Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right to Self-Determination and Unilateral Secession

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Self-Determination and Humanitarian Secession in International Law of a Globalized World

  • 838 Accesses

Abstract

The decades following the adoption of the UN Charter were marked by the process of decolonization in which the right to self-determination was invoked, implying as an inherent presumption a demand for independence. Going beyond decolonization in contemporary international law, the question posed is that of the possibility of recognizing a right to secede that is consubstantial to putting self-determination into practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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.

    Cfr. Jaber (2011), p. 934.

  2. 2.

    Haverland (2000), p. 354.

  3. 3.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 334. Haverland (2000), p. 354. Kohen (2006), p. 3.

  4. 4.

    Cfr. Kohen (2006), p. 3.

  5. 5.

    Cfr. Buchanan (2007), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/secession.

  6. 6.

    Kohen (2006), p. 3.

  7. 7.

    Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 105.

  8. 8.

    ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the UN Charter’ UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV), Annex, 24 October 1970, at ‘The Principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples’, para. 4.

    Other international documents, such as the ‘Helsinki Final Act’ of 1975 and the ‘Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action’ of 1993, refer to Resolution 2625 (XXV) when contemplating the right to self-determination. Cfr. ‘Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act’, Helsinki, 1 August 1975, supra, Chap. 2, note 61. World Conference on Human Rights, ‘Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action’, 25 June 1993, supra, Chap. 2, note 63, p. 20.

  9. 9.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 334.

  10. 10.

    Cfr. Crawford (2007), pp. 388–402. Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), p. 634.

  11. 11.

    Cfr. See supra, Sect. 2.2.2.

  12. 12.

    Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 106.

  13. 13.

    Cfr. Id., p. 105.

  14. 14.

    The comment of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission was that ‘Abkhazia was not allowed to secede from Georgia under international law, because the right to self-determination does not entail a right to secession’. Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, of 30 September 2009, Vol. II, 441, p. 147. http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/IIFFMCG_Volume_II1.pdf.

    Cfr. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 65. Tancredi (2014), p. 80.

  15. 15.

    Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 77. See also, by the same author Christakis (2014), p. 743. Jaber (2011), p. 934. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 64. Tomuschat (2006), p. 26.

  16. 16.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2014), p. 80.

    See supra, Sect. 2.2.2.

  17. 17.

    Cfr. Buchheit (1978), p. 73. Cassese (1995), pp. 39–40. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 62.

  18. 18.

    Cfr. Tomuschat (2006), p. 26.

  19. 19.

    Cfr. Buchanan (1991), at ch. 3. Buchheit (1978), pp. 28–30. Heraclides (1991), p. 28. Burke-White (2014), p. 71. Wilson (2009), p. 474.

  20. 20.

    Cfr. Buchheit (1978), p. 14.

  21. 21.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Cfr. Higgins (1993), p. 35.

  23. 23.

    Cfr. Heraclides (1991), p. 28.

  24. 24.

    Cfr. Crawford (1998), p. 115.

  25. 25.

    Cfr. Id., pp. 93 and 115. Wildhaber (1995), pp. 53–54.

  26. 26.

    Cfr. Shany (2014), p. 237. Vidmar (2015), p. 370. Wilson (2015), p. 218.

  27. 27.

    Cfr. Crawford (1998), p. 114. Jaber (2011), p. 937. Vidmar (2015), p. 370.

  28. 28.

    Cfr. Crawford (1998), pp. 107 and 108. Shany (2014), p. 237. With regard to the cases of Kosovo, Chechnya, Republika Srpska and Katanga, among others, see Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), pp. 634–636.

  29. 29.

    Cfr. Burke-White (2014), p. 71. Christakis (2014), p. 741. Marxsen (2014), p. 385. Ryngaert (2010), p. 491. Tancredi (2014), p. 80.

  30. 30.

    Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 99.

  31. 31.

    Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 743. Wilson (2015), p. 217.

  32. 32.

    Franck et al. (eds.) (2000), p. 335.

  33. 33.

    Cfr. Abi-Saab (2006), p. 474. Christakis (2011), p. 83. Hilpold (2008), p. 117. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 64. Muharremi (2010), p. 875. Vidmar (2012), p. 164.

    A similar view emerges in Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, pp. 26–27, para. 56.

  34. 34.

    The Case of the S.S. ‘Lotus’, Judgment of 7 September 1927, Series A – No. 10, 33, p. 18. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/permanent-court-of-international-justice/serie_A/A_10/30_Lotus_Arret.pdf.

    The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will […] and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be presumed.

  35. 35.

    Cfr. Wilde (2011), p. 152.

  36. 36.

    Cfr. Jacobs (2011), p. 804. Sciso (2014), p. 1009.

  37. 37.

    Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 79. Ingravallo (2012), p. 228. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 77.

  38. 38.

    Cfr. Jacobs (2011), p. 804.

  39. 39.

    Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 100. Walter (2014), p. 24.

    Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 79.

  40. 40.

    Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 81. Tancredi (2012), p. 85. See also, by the same author Tancredi (2011), p. 223.

  41. 41.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 354. Oeter (2012), p. 114. Vidmar (2015), p. 367.

  42. 42.

    Peters (2011), p. 99.

  43. 43.

    Cfr. ‘Declaration of Judge Simma’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 480, para. 9. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-03-BI.pdf.

  44. 44.

    Abi-Saab (2006), p. 474.

    Cfr. Corten (2011), p. 88. See also, by the same author Corten (2006), p. 232. Christakis (1999), p. 74. Crawford (2007), p. 374. Kohen (2006), p. 5. Oeter (2012), p. 112. Walter (2014), p. 24.

  45. 45.

    Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 79. Sciso (2014), p. 1009. Tancredi (2014), p. 68.

  46. 46.

    Shaw (2000), p. 136.

    Cfr. Jia (2009), p. 39.

  47. 47.

    Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 81. Vidmar (2012), p. 177.

  48. 48.

    Cfr. Corten (2006), p. 254. Tancredi (2014), p. 94.

    This argument was put forwards by Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández in her intervention on behalf of Spain: ‘Accordingly, from the legal point of view it is impossible to accept that international law can remain ‘neutral’ in respect of an act (the Unilateral Declaration of Independence) which has serious international consequences’, I.C.J. CR 2009/30, of 8 December 2009, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 15 April 2009, 63, p. 15, para. 55. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/141-20091208-ORA-01-01-BI.pdf.

  49. 49.

    ‘Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of Serbia’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 15 April 2009, 371, p. 356, para. 1033. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15642.pdf.

  50. 50.

    Art. 2(7) of the UN Charter.

  51. 51.

    Cfr. Oeter (2012), p. 114.

  52. 52.

    Cfr. Article 2(1), 2(4), and 1(1) of the UN Charter.

    Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 99. Tancredi (2014), p. 94.

  53. 53.

    Cfr. Borgen (2009), p. 8. Christakis (2006), p. 155. Musgrave (2000), p. 192. Oeter (2015), p. 56.

  54. 54.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 37.

  55. 55.

    Norman (2003), p. 203.

  56. 56.

    Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 81. Ryngaert (2010), p. 491.

  57. 57.

    Cfr. Ioannidis (2015), pp. 175–177. Jovanović (2009), p. 63. Sunstein (1991), pp. 633–670.

  58. 58.

    Professor Théodore Christakis emphasized the famous Texas versus White case argued before the United States Supreme Court of 1869 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700, and Reference re Secession of Quebec case de 1998 before the Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, supra, Chap. 2, note 71. Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 743, note 46.

  59. 59.

    Among those constitutions contemplating secession clauses is the ‘Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein’ of 5 October 1921 (Art. 4(2)) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=234654, together with the ‘Constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis’ of 22 June 1983 (Art. 113(1) and 115 on secession of Nevis) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=235246, the ‘Constitution of the Slovak Republic’ of 1 September 1992 (Art. 93(1)) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=416332, the ‘Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’ of 8 December 1994 (Art. 39) http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=193667, and the provisions of the ‘Northern Ireland Act’ of 1998 (Art. 1) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/contents.

    Article 39 of the 1994 Constitution of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia lays down the following:

    Article 39 Rights of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples.

    (1) Every Nation, Nationality and People in Ethiopia has an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.

    […]

    (4) The right to self-determination, including secession, of every Nation, Nationality and People shall come into effect:

    […]

    (5) A ‘Nation, Nationality or People’ for the purpose of this Constitution, is a group of people who have or share large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.

    Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 743, note 46. Jovanović (2009), pp. 64–65. Oeter (2012), p. 113.

  60. 60.

    Cfr. Bothe (2010), p. 837. Oeter (2012), p. 112. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 79. ‘Written Statement of the Kingdom of Norway’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 16 April 2009, 27, p. 5, para. 10. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15650.pdf.

  61. 61.

    Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 438, para. 84.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 55.

  62. 62.

    Cf. Vidmar (2011), p. 368.

  63. 63.

    Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 96. Tancredi (2008), p. 55. Vidmar (2011), p. 368.

  64. 64.

    Cfr. Röben (2010), p. 1082.

  65. 65.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 79. Wilson (2009), p. 459.

    Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention stated:

    State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States.

    ‘Convention on Rights and Duties of States’ adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States. Signed at Montevideo, 26 December 1933. 165 LNTS (1936), No. 3802, 19–43. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20165/v165.pdf.

    Consideration is given to the ‘doctrine of the three elements’ laid down by Georg Jellinek at the end of the nineteenth century. See Jellinek (1905). See also Cohen (1961), pp. 1127–1171.

  69. 69.

    Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 438, para. 79.

  70. 70.

    Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia, ‘Opinion No. 1’, of 29 November 1992, at para. 1).a). 31:6 ILM (1992), 1488–1526, pp. 1494–1497.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2012), p. 94.

  71. 71.

    Cfr. Ibid. Vidmar (2011), p. 370. Wilson (2009), p. 459.

  72. 72.

    Cfr. Crawford (2007), pp. 62–89.

  73. 73.

    Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 747, quoting Lauterpacht (1947), p. 8. Nguyên et al. (2009), p. 585. Vidmar (2012), p. 159.

  74. 74.

    Cfr. Miaja de la Muela (1958), pp. 12–13.

    Cfr. Chemillier-Gendreau (1975), p. 42. De Visscher (1958), pp. 601–609. Salvioli (1953), pp. 274–275. Touscoz (1964), p. 256. Tucker (1953), pp. 31–48.

  75. 75.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2012), p. 93.

  76. 76.

    Cfr. Salvioli (1953), p. 275. Wilson (2009), p. 459.

  77. 77.

    Cfr. Lauterpacht (1947), pp. 411–412. Menon (1990), pp. 247–273.

  78. 78.

    Cfr. Lauterpacht (1947), pp. 411–412.

  79. 79.

    Cfr. Kelsen (1964), p. 114.

  80. 80.

    Cfr. Miaja de la Muela (1958), p. 49.

  81. 81.

    Cfr. Id., p. 50.

  82. 82.

    Cfr. Salvioli (1933), pp. 51–54.

  83. 83.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 332. Vidmar (2015), p. 374.

  84. 84.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 335, note 28.

  85. 85.

    Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 169.

  86. 86.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), pp. 37–38.

  87. 87.

    Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 82. Tancredi (2008), p. 38.

  88. 88.

    Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 82; and, by the same author Christakis (2014), p. 749. Tancredi (2012), p. 87. Vidmar (2012), pp. 171–175. See also, by the same author Vidmar (2015), p. 375.

  89. 89.

    Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.

    Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 82. Van den Driest (2015), p. 356. Yee (2010), p. 781.

  90. 90.

    Crawford (2007), pp. 107–157. Vidmar (2011), p. 371. Vidmar (2015), p. 375.

  91. 91.

    Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.

  92. 92.

    Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 82. Tancredi (2012), p. 87. Vidmar (2012), p. 169; and, by the same author Vidmar (2015), p. 375.

  93. 93.

    Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 438, para. 83.

  94. 94.

    Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 169.

  95. 95.

    Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 105.

  96. 96.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 356.

  97. 97.

    Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.

  98. 98.

    Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 171.

  99. 99.

    Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 108. Vidmar (2012), p. 177.

  100. 100.

    Cfr. Kaikobad (2011), p. 64.

References

  • Abi-Saab, G. 2006. Conclusion. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 470–476. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borgen, C.J. 2009. The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago JIL 10: 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothe, M. 2010. Kosovo – So What? The Holding of the International Court of Justice Is Not the Last Word on Kosovo’s Independence. German LJ 11: 837–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A.E. 1991. Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Secession. In The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/secession.

  • Buchheit, L.C. 1978. Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke-White, W.W. 2014. Crimea and the International Legal Order. Survival 56: 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, A. 1995. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemillier-Gendreau, M. 1975. À propos de l’effectivité en droit international. RBDI 11: 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, T. 1999. Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. L’état en tant que ‘fait primaire’: réflexions fur la portée du principe d’effectivité. In Secession: International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 138–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say About Secession? LJIL 24: 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Les conflits de sécession en Crimée et dans l’Est de l’Ukraine et le droit international (The Conflicts of Secession in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and International Law). JDI 141: 733–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. 1961. The Concept of Statehood in United Nations Practice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 109: 1127–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corten, O. 2006. Are There Gaps in the International Law of Secession? In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 231–254. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Territorial Integrity Narrowly Interpreted: Reasserting the Classical Inter-State Paradigm of International Law. LJIL 24: 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. 1998. State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession. BYIL 69: 85–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Visscher, Ch. 1958. Observations sur l’effectivité en droit international public. RGDIP 62: 601–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T.M., R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M.N. Shaw, and C. Tomuschat. 2000. The Territorial Integrity of Québec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty – Experts Report. In Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, ed. A.F. Bayefski, 333–342. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverland, C. 2000. Secession. In Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R. Bernhardt, vol. IV, 354–359. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heraclides, A. 1991. Self-Determination of Minorities in International Politics. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R. 1993. Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession. In Peoples and Minorities in International Law, ed. C. Brolmann, R. Lefeber, and M. Zieck, 29–35. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. 2008. Die Sezession – zum Versuch der Verrechtlichung eines faktischen Phänomens. ZaöRV/HJIL 63: 117–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingravallo, I. 2012. Kosovo After the ICJ Advisory Opinion: Towards a European Perspective? ICLR 14: 219–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, N.A. 2015. Constitutional Prohibition of Secession Under the Prism of International Law: The Cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Cyprus. Edimburgh Student Law Review 2: 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaber, T. 2011. A Case for Kosovo? Self-Determination and Secession in the 21st Century. IJHR 15: 926–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, D. 2011. International Court of Justice. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. ICLQ 60: 799–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, G. 1905. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: O. Häring.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, B.B. 2009. The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession? Chinese JIL 8: 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanović, M.A. 2009. Can Constitutions Be of Use in the Resolution of Secessionist Conflicts? JILIR 5: 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaikobad, K.H. 2011. Another Frozen Conflict: Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence and International Law. In Kosovo: A Precedent?: The Declaration of Independence, the Advisory Opinion and Implications for Statehood, Self-Determination and Minority Rights, ed. J. Summers, 55–85. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapustin, A. 2015. Crimea’s Self-Determination in the Light of Contemporary International Law. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. 1964. The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems (4th Printing). London: Stevens & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen, M.G. 2006. Introduction. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 1–20. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, H. 1947. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers, G., and S. Smis. 2000. New Dimensions of the Right to Self-Determination: A Study of the International Response to the Kosovo Crisis. N & EP 6: 43–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marxsen, C. 2014. The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective. ZaöRV/HJIL 74: 367–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, P.K. 1990. The Problem of Recognition in International Law: Some Thoughts on Community Interest. Nordic JIL 59: 247–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miaja de la Muela, A. 1958. El principio de efectividad en Derecho internacional. Valladolid: Universidad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muharremi, R. 2010. A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. German LJ 11: 867–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, T.D. 2000. Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyên, Quôc Dinh, et al. 2009. Droit international public. 8th ed. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W. 2003. Domesticating Secession. In Secession and Self-Determination, ed. S. Macedo and A. Buchanan, 193–237. New York; London: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter, S. 2012. Secession, Territorial Integrity and the Role of the Security Council. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 109–138. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The Kosovo Case – An Unfortunate Precedent. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili, A. 2011. The International Courts Advisory Opinion on the UDI in Respect of Kosovo: Washing Away the Foam on the Tide of Time. Max Planck YUNL 15: 65–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A. 2011. Does Kosovo Lie in the Lotus-Land of Freedom? LJIL 24: 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röben, V. 2010. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo: Rules or Principles? GoJIL 2: 1063–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert, C. 2010. The ICJs Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: A Mixed Opportunity?: International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. NILR 57: 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvioli, G. 1933. Les régles générales de la paix. Recueil des cours 46: 5–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1953. L’‘effettività’ in diritto internazionale. Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico 3: 271–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciso, E. 2014. La crisi ucraina e lintervento russo: profile di diritto internazionale. RDI 97: 992–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany, Y. 2014. Does International Law Grant the People of Crimea and Donetsk a Right to Secede? Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 Events in Ukraine. Brown JWA 21: 233–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M.N. 2000. Re: Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996’. In Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, ed. A.F. Bayefsky, 125–152. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C.R. 1991. Constitutionalism and Secession. UCLR 58: 633–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi, A. 2008. Neither Authorized nor Prohibited? Secession and International Law after Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Italian YIL 18: 37–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion as an Exercise in Pre-Understanding. In Questions de droit international autour de l’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice sur le Kosovo, ed. M. Arcari and L. Balmond, 217–236. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Some Remarks on the Relationship Between Secession and General International Law in the Light of the ICJs Kosovo Advisory Opinion. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 79–108. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Secession and the Use of Force. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 68–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, C. 2006. Secession and Self-Determination. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 23–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Touscoz, J. 1964. Le principe d’effectivité dans l’ordre international. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, R.W. 1953. The Principle of Effectiveness in International Law. In Law and Politics in the World Community: Essays on Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory and Related Problems in International Law, ed. G.A. Lipsky, 31–48. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Driest, S.F. 2015. Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law. NILR 62: 329–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vashakmadze, M., and M. Lippold. 2010. Nothing But a Road Towards Secession? The International Court of Justices Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. GoJIL 2: 619–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, J. 2011. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion Scrutinized. LJIL 24: 355–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law. Oxford JLS 32: 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People. German LJ 16: 365–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, C. 2014. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion: What It Says and What It Does Not Say. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 13–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, R. 2011. Self-Determination, Secession, and Dispute Settlement After the Kosovo Advisory Opinion. LJIL 24: 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildhaber, L. 1995. Territorial Modifications and Breakups in Federal States. Canadian YIL 33: 41–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. 2009. Self-Determination, Recognition and the Problem of Kosovo. NILR 56: 455–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Müllerson and Tolstykh. Chinese JIL 14: 217–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yee, S. 2010. Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 4): The Kosovo Advisory Opinion. Chinese JIL 9: 763–782.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Leon, Leon, Spain

    Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa

Authors
  1. Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Escudero Espinosa, J.F. (2017). The Right to Self-Determination and Unilateral Secession. In: Self-Determination and Humanitarian Secession in International Law of a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72622-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72622-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72621-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72622-9

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation