, to count as secession. Many legal scholars and a few political scientists advocate restrictive definitions; but there are also scholars from both disciplines who advocate permissive definitions, with similar or the same scope. Permissive definitions seem to suggest that it is not secessions that should be morally assessed but the ways in which they are carried out or the means used to do so; in contrast, restrictive definitions suggest that there are too few secessions to worry about moral assessments. Normative theorists of secession, who aim at a moral assessment of secessions from a philosophical perspective, pay no attention to these suggestions; they usually adopt permissive definitions which would allow them to apply universal moral norms to a variety of secessions. The common ground between the definitions of secession found in legal scholarship, political science and normative theory, it is argued here, may be thus found in permissive approaches to the definition of secession.

The following article explores an until-recently forgotten topic in political philosophy: the morality of secession. The normative theories of just secession will be explored in the text. The political conception of Allen Buchanan is explored in the case of just-cause theories, David Miller's approach for the case of national self-determination theories, and, finally, Harry Beran's suggestions for plebiscitary theories. Then, I analyze the advantages and disadvantages of all mainstream theories of secession. My conclusion is that for the contemporary liberal democratic states, the most justified approach is the one which combines the good sides of plebiscitary and national self-determination theories. I favor primary right secession because most of the contemporary state borders were drawn during undemocratic conditions and should be open to changes under democratic conditions if the majority desires them. However, I discovered that the theories of secession avoided paying attention to the third world countries where secessionist potential is far higher.

Palgrave Macmillan (Springer)

‘Breaking new ground regarding the justification of secession, this book provides a novel and nuanced middle ground between two extremes: remedial right only theories which fail to take the value of self-determination seriously enough; and primary right theories which are so permissive in justifying secession as to create unacceptable incentives for strategic behavior and unacceptable risks of instability.’ –Allen Buchanan, University of Arizona, USA ‘This book offers detailed analyses of many of the practical difficulties that surround the constitutionalisation of the right to secede, while applying moral philosophical precepts with considerable subtlety in helping to inform existing institutional arrangements. In combining political theory and law in such a capacious way, it offers perhaps the most comprehensive and sophisticated account of the law and practice of secession to date.” –Stephen Tierney, University of Edinburgh, UK ‘In this book, Bossacoma challenges the prevailing views on secession, which, he contends, fail to satisfy basic moral principles widely shared in liberal democracies. His defence of a qualified right of secession combines political philosophy and institutional design in an original and persuasive way. Anyone interested in this topic must certainly read this timely book.’ –Víctor Ferreres Comella, Pompeu Fabra University, Spain, and University of Texas at Austin, USA

Las Torres de Lucca- International Journal of Political Philosophy, 2021

Constitutional Law and Politics of Secession, 2023

To build legitimate and successful secession claims and strategies, both moral and legal arguments are, and should be, important. As regards moral reasoning, a nuanced primary theory of secession with remedial features is presented. With respect to the legal field, the remedial logic of general international law is distinguished from that of constitutional law. Constitutionalizing a qualified primary right to secede is then defended with the aim of fostering multinational accommodation and, ultimately, consensual secession. Legal barriers to secede, and the legitimate ends they may have, will be analyzed. Although the legal regulation of secession is often partial and defective, legality must be taken seriously in liberal-democratic settings. Among other reasons, we will argue that this is due to legality being closely connected to feasibility and responsibility.

MIODRAG JOVANOVIĆ & KRISTIN HENRARD (EDS.), Sovereignty and Diversity, 15-31., 2008

Why do liberal political theorists justify the use of violence as a means of achieving secession? Why do liberal theorists support secessionists political programs which are illiberal? This essay attempts to suggest a possible answer to this question by discussing the normative theories which allot the right to secede to selected groups.

2021

Abstract This article investigates the right of people to secede from their rulers. The ending of the Cold War gave more chances for the emergence of new states. The society of states does not provide the opportunity for the creation of a new state without specific condition. In other words, withdrawing a territory and its population from an existing state is not a simple issue. However, self-determination and the right to secede cannot be ignored for a long time. In addition, both of them are the normative issues at the heart of nationalism. The fact is that some people want to become an independent country. What kind of people can be seceded from their host states, and how can it be done? Allen Buchanan launched a debate on the criteria and morality of secession and made it more visible. According to Buchanan there are Primary Right Theories and Remedial Right Only Theories. According to the second type of mentioned rights, the right to secede is necessary to remedy an injustice such as the violation of people, genocide, occupation of territory etc. In the light of the Primary Right Theories certain groups can have a (general) right to secede in the absence of any injustice. The Kurdish people have a right to secession within the limits of Remedial Right Only theory. However, there is a need to distinguish between nations and other groups because the international system does not tolerate that all kind of groups demand to secede from their states. In any case, to ease conflicts and nationalist tensions in the world, it should be taken that people have the right to have their own state.

2013

La presente tesis doctoral analiza la legitimidad de la secesion en el contexto de las democracias liberales. Este es un debate reciente en la teoria politica ya que la secesion ha sido un tema excluido por las teorias de la democracia. La tesis defiende la necesidad de incorporar principios y criterios que permitan analizar la legitimidad de la secesion desde la misma teoria democratica. Las contribuciones academicas de la tesis son de dos tipos. En primer lugar, de tipo analitico y normativo porque propone unos principios y criterios aplicados al debate de la secesion y analiza las teorias existentes. En segundo lugar, mediante el estudio empirico de la legitimacion de la secesion en los casos de Quebec, Escocia y Cataluna tambien se anade una contribucion empirica sobre la legitimacion de la secesion. El conjunto de la tesis doctoral es un compendio de cuatro articulos independientes pero relacionados por un mismo tema y dos breves capitulos de introduccion y conclusiones. El pri...

M. Belov (ed.), Territorial Politics and Secession, Constitutional and International Law Dimensions, 2021

Secession in Law: A Revolutionary or a Conservative Concept?, in M. Belov (ed.), Territorial Politics and Secession, Constitutional and International Law Dimensions, Palgrave, 2021.

Nations and Nationalism, 2019

Moral reasoning is the most common approach to secession in political philosophy. Just-cause, choice and liberal-cultural theories rely on moral conceptions of political authority. This article examines an alternative view through an exploration of moral theories of secession from a realist perspective. Realism has recently seen a revival as a form of normative political philosophy and focuses on political disagreement and legitimacy rather than rights and moral analysis. I claim that realism would reject utopianism and moralism present in theories of secession. Instead of regarding secession as a right, realism would frame secession as a political option. According to this view, this article explores a realist theory of secession that would be based on the priority of politics and disagreement among other concepts. This would be a middle-ground theory, compatible with liberal values and existing moral theories.

This thesis is an essay in constitutional theory and the concept of law. Narrowly framed, the study addresses whether and to what extent constitutional law makes provision for secession. What place does secession have, or should it have, under municipal constitutional law? Of course, whether secession indeed occupies some place under a constitutional system depends very much on the text of any given constitutional document and the current body of constitutional law and norms. It suggests a factual enquiry, a matter for descriptive jurisprudence. Inasmuch as this consideration quickly gives way to a more searching enquiry, it would seem to engage aspects of political theory more so than of legal theory. The absence of specific constitutional provisions and norms regarding secession, and the practical nature of secession as state-making and -breaking lead to a not unjustifiable predilection to treat secession as a question of purely political theory. State-breaking and state-making arguably are political matters antecedent to and beyond the reach of law.

Kultura polisa, 2022

In this article, I rely on the reflective equilibrium methodology in providing a critical overview of the strongest and weakest arguments through which prominent proponents of plebiscitary secession theories defend the right to (unilateral) secession from internationally recognised states; a right that should – in their opinion – be achieved via referendums. By doing so, I demonstrate that the said right – although conceivable in the realm of normative theory – is rarely applicable in practice in a meaningful/justified manner. Instead, more often than not, it is prone to being (mis)used as an excuse for validating interest driven and unethical political conduct, either by separatist/irredentist nationalists or by regional/global powers that support such secessionist causes (as a part of their own geopolitical strategies). In fulfilling the main aim, I therefore argue that plebiscitary theories of secession do not provide answers to questions concerning the likelihood of just implementation of the said right in real-world cases, while their theoretical arguments come across as incomplete when dealing with the relationship between individual and collective rights, but also with issues concerning the nature and motives of contemporary secession movements.

Enrahonar. An international journal of theoretical and practical reason

d'aquest àmbit, indispensables per al futur del periodisme: la prova de tot el que escrigui i la capacitat d'interpretar la realitat particular dintre dels universals als quals al•ludeixi. Ortega reclama arquitectura intel•lectual al periodista. El periodisme ha de ser a la universitat, on ha d'adquirir la capacitat necessària per fer-se càrrec de la complexitat de les coses. L'era digital, però, l'ha multipli-cada, com també els difusors, i hi ha confusió entre emissors i receptors. La comunicació ja no és unidireccional, sinó multidireccional. Però tot i els nous formats i les maneres com ens arriben els missatges, el periodista continuarà sent el mediador social i l'intèrpret de la realitat, tal com ho era abans, quan Lippmann i també Ortega en reclamaven la centralitat.