Remedial secession: a positive or negative force for the prevention and reduction of armed conflict?

Abstract

In light of the global prevalence of secessionist movements, some have proposed “remedial secession” as a last resort solution where a “people” is either denied internal self-determination or is faced with massive human rights violations by a repressive regime. The debate was renewed by the 2008 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo's declaration of independence, and advocates and critics of remedial secession may point to renewed evidence of both international support and opposition as a result of this case. Such developments raise a hitherto largely unexamined question: would the adoption and enforcement of remedial secession in international law likely be a positive force for the prevention and reduction of armed conflict? This paper finds the arguments in favour of remedial secession to be lacking, and finds the theoretical and empirical case against remedial secession to be more persuasive when measured by this metric. International legal decision-makers and conflict managers should therefore give greater consideration to international peace and security when considering remedial secession.