Right Of Secession Research Articles

The Right of Secession in Burma's First Constitution

An agreement between Burmese nationalists and the British government in early 1947 set forth the basic steps of an “independence roadmap” designed to not only take Burma to full independence via a democratic process, but to unify Burma Proper and the Frontier areas under a governmental system the Frontier peoples would help to craft. However, the semi-federal constitution adopted in 1947, which granted two minorities a right of secession, failed in its role of achieving the second of these lofty objectives, for by the early 1960’s several of the major frontier peoples were in revolt, while those still loyal to the government sought to fundamentally reform it. This paper explores the role of the constitutional right of secession in the creation of the Union of Burma, why only two of the major minorities received it and how the right became a political liability for both. It also explores how it was used to justify the military’s permanent entry into the political arena in 1962, not with an intent to stabilize it temporarily as in 1958, but to replace it entirely with one more to its liking.

Prawo do secesji. Argument konstytucyjny i metaprawny Starego Południa Stanów Zjednoczonych

Before the outbreak of the Civil War, the theorists and politicians of the South of the US developed the theoretical instruments of resistance to what they considered tyrannical practices of the federal government. Just next to interposition and nullification, the most radical measure was the right of secession. In the article, the author distinguishes between constitutional and meta-legal arguments. The first ones refer to the thought of the Founding Fathers, the spirit of ‘98 and the concept of states’ rights. Its main elements are: the contractual nature of the Union, the original sovereignty of the states and the interpretation of the phrase: “We the People” used in the Constitution. In turn the philosophical justification refers to the right of resistance to tyrannical government contained in the Declaration of Independence. The two group of justifications appeared together, and the author searches for them in the acts of secession of South Carolina and the CS Constitution

구소련 국가들의 주권에 대한 러시아 측 시각과 소비에트 시기 민족공화국의 법적 지위: 러시아 문명주의 역사관에 대한 일고찰

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which is obviously the violation of the sovereignty of the independent Ukraine, called attention to Russia’s current perspective on the sovereignty of the former Soviet states. Justifying his decision, the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, argued that Ukraine’s sovereignty is groundless both legally and historically because it was given and thus made possible only by the policy of the former Bolshevik leaders, namely Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. They were the ones, who decided to uphold the principle of national self-determination, including the right of secession.BR Scrutinizing the historical developments of the legal status of the national republics of the former Soviet Union, this paper argues that Leninist viewpoint of guaranteeing the principle of national self-determination proved not a mistake, as Putin asserts, but a tactical success that enabled the Bolshevik leaders to rally support from various ethnic groups during the civil war and later on. Recognizing its crucial significance, the subsequent Soviet leadership continued to hold the principle of self-determination, ensuring the right of secession, by maintaining the articles in the Constitution of the Soviet Union even though there had been a series of attempts to undermine the legal status of the national republics of the Soviet Union. Therefore, as the current Russian Federation inherited various crucial parts of the legacy of the Soviet Union, it can be seen as the beneficiary of the historical and political achievements of the Soviet past, which was rested upon the ideological building of nationalities, who welcomed and voluntarily joined the Soviet cause through the agreement on the principles of national self-determination and secession.

Contested Sovereignty of Ambazonia and its Right to Self Determination

Abstract The concept of sovereignty and the right to self-determination is deeply rooted in international law. This paper examines the historical background of the Ambazonia community’s quest for sovereignty based on the right to self-determination. The article examines Southern Cameroon’s historical trajectory and origins of the Ambazonia movement. This paper sheds light on the dynamics of the Anglophone (Ambazonia) crises, and the response from La République du Cameroun (Cameroon government). The paper underscores that although international law firmly opposes the right of secession, as it leads to dissecting the polity in existing states. It is however argued that the people of Ambazonia have a right to quest for self-determination due to oppression and human rights infringements by La République du Cameroun. The clamour of the Ambazonia movement for sovereignty is based on the entitlement to political independence, and grievance due to the lack of economic and social development of Southern Cameroon. This quest which has ushered violent acts by the state actors to suppress Ambazonia’s identity and cultural heritage. The finding of the study reveals that Southern Cameroon’s contest for sovereignty and right to self-determination is legal under international law and therefore needs the comity of states to intervene to deescalate the violent acts by La République du Cameroun. The article also examines the international community’s role in the conflict. Particularly, it focuses on the part Nigeria played in the crises and the construction of the friendly relationship between both countries. Further the article proffers recommendations peaceful solutions.

Rebels in the Making: The Secession Crisis and the Birth of the Confederacy

Throughout his distinguished career, William L. Barney has taught us much about the context, character, and consequence of secession, a process, he has shown, that by the late 1850s seemed almost inexorable but never inevitable. In this tour de force, Barney brings together his vast knowledge of the dynamics and directions of secession and fresh, deep research into the public and private writings of many and diverse southerners to reveal the complex, sometimes contradictory, and often contested process whereby the idea of secession became fact. Barney shows with great skill and insight that whatever the consensus there may have been among white southerners on the right of secession, they were not in agreement on the exact circumstance, means, and timing for it. In tracking a secession momentum, Barney underscores the anxieties, fears, and sense of urgency that gripped slaveholders during the 1850s. Slavery in upper South states was declining, drought and soil depletion threatened agricultural sustainability, the generation coming of age by the 1850s chafed at their diminishing prospects, the people who were enslaved were ever restive, criticism of slavery was rising in the Atlantic world, disparities in wealth strained relations between slaveholders and nonslaveholders, the old party system that protected slavery was fracturing over it, and the need for slavery to expand was increasing as the possibilities for it doing so in the Union were shrinking. Especially important, as Barney shows, was the anger many white southern leaders felt in having to defend slavery and themselves: they ardently believed that their kind of slavery and the agrarian proslavery republic they wanted were on the right side of God and history.

An Imperfect Firewall: Quebec’s Constitutional Right of Secession as a Device Against Domination

The idea of including a right of secession in democratic constitutions has been discussed by different political and legal theorists; however, little has been said on the matter from the point of view of democratic-republican political philosophy. This article undertakes this effort by means of a normative analysis of Quebec’s constitutional right of secession, as outlined in the Quebec Secession Reference. This analysis shows how the non-unilateral nature of this right minimises the risks for republican freedom (as non-domination) and inclusion in the Quebec secession conflict, while the fact that it is limited to a national constitutional framework dampens this achievement.

Constitutional Protection of the Right to Self-Determination

Abstract The right to self-determination is an essential international law principle that holds an erga omnes character. Also, the right is often enshrined under domestic legislation, including constitutions. The 1995 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution (fdre Constitution) is one such constitution and, uniquely, it explicitly recognizes the right to self-determination including the right of secession as an unconditional right of the nations, nationalities, and peoples in Ethiopia. This paper selects the fdre Constitution and analyses whether such constitutional law frameworks better address some of the contentious matters concerning the right to self-determination under international law. In a comparative perspective (with international law), the article analyses, inter alia, how the fdre Constitution approach the questions of who the subjects of the right to self-determination are, and the substantive guarantees for exercising internal and external aspects of the right to self-determination with particular emphasis on secession as a legal right.

Theories of the Right of Secession: A Republican Analysis

Republican theorists have paid little attention to the normative problems of secession conflicts. So far, there is no such thing as a democratic republican theory of right of secession (TRS); nor any comprehensive analysis of current TRS has ever been undertaken from a democratic republican point of view. This article tries to fill this second gap as a first step in order to fill that first one. In doing so, it shows how secession conflicts pose threats for two core democratic republican values: freedom and inclusion. The threats are, concretely, those of exclusion, blackmailing minorities, arbitrary permanent majorities, and instability. The article also shows how, due to their respective pro-unionist or pro-secessionist biases, no current TRS seems to be able to handle those threats; and briefly outlines how a democratic republican TRS, based on a non-unilateralist logic, could be developed.

FEDERALISM IN BRAZIL AND THE DIVISION OF COMPETENCES

The main objective of this article is to analyze the composition and main characteristics of the Federated State, considering that this is the model adopted by the Federative Republic of Brazil. Among the main characteristics are political decentralization, the lack of the right of secession, the sovereignty of the federal state, among others. About political decentralization and the autonomy of federal entities, it will be dealt with regarding the division of powers in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Constitution of 1988.

What is anarchist internationalism?

AbstractThis article outlines a concept of anarchist internationalism as non‐domination. The discussion falls into two parts. The first outlines the general theory, building on the analysis of the anarchist critique of republicanism, describing anarchist internationalism as cosmopolitan and based on a permanent “right of secession.” The second part considers how this general conception was developed in the context of anti‐colonial struggle and nationalist resurgence. It examines Ananda Coomaraswamy and Rudolf Rocker's responses to the global spread of capitalism and the evolution of the European state. Their contrasting critiques of nationalism and images of international community expose shortcomings and biases in the application of non‐domination and tensions which test cosmopolitan ties and voluntary agreements. Yet their work also demonstrates that anarchist internationalism is not a failed dream of class solidarity and that, understood as a principle of non‐domination, it promotes emancipatory, transformative processes directed against static configurations of power.

Was ist Selbstbestimmung? Eine Wohlstandsquelle, aber zu wenig genutzt Hundert Jahre kollektive Selbstbestimmung 1918–2018

During the last century, the significance of self-determination has undergone a remarkable change, but through erroneous equalization with the right of secession, self-determination turned oftentimes also into a myth misused or instrumentalised for political purposes. Numerous conflicts of secession are proving this. However, there is no right to secession, neither in international law nor in state practice, except in the case of consent of all parties concerned. At the most, exclusively if a people’s identity or existence is endangered by serious human rights violations, the mode of external self-determination without the consent of all parties concerned, i. e. a secession, could be legitimised on the base of human rights. Therefore, the real importance of the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples lies in the mode of internal self-determination, implemented through instruments like autonomy or federalism, which doesn’t violate the territorial integrity of states. In this mode, the principle of self-determination is currently of the utmost importance for the maintenance of peace, security and stability, but also for the protection of minorities in Europe, and even for regional development. Both instruments, autonomy and federalism, in fact also have a macro-economic component and are capable of transforming potential for conflict into cultural and socio-economic added value. Finally, it becomes apparent that the internal self-determination as a particular mode of division of governmental, legislative and administrative responsibilities between states and autonomous regions proves to be a remarkable source of prosperity, but unfortunately this possibility is still underutilised.

Why Should the People of Kashmir Have a Legitimate Right to Self-determination?

The right of Self-determination started getting recognition as a legal right from the second half of the nineteenth century. This right has transformed the International Law, yet left few International lawyers and states with uncertainty. The Right of Self-Determination allow people to live freely with their political, social and economic virtues. As the right still subsists, however, the vagueness sometimes leads towards the ambiguity. Although the Right of Self-Determination is getting popular with the transformation of the International Community, it is not practiced freely by some indigenous nations. The objective of this assignment is to analyse the importance of the right of peoples’ to Self-Determination, mainly discussing the Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir, as well as their legitimacy in claiming the right of secession. Moreover, it will also analyse those specific aspects of Human Rights Law and its violation under the domination of Indian armed forces which come under the justification of impunity.

ئاستەنگەکانى بەردەم دەوڵەتى کوردستانى - لە ژێر سایەى سیاسەتى دەولى و یاساى دەولى

There is a fundamental difference between those who divided Kurdistan (beginning of the twentieth century) with the continuation of the case so far, the first responsibility lies with colonialism and its objectives, while the second expands to the responsibility of regional and internal (the occupied state). Hence, the obstacles are intertwined to include political, legal and military aspects, which are beyond the scope of the Kurdish capabilities; all this has led to continuation of the Kurdish issue without the prospect of a solution. For that we need to form alliances in the Middle East and the world. Although, these alliancesare not easy for entities that do not have states in fact, but it is not impossible. Indeed, historical moments and great opportunities have come several times to establish a Kurdish state, but due to lack of wisdom and sufficient knowledge of Kurdish leadership in terms of political and legal aspects so that has led to miss these opportunities. It should be noticed that there are still opportunities to turn the Kurdish issue from "right of secession" to "self-determination". This means the Kurdish issue has to be internationalized and one requirement for that is to build the Middle East reform project along with other international reformprojects. Finally, in this study we precisely examined the internal, regional and international obstacles to the establishment of Kurdish state. The roadmap is based on international policy and international laws. These obstacles can be overcome and building a state without violating the sovereignty and interests of the peoples of the region. Rather, it will become the foundation factor for peace and brotherhood.

Territorial Differentiation in EU Law: Can Scotland and Northern Ireland Remain in the EU and/or the Single Market?

AbstractIn the Brexit referendum of 23 June 2016, voters in England and Wales voted to leave the EU, while in Scotland and Northern Ireland they voted to remain. Following that, there has been a debate about how it would be possible to achieve the continuing presence in the single market of the UK constituent nations that do not want to be taken out against their will. This paper explores two pathways for Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU and/or the single market. The first entails the achievement of Scottish independence and the reunification of Ireland through democratic referendums. To this effect, the paper reviews the right of secession of those two constituent nations under UK constitutional law. It revisits the debate on the appropriate legal basis regulating Scotland’s future EU accession and discusses the Irish reunification from an EU law perspective. The second pathway explores how it would be possible for Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU and/or the single market even without seceding from the UK. In order to do that, the paper points to the remarkable flexibility of the EU legal order as evidenced in numerous cases of differentiated application of Union law. The paper shows that the EU possesses the necessary legal instruments to accommodate the divergent aspirations of the UK constituent nations.

Animal Kingdoms: On Habitat Rights for Wild Animals

The greatest threat faced by wild animals often comes from the destruction of their habitats by humans. Traditional environmental-conservation paradigms often fail to prevent this destruction. This paper claims that, where access to habitat is a necessary condition of their continued existence or wellbeing, wild animals have sufficiently strong interests in their habitat to generate rights to it. The paper argues that these rights should be instantiated in the form of collective usufructuary property rights, and, in cases of serious and systematic violation of these rights, wild animals gain a remedial right of secession for their habitat.

Rough Drafts

Rough Drafts

From Britain and Ireland to Cyprus: Accommodating Divided Islandss in the EU Political and Legal Order

In the Brexit referendum of 23 June 2016, England and Wales voted to leave the EU, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Following that, there has been a debate about how it would be possible to achieve the continuing EU presence of the UK constituent nations that do not want to be taken out against their will. This paper explores two pathways for Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU. The first entails the achievement of Scottish independence and the reunification of Ireland through democratic referendums. To this effect, the paper reviews the right of secession of those two constituent nations under UK constitutional law and revisits the debate on the appropriate legal basis regulating Scotland’s future EU Accession. The second pathway explores how it would be possible for Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU even without seceding from the UK. In order to do that, the paper points to the remarkable flexibility of the EU legal order to accommodate the differentiated application of Union law. By focusing on Cyprus, in particular, the paper assesses the possible challenges that such an arrangement would entail.

Eastern and Southern Ukraine’s Right to Secede and Join the Russian Federation

This article answers a multi-faceted question: do the people occupying the region of Eastern and Southern Ukraine have the right to secede from Ukraine and merge with the Russian Federation? It also evaluates the legal status of the economic sanctions imposed upon the Russian Federation for its alleged interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine. The argument proceeds from the assumption that the international legal system does not repose on a foundation of empirical validity, but rather upon sets of authoritative statements, insusceptible of verification. In this context, the article constructs an argument based upon relevant public international law texts, interpreted according to contemporary jurisprudential thought and principles of statutory construction partially embodied in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, the implied right of secession contained in the UN General Assembly’s Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970, and the need to achieve pragmatic results to legal questions. The argument thus avoids traditional doctrinal analysis and the mud of history. In short, the people occupying the region of Eastern and Southern Ukraine have the right to secede from Ukraine and merge with the Russian Federation, and the economic sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation for its presumed interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine are illegal under the United Nations Charter and the World Trade Organisation.

Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Mullerson and Tolstykh

1. International legal issues raised by events in Crimea during 2014 have been the subject of earlier contributions to this journal,1 to which this paper seeks to add further reflections with particular reference to the legality of Crimea's secession from the Ukraine and the related matter of Russia's intervention therein. 2. It is generally acknowledged that international law does not explicitly prohibit secession by entities within existing States, nor does it provide any general right of secession. Secession taking place with the consent of the parent State is relatively unproblematic. However, where effected against its will it becomes necessary to base this in some normative legal principles, not least in order to attract its international recognition. As of April 2014, Crimea had only been recognised as part of Russia by Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Venezuela, suggesting that the legal basis for its absorption is considered lacking. States approach non-consensual secession cautiously. The case of Bangladesh appears to have been the only instance in which a seceding entity has been given the legitimation of international recognition against the will of the parent state, although a more recent precedent might be found in respect of the large number of States, 108 in total, to have recognized Kosovo.

Eastern and Southern Ukrainees Right to Secede and Join the Russian Federation: A Secessionist Manifesto

This article aims to answer a multi-faceted question: do the people occupying the region of Eastern and Southern Ukraine have the right to secede from Ukraine and merge with the Russian Federation? It also evaluates the legal status of the economic sanctions imposed upon the Russian Federation for its alleged interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Public International Law provides no definitive answer to the first question, although “conventional wisdom” denies a right of secession. The denial turns primarily on two United Nations General Assembly Resolutions: (1) the UN General Assembly Declaration on Decolonisation, and (2) the UN General Assembly’s Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970, and the creation of “law by fiat”. The matter is exacerbated by the claim that the term “people” used in relevant international covenants recognising a “right of self-determination” is insusceptible of definition. Historical illustrations of secession, falling short of statistical validity, and competing legal theories among scholars, further confound the meaning of legal texts. By contrast, public international law arguably provides a definitive answer to the second question. Without a United Nations (U.N.) Security Council Resolution, members of the U.N. may not impose economic sanctions against another member state to cause a change in the internal affairs of that state. In the case of the Russian Federation; the economic sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation primarily by the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (E.U.) constitute violations of public international law. This article proceeds from the assumption that the international legal system does not repose on a foundation of empirical validity, but rather upon sets of authoritative statements, insusceptible of verification. In this context, the article seeks to construct an argument, based upon best interpretive practices, canons of statutory construction partially embodied in the “Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties” of 1969, and the implied right of secession contained in the UN General Assembly’s Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970. International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions and historical incidents of secession are used in support of the argument. This article makes no pretension that its “reasoning” is correct, since that claim would contravene the basic premise that law, to borrow a phrase, is not only a “dismal science”, but no science at all. Rather, the ambition of the article is modest: to construct an argument based upon interpreting documents in their “best light”, without getting bogged down in traditional doctrinal analysis, or the mud of history.