Secession: a much contested concept
Aleksandar Pavković
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
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.
Related papers
Morality and Legality of Secession. A Theory of National Self-Determination
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
On the Moral Justification of Secession. Critical remarks to mainstream theories
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.
The Ethical, Governmental, and Economic Elements of Secession
2005
Secession is a withdrawal of persons, space, and goods from the jurisdiction of the original governing unit. Let the seceding entity be called the" new realm" and the entity it withdraws from be called the" old realm." Such withdrawal and disassociation implies issues of ethics, governance, and economics that are interrelated, and are most meaningfully treated as an integrated foundational theory of secession. This foundation creates a benchmark, which can be applied flexibly to actual ethnic and territorial conflicts.
Introduction to the Research Handbook on Secession
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, 2022
Pinning down the concept of secession is not an easy task, but for purposes of these remarks, we define secession as the emergence of a new state in a part of the metropolitan territory of an existing state. 1 These secessionist claims thus usually entail a clash between the right of self-determination of peoples and the principle of territorial integrity of states. Groups advancing secessionist claims tend to refer to self-determination as if it were an absolute right of peoples, 2 while governments trying to counter secession interpret territorial integrity as an absolute right of states. 3 But of course, neither right is absolute. Territorial integrity is a principle that is included in the Friendly Relations Declaration and is generally considered to reflect customary international law regulating this matter: Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs [concerning the right of self-determination] shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour. 4 1 Definitions of the concept of secession range from broader to more restricted approaches, with a key point of difference often being whether (or not) there was consent from the parent state. As is apparent, the editors have adopted a definition that does not require a lack of consent. Other scholars adopting this approach include, for example,
Reconsidering Contested Secessions: unfeasibility and indeterminacy
Journal article, 2014
The regulation of secession
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.
Introduction: Justice, Legitimacy, and Secession
Las Torres de Lucca- International Journal of Political Philosophy, 2021
Secession
Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 2018
This encyclopaedia entry explores various definitions of secession in legal scholarship, normative ethics and political science. It argues that a permissive type of definition encompasses multi-disciplinary approaches to secession better than restrictive type of definition.
An Update on Secession as the "Ultimate Right": for a Liminal Legality.9-29.
, in C. Closa, C. Margiotta, G. Martinico, Between Democracy And Law. The Amorality Of Secession, Routledge, 2019, pp, 2019
Costanza Margiotta, from a legal-philosophical perspective, starts from the contradictory nature of secession which at the same time presents both a revolutionary and conservative character explaining many of the problematic interactions between democracy and secession and between law and secession. To avoid simply admitting that law cannot deal with secessionist crises, she poses the question of the peculiar legality of secession, which results in residing on the border between international and domestic legal spheres. Finally, she also critically explores the principal statements of the democratic theories of secession since the respect for democratic principles is necessary for the international community to accommodate the secessionist process.
Theories of Secession
Philosophy <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&amp;"/> Public Affairs, 1997
Who, Why and How: Assessing the Legitimacy of Secession
Swiss Political Science Review, 2000
Since the breakdown of bipolarity, the international community had to cope with independence movements spreading in Eastern, Central and Southeastern Europe. Given the peculiar coercive character of the Soviet and Yugoslav Federations and the Soviet Union's hegemonial rule in Central Europe, the wish for independent statehood can be understood as a sum of single secessionist movements. This article investigates secession as a moral problem of public international law; it also attempts to define normative criteria for the assessment of secessionist legitimacy. What conditions are required for a legitimate secession? On what political, social or historical characteristics should a legitimate secession be based in order to obtain international recognition? The analysis is carried out on three levels: legitimacy of the actors (Who), legitimacy of the secessionist argument (Why) and procedural legitimacy (How). The analysis is illustrated by three examples of recent secessionist movements: Slovakia, FYR Macedonia and Chechnya.
Legal Regimes for Secession: Applying Moral Theory and Empirical Findings
Public Affairs Quarterly, 2014
How do normative principles and empirical research inform standards for the constitutional design of secession procedures? The problem is particularly thorny since contemporary cases of secession always involve conflicts in which some rights-holders find their legitimate interests frustrated. Beginning with a set of widely shared normative assumptions and current empirical findings, this paper argues in favor of a plebiscitary, constitutional provision permitting secession under certain qualifications and circumstances, which are spelled out and defended. It argues that existing moral theories of secession converge on this institutional solution once the relevant empirical evidence is considered.
The Right to Secession: An Antisecessionist Defence
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...
Nations, Corrective Justice and State Creation: How Normative are Normative Remedial Theories of Secession?
Nations and Nationalism, 2025
Proponents of remedial secession theory (henceforth RST) claim that a group obtains the right to secede when it is wronged by the state, given that other preconditionswhich can be more or less restrictive, depending on the theory's authorare also fulfilled. However, in doing so, they face multiple moral challenges and problems. Here, we identify five major problems with their normative claims while paying particular attention to the ethical and practical implications of the "implementation" and the "appropriateness" problem. With the help of Pollock's method for evaluating moral theories, we conclude that the critical problems encountered by RST remain unresolved due to the untenability of its fundamental premise: that secession is an instrument suitable for achieving corrective justice.
Examining Normative and Applicable Aspects of the Plebiscitary Theory of Secession
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.
The Justiciability of Secession? A Theoretical Foundation for Constitutional Association and Disassociation
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.
Moral and political legitimacy of secession : a theoretical and comparative analysis
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...
Moralism in theories of secession: a realist perspective
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.
Related topics
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.