Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to ascertain when non-territorial autonomy (NTA) arrangements are a morally appropriate response by states to various minority claims, given possible alternatives. As such, it is not about the relationships between minorities and majorities, but minorities and the state. The two main questions are: (1) What are the criteria of moral appropriateness? (2) When are any of the alternatives morally appropriate? Methodologically speaking, it makes sense to start from the most difficult of the alternatives to justify secession because it represents the most extreme possible claim of a minority towards a state, or even against a state. Once such a criterion or set of criteria is established, the criteria for other alternatives can only be reasonably lower, and the criteria for secession will be indicative of what these lower criteria could be.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
