Skip to main content

Secession and Self-Determination Conflicts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover On State Secession from International Law Perspectives
  • 333 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter secession is considered in the context of self-determination conflicts. This chapter begins with a review of the historical evolution of self-determination. The historical review has demonstrated that, despite its entry into the international legal system, the inherent uncertainty about self-determination remains glaring: the holder and the content of the right to self-determination remain controversial, the territorial perspective and the human rights perspective of self-determination are not always clearly distinguished, tension might arise between the principle of self-determination and the principle of territorial sovereignty, and the right to self-determination is open to abuse particularly in the sense of remedial secession. Therefore, it is clear that a wide gap exists between theory and reality in respect of self-determination, and this gap itself contributes to secessionist self-determination conflicts. For the sake of conflict settlement, it is necessary to close the gap between theory and reality by improving the inadequate legal framework, which should entail the following points: reasonably defining the holder of a right to self-determination, distinguishing the territorial perspective and the human rights perspective of self-determination, correctly understanding the interrelation between territorial sovereignty and self-determination, and preventing abuse of the right to self-determination. When secessionists and non-secessionists can conclude an agreement, all these points can be well-managed, so external actors should make positive contributions to the conclusion of such agreements for the sake of the effective settlement of secessionist conflicts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chap. 1, Note 34.

  2. 2.

    Declaration of Independence of the United States of America of 4 July 1776.

  3. 3.

    Quoted from Castellino (2000), p. 11.

  4. 4.

    Raič (2002), p. 173.

  5. 5.

    Fabry (2011), p. 255.

  6. 6.

    Franck (1993), p. 5.

  7. 7.

    Nelson (1973), p. 268.

  8. 8.

    Ibid. pp. 268–269.

  9. 9.

    Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Abi-Saab, p. 661, para. 13.

  10. 10.

    Honduras borders (Guatemala, Honduras), II UNRIAA. p. 1322.

  11. 11.

    Klabbers and Lefeber (1993), p. 55.

  12. 12.

    Fabry (2011), p. 252.

  13. 13.

    Ibid. p. 253.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Doyle (2011), p. 113.

  16. 16.

    Ibid. p. 112.

  17. 17.

    Ibid. p. 115.

  18. 18.

    Koskenniemi (1994), pp. 249–251.

  19. 19.

    Summers (2007), p. 120.

  20. 20.

    Ibid. pp. 121–122.

  21. 21.

    Lenin (1964), p. 451.

  22. 22.

    Lenin (1964), p. 422.

  23. 23.

    Lenin (1964), p. 423.

  24. 24.

    See Chap. 1, Note 15.

  25. 25.

    Lenin (1964), p. 411.

  26. 26.

    Lenin (1964), p. 412.

  27. 27.

    See Chap. 2, Note 54.

  28. 28.

    See Chap. 2, Note 57.

  29. 29.

    UN Doc. E/CH.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1 (1980), para. 108.

  30. 30.

    Duursma (1996), p. 139.

  31. 31.

    Franco-Monegasque Treaty 2002, Article 1, para. 2, http://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:ocw/law-ocw-rd99.regGroup.1/law-ocw-rd99, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  32. 32.

    Duursma (1996), p. 140.

  33. 33.

    Written Statement of the Republic of Cyprus (2009) requested for the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, para. 77.

  34. 34.

    Christakis (2011), p. 81.

  35. 35.

    Raič (2002), p. 190.

  36. 36.

    Part IV, Section VIII of the Treaty of Versailles was entitled Shantung. In this section there were three Articles (Article 156–Article 158). In these Articles it was provided that all rights, title and privileges acquired by Germany regarding the Province of Shantung—particularly those concerning the territory of Kiaochow, railways, mines and submarine cables would be transferred to Japan within 3 months from the coming into force of the Treaty.

  37. 37.

    Lansing (1921), pp. 97–98.

  38. 38.

    Jennings (1956), pp. 55–56.

  39. 39.

    See Chap. 1, Note 16.

  40. 40.

    Pomerance (1982), p. 6.

  41. 41.

    The Aaland Islands Question: Report of the Committee of Jurists, League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supp. No. 3 (October 1920), p. 5.

  42. 42.

    Ibid. p. 14.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Ibid. p. 5.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    See Chap. 1, Note 17.

  47. 47.

    Raič (2002), pp. 199–200.

  48. 48.

    Pomerance (1982), p. 9. The content within single quotation marks is quoted from Blum (1975), p. 511.

  49. 49.

    Higgins (2003), p. 24.

  50. 50.

    A/RES/1541(XV), Annex, Principle VI.

  51. 51.

    A/RES/1514(XV), para. 6.

  52. 52.

    A/RES/1541(XV), Annex, Principle IV.

  53. 53.

    Thornberry (1989), p. 874.

  54. 54.

    Reisman (1990), p. 864.

  55. 55.

    AHG/Res. 16(I), http://archive.au.int/collect/auassemb/import/English/FIRST%20ORDINARY_E.pdf, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  56. 56.

    Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 567, para. 25.

  57. 57.

    Ibid. pp. 567–568, para. 28.

  58. 58.

    Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Abi-Saab, p. 662, para. 15.

  59. 59.

    Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 567, para. 28.

  60. 60.

    Ibid. para. 27.

  61. 61.

    Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Abi-Saab, p. 663, para. 17.

  62. 62.

    Report of the United Nations Commission for Eritrea, 5 GAOR (1950) Supplement No. 8 (A/1285) para. 176.

  63. 63.

    A/RES/390 (V) A, para. 1.

  64. 64.

    A/RES/1608 (XV), paras. 2 and 4.

  65. 65.

    Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 December 1963: I.C. J. Reports 1963, p. 17.

  66. 66.

    Ibid. p. 32.

  67. 67.

    Ibid. p. 33.

  68. 68.

    Higgins (2003), p. 28.

  69. 69.

    Declarations and Reservations, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&clang=_en#EndDec, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Higgins (2003), pp. 29–30.

  72. 72.

    Shaw (1997), p. 479.

  73. 73.

    Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, A/51/18, p. 125, para. 6.

  74. 74.

    Ibid. para. 9.

  75. 75.

    Shaw (2003), pp. 244–245.

  76. 76.

    Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, A/51/18, p. 126, para. 11.

  77. 77.

    See Chap. 2, Note 123.

  78. 78.

    Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No. 75/92 (1995), para. 1.

  79. 79.

    Ibid. paras. 4 and 6.

  80. 80.

    Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 138.

  81. 81.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 41.

  82. 82.

    See Chap. 1, Note 27.

  83. 83.

    Coggins (2011), p. 34.

  84. 84.

    Kuperman (2008), p. 60.

  85. 85.

    Ibid. p. 61.

  86. 86.

    Ibid. p. 62.

  87. 87.

    Ibid. pp. 65–66.

  88. 88.

    Human Rights Watch, Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo, Executive Summary, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword.htm, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  89. 89.

    Kuperman (2008), p. 66, Note 41.

  90. 90.

    Aspinall (2011), pp. 459–460.

  91. 91.

    Aspinall and Zain (2013), pp. 87–88 and 94.

  92. 92.

    Aspinall (2011), pp. 460–461.

  93. 93.

    Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement.

  94. 94.

    Aspinall and Zain (2013), p. 90.

  95. 95.

    Amnesty International Public Statement, ASA 21/2976/2015, 30 November 2015.

  96. 96.

    Aspinall and Zain (2013), pp. 90, 94, 103, 123.

  97. 97.

    Aspinall and Zain (2013), p. 94.

  98. 98.

    Aspinall (2008), p. 36.

  99. 99.

    Medvedev, Why I had to recognise Georgia’s breakaway regions, Financial Times 2008-08-26.

  100. 100.

    Jennings (1956), p. 56.

  101. 101.

    Kosovo advisory proceedings, Written Statement by Germany, p. 35; Verbatim Record, 10 December 2009, CR 2009/32, p. 15, para. 28; Written Statement of Switzerland, p. 16, paras. 62–63; Written Statement by Finland, p. 4, para. 9.

  102. 102.

    Kosovo advisory proceedings, Written Statement of the United Kingdom, pp. 9–15; Written Statement by the French Republic, pp. 29–47; Secretary Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Recognizes Kosovo as Independent State, http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/02/100973.htm, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  103. 103.

    See Chap. 1, Note 19.

  104. 104.

    Coggins (2011), p. 30.

  105. 105.

    Higgins (2003), pp. 30–31.

  106. 106.

    Brilmayer (1991), p. 185.

  107. 107.

    Summers (2007), p. 347.

  108. 108.

    Horowitz (2003), p. 70.

  109. 109.

    Brilmayer (1991), pp. 188 and 193.

  110. 110.

    Brilmayer (1991), p. 196.

  111. 111.

    Horowitz (2003), pp. 54–56.

  112. 112.

    Ibid. p. 54.

  113. 113.

    Ibid.

  114. 114.

    See Chap. 1, Note 17.

  115. 115.

    After the independence referendum, Rajoy announced in Madrid that his government would take steps to enact Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution for the first time in Spanish history, thereby suspending Catalan regional autonomy and paving the way for new regional elections, see Cristina Burack, Spanish government threatens to revoke Catalan autonomy, 19.10.2017, http://www.dw.com/en/spanish-government-threatens-to-revoke-catalan-autonomy/a-41027163, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  116. 116.

    See Chap. 2, Note 69.

  117. 117.

    Horowitz (2003), p. 61.

  118. 118.

    Lahmann (2009).

  119. 119.

    See Chap. 1, Note 27.

  120. 120.

    Buchanan (2004), p. 288.

  121. 121.

    Orentlicher (2003), p. 25.

  122. 122.

    Cassese (1995), pp. 119–120.

  123. 123.

    Ibid. p. 119.

  124. 124.

    Kohen (2006), pp. 3–4.

  125. 125.

    For instance, the representative of Kenya stated that “although the principle applies to all peoples, even in independent countries, it would be an interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states if the commission drew up rules for the secession of, to use the words of the 1967 United Kingdom proposal, ‘a territory which is geographically distinct and ethnically and culturally diverse from the remainder of the territory of the state administering it’(see UN Doc A/AC.125/SR.107, p. 88, 5 Nov. 1969). The final draft did not contain such open-ended expression, but the representative of India still emphasized that self-determination should not prejudice territorial sovereignty: “the right of self-determination did not apply to sovereign and independent states or to integral parts of their territory or to a section of a people or nation. Without such an understanding, the principle of self-determination would lead to fragmentation, disintegration and dismemberment of sovereign states and members of the United Nations. The danger in that context would be particularly acute in the case of states having multi-racial and multi-lingual populations”. [See Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, UN Doc. A/8018 (1970), p. 110, para. 219].

  126. 126.

    See Chap. 1, Note 27.

  127. 127.

    UN Doc. E/CH.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1 (1980), para.108.

  128. 128.

    See above Note 30.

  129. 129.

    See Chap. 1, Note 23.

  130. 130.

    Orentlicher (2003), p. 25; Buchanan (2004), p. 354; Cassese (1995), p. 120.

  131. 131.

    Thornberry (1993), p. 101.

  132. 132.

    Summers (2013), p. 235.

  133. 133.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 40.

  134. 134.

    Kohen (2006), pp. 10–11.

  135. 135.

    Cassese (1995), pp. 119–120.

  136. 136.

    Summers (2007), p. 54, Note 182.

  137. 137.

    Raič (2002), p. 313, Note 25.

  138. 138.

    The whole text could be found on the website: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/79573/85699/F1436085708/MMR79573.pdf, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  139. 139.

    Ibid.

  140. 140.

    The whole text can be found on http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/et/et007en.pdf, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  141. 141.

    Ibid.

  142. 142.

    Clapham (2006), pp. 46 and 63.

  143. 143.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 42.

  144. 144.

    Weller (2008), p. 30.

  145. 145.

    The Independent International Commission on Kosovo thought that “the NATO military intervention was illegal but legitimate”, see The Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 4. In Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1832 (2011), the Council of Europe has admitted: “military interventions such as those by Turkey in Cyprus in 1974, by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and by the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008, whilst motivated—justifiably or not—by the need to stop serious human rights violations, have themselves led to numerous human rights violations and have not produced lasting solutions for the underlying problems.” See Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1832 (2011): National sovereignty and statehood in contemporary international law: the need for clarification, para. 5.1.

  146. 146.

    Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc. A/51/18, p. 126.

  147. 147.

    Janik (2013), p. 54.

  148. 148.

    Ibid. pp. 57–58.

  149. 149.

    See Chap. 1, Note 17.

References

  • Aspinall E (2008) Peace without justice? The Helsinki Peace process in Aceh. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall E (2011) Aceh: the secession that never was. In: Pavkovic A, Radan P (eds) The Ashgate research companion to secession. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, pp 459–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall E, Zain F (2013) Transitional justice delayed in Aceh, Indonesia. In: Jeffery R, Kim HJ (eds) Transitional justice in the Asia-Pacific. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 87–123

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blum YZ (1975) Reflections on the changing concept of self-determination. Israel Law Rev 10:511

    Google Scholar 

  • Brilmayer L (1991) Secession and self-determination: a territorial interpretation. Yale J Int Law 16:177–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (2004) Justice, legitimacy and self-determination: moral foundations for international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1995) Self-determination of peoples: a legal reappraisal. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J (2000) International law and self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2011) The ICJ advisory opinion on Kosovo: “Has international law something to say about secession?”. Leiden J Int Law 24:73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2006) Secession, terrorism and the right of self-determination. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 46–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coggins BL (2011) The history of secession: an overview. In: Pavkovic A, Radan P (eds) The Ashgate research companion to secession. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, pp 23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle DH (2011) An attempt at secession from an early nation-state: the confederate States of America. In: Pavkovic A, Radan P (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, pp 103–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Duursma J (1996) Fragmentation and the international relations of micro-states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabry M (2011) International involvement in secessionist conflict: from the 16th century to the present. In: Pavkovic A, Radan P (eds) The Ashgate research companion to secession. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (1993) Postmodern tribalism and the right to secession. In: Brölmann C, Lefeber R, Zieck M (eds) Peoples and minorities in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (2003) Self-determination and secession. In: Dahlitz J (ed) Secession and international law: conflict avoidance – regional appraisals. United Nations Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz DL (2003) A right to secede? In: Macedo S, Buchanan A (eds) Secession and self-determination. New York University Press, New York, pp 50–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Janik R (2013) The responsibility to protect as an impetus for secessionist movements — on the necessity to re-think territorial integrity. In: Kettemann MC (ed) Grenzen im Völkerrecht. Jan Sramek Verlag, Vienna, pp 41–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings I (1956) An approach to self-governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 55–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J, Lefeber R (1993) Africa: lost between Uti possidetis and Self-determination. In: Brölmann C, Lefeber R, Zieck M (eds) Peoples and minorities in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 37–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2006) Introduction. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (1994) National self-determination today: problems of legal theory and practice. Int Comp Law Q 43:241–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/43.2.241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperman AJ (2008) The moral hazard of humanitarian intervention: lessons from the Balkans. Int Stud Q 52:49–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahmann H (2009) Biafra conflict, paras. 31 and 32. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Last updated in August 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansing R (1921) The peace negotiations: a personal narrative. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp 97–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenin VI (1964) The right of nations to self-determination. In: Lenin VI (ed) Collected Works 20. Progress Publisher, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson LDM (1973) The arbitration of boundary disputes in Latin America. Neth Int Law Rev 20:267–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X0002163X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orentlicher D (2003) International responses to separatist claims: are democratic principles relevant? In: Macedo S, Buchanan A (eds) Secession and self-determination. New York University Press, New York, pp 19–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerance M (1982) Self-determination in law and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Raič D (2002) Statehood and the law of self-determination. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman M (1990) International law after the Cold War. Am J Int Law 84:864

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (1997) Peoples, territorialism and boundaries. Eur J Int Law 8:478–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2003) The role of recognition and non-recognition with respect to secession: notes on some relevant issues. In: Dahlitz J (ed) Secession and international law: conflict avoidance – regional appraisals. United Nations Publications, New York, pp 243–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Summers J (2007) Peoples and international law: how nationalism and self-determination shape a contemporary law of nations. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers J (2013) The internal and external aspects of self-determination reconsidered. In: French D (ed) Statehood and self-determination: reconciling tradition and modernity in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 229–249

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry P (1989) Self-determination, minorities, human rights: a review of international instruments. Int Comp Law Q 38:867–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry P (1993) The democratic or internal aspect of self-determination with some remarks on federalism. In: Tomuschat C (ed) Modern law of self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 101–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Secession and self-determination. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weller M (2008) Why the legal rules on self-determination do not resolve self-determination disputes. In: Weller M, Metzger B (eds) Settling self-determination disputes: complex power-sharing in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 17–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lu, J. (2018). Secession and Self-Determination Conflicts. In: On State Secession from International Law Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97448-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97448-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97447-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97448-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics