• Martin RieglEmail author
  • Bohumil Doboš
Part of the Frontiers in International Relations book series (FIR)


A seemingly trivial question to which the international community has not found an answer yet. One may argue that political fragmentation of the political map of the world is a major concern of the international community. „The post-Second World War bipolar system, built on the norms of territorial integrity and non-intervention, was designed to preserve stability of the conservative intestate order and to protect territorial integrity of its members at any cost (Heraclides 1990, p. 351).” Likewise one could also point at differentiated international community’s approach to various forms of political fragmentation, not only non-consensual ones. For example a non-voluntary dissolution (of SFRY), defined by Crawford (2006, pp. 705–707) as an irreversible process when the consent of the central government for an entity to seek independent statehood does not seem to be necessary, was not actively opposed by the EC or the US which coordinated their diplomatic actions. As deeply covered in Chap.  2 by A. Heraclides, the thinking on the secession is very rich and number of positions throughout the history very wide.


  1. Bélanger, L., Duchesne, É., & Paquin, J. (2005). Foreign interventions and secessionist movements: The democratic factor. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, E. (2009). Re-examining sovereignty claims in changing territorialities: Reflections from „Kosovo syndrome”. Geopolitics, 14(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buzard, K., Graham, B. A. T., & Horne, B. (2017). Unrecognized states: A theory of self-determination and foreign influence. The Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations, 33(3), 578–611.Google Scholar
  4. Caspersen, N. (2011). Democracy, nationalism and (lack of) sovereignty: the complex dynamics of democratisation in unrecognised states. Nations and Nationalism, 17(2), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coggins, B. (2014). Power politics and state formation in the twentieth century: The dynamics of recognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawford, J. (2006). The creation of states in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fazal, T. M., & Griffiths, R. D. (2014). Membership has its privileges: The changing benefits of statehood. International Studies Review, 16(1), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heraclides, A. (1990). Secessionist minorities and external involvement. International Organizations, 44(3), 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hercalides, A. (1991). The self-determination of minorities in international politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Ker-Lindsay, J. (2017). Secession and recognition in foreign policy. In M. Balikov & W. R. Thomson (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia on politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McGarry, J. (2004). Foreword: De facto states and international order. In T. Bahcheli, B. Bartmann, & H. Srebrnik, (Eds.), De facto states: The quest for sovereignty. Abingdon, Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Newman, E., & Visoka, G. (2018). The foreign policy of state recognition: Kosovo’s diplomatic strategy to join international society. Foreign Policy Analysis, 14, 367–387.Google Scholar
  13. Paquin, J. (2010). A stability seeking power: U.S. foreign policy and secessionist conflicts. Montreal: McGill-Quenn’s University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pavković, A., & Radan, P. (2007). Creating new states: Theory and practice of secession. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Riegl, M., & Doboš, B. (2018). Power and recognition: How (super)powers decide the international recognition process. Politics and Policy, 46(3), 442–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sterio, M. (2013). On the right to external self-determination: “Selfistans”, secession, and the great powers’ rule. Minnesota Journal of International Law, 19(1), 137–176.Google Scholar
  17. Stokes, D. (2019). Political opportunities and the quest for political recognition in Tibet, Taiwan, and Palestine. International Review of Sociology, 29(1), 102–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political StudiesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations