Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The International Law of Secession and the Protection of the Human Rights of Oppressed Substate Groups: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nigerian Yearbook of International Law 2017

Part of the book series: Nigerian Yearbook of International Law ((NYBIL,volume 2017))

  • 334 Accesses

Abstract

This paper focuses on significant patterns/features in the historical development of the international law of secession and its contribution over time (or the lack thereof) to the struggle to afford greater protection to oppressed substate groups the world over. It was Crawford Young who once observed that “the state as an analytical quarry is an elusive and complex prey.” With the necessary modifications, this observation applies with almost equal force to the international law of secession. Complexity and confusion looms too large in this area of international law. For example, there is, at best, little clarity in the literature of the discipline of international law and in related fields of study regarding the existence or otherwise of an international legal entitlement to secession in favor of even the most highly oppressed and subjugated substate groups.

UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity; Former Chairperson, United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, Geneva, Switzerland; University Research Chair in International and Transnational Legal Studies at the Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada; and, most recently, Gani Fawehinmi Distinguished Chair in Human Rights Law at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Abuja, Nigeria. Ph.D, LL.M (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada); LL.M, LL.B (Hons) (University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria). I am grateful to John Mastrangelo, former JD student at the Osgoode Hall Law School, for his extraordinarily able research assistance. I specially dedicate this paper to my ever patient and loving family (Atugonza, Ojiako, Mbabazi and Kosi), without whose solid and unflinching support this paper would not have seen the light of day. I also thank the University of Wisconsin-Madison, especially Professor Sumudu Attapatu, for the invitation to present this paper at that institution as the 2015 Mildred Fish-Harnack Lecture on Human Rights and Democracy. Parts of this paper have been influenced and shaped by my previous work on the international law of statehood, for example, Okafor, ‘Re-Defining’ (n 2) and Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2).

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Crawford Young, The African Colonial State in Comparative Perspective (Yale University Press 1994) 13.

  2. 2.

    For examples of the range of opinion in the relevant literature, see: James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Clarendon Press 1979); Thomas M Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Clarendon Press 1995); Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Re-Defining Legitimate Statehood: International Law and State Fragmentation in Africa (Martinus Nijhoff 2000); Obiora Chinedu Okafor, ‘Entitlement, Process and Legitimacy in the International Law of Secession’ (2002) 9 Intl J on Minority and Group Rights 41; Hurst Hannum, ‘Rethinking Self-Determination’ (1993) 34 Va J Intl L 1; John Dugard, ‘Secession: Is the Case of Yugoslavia a Precedent for Africa’ (1992) 5 Afr J Intl Comp L 163; Gregory H Fox, ‘Self-Determination in the Post-Cold War Era: A New Internal Focus’ (1995) 16 Mich J Intl L 733; J Oloka-Onyango, ‘Heretical Reflections on the Right to Self-Determination: Prospects and Problems for a Democratic Global Future in the New Millenium’ (1999) 15 Am U Intl L R 151; Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge University Press 1995); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Clarendon Press 1990); Fredric L Kirgis Jr, ‘The Degrees of Self-Determination in the United Nations Era’ (1994) 88(2) AJIL 304; Robert McCorquodale, ‘Self-Determination Beyond the Colonial Context and its Potential Impact on Africa’ (1992) 4 Afr J Intl Comp L 592; Stephen J Toope, ‘Re Reference by Governor in Council Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada’ (1999) 93 AJIL 519; and Thomas M Franck, ‘Post-Modern Tribalism and the Right to Secession’ in Catherine Brolman, Rene Lefeber, and Marjoleine Zieck (eds), Peoples and Minorities in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).

  3. 3.

    Friedrich Kratochwil and John Gerard Ruggie, ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’ (1986) 40 Intl Org 753.

  4. 4.

    Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 3 Bevans 1153; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1967) 6 ILM 368; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1967) 6 ILM 368; Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970, UNGA Res A/RES/25/2625.

  5. 5.

    Crawford (n 2).

  6. 6.

    ibid.

  7. 7.

    Okafor, Re-Defining (n 2) 92-125.

  8. 8.

    ibid.

  9. 9.

    ibid. For example, during this pre-1945 era, the legitimacy or otherwise of the creation or (re)emergence of a new state from another one was almost entirely a matter of the political/military effectiveness of that emergent entity, as is witnessed for example by the forcible separation of many states (such as Albania, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro) from the Ottoman Empire during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. See Richard Hall, The Balkan Wars (Routledge 2000); and CIA, World Fact Book: Albania, <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html> accessed 9 June 2016.

  10. 10.

    For example: Franck, ‘Postmodern Secession’ (n 2) 159; Hannum (n 2) 42; and Dugard (n 2) 165.

  11. 11.

    Fox (n 2)733-735.

  12. 12.

    Okafor, Re-Defining (n 2) 104-106.

  13. 13.

    ibid 54-65, 109-111.

  14. 14.

    ibid.

  15. 15.

    Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 56-70.

  16. 16.

    ibid 72.

  17. 17.

    For fuller descriptions of these documents, see note 4 above.

  18. 18.

    For example: Oloka-Onyango (n 2) 162-163; Cassese (n 2) 328; Brownlie (n 2) 595-598; and Kirgis (n 2) 305.

  19. 19.

    For example: Fox (n 2) 743-745; McCorquodale (n 2) 593; and Toope (n 2) 524-525.

  20. 20.

    For example: Franck, ‘Postmodern Secession’ (n 2) 7; Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, Claims to Statehood in International Law (Carlton Press 1994) 67; Crawford (n 2) 77; and Martti Koskenniemi, ‘The Future of Statehood’ (1991) 32 Harv Intl L J 397.

  21. 21.

    Okafor, Re-Defining (n 2) 67.

  22. 22.

    Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, 16 December 1991, reprinted in (1993) 9 Eur J Intl L 46 annex at 72.

  23. 23.

    Okafor, Re-Defining (n 2) 67.

  24. 24.

    ibid.

  25. 25.

    Crawford (n 2) 77.

  26. 26.

    Milena Sterio, ‘On the Right to External Self-Determination: ‘Selfistans’, Secession and the Great Powers’ Rule’ (2010) 19 Minn J Intl L 137.

  27. 27.

    Cassese (n 2)37-140; Dugard (n 2) 165; Christian Tomuschat, ‘Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World’ in Christian Tomuschat (eds), Modern Law of Self-Determination (Martinus Nijhoff 1993) 7; and Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 47.

  28. 28.

    Jure Vidmar, Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice (Hart 2013) 50, 202-232, 244-245.

  29. 29.

    Sakina Kabir B and Obinna James Edeh, ‘An Evaluation of the EU and International Law: Responses to the Right of Secession in Crimea’ (2014) 26 Mich Intl Lawyer 4, 6 (noting the European Union’s hostility to the prospect of Scottish Secession).

  30. 30.

    Third Committee, UNGA, 61st Session, Summary record of the 40th Meeting on 7 November 2006, 5 January 2007, UN Doc A/C.3/61/SR.40.

  31. 31.

    Oloka-Onyango (n 2) 196-204.

  32. 32.

    Third Committee (n 30) para 51.

  33. 33.

    ibid para 52.

  34. 34.

    African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Nairobi, Kenya, 27 June 1981) 21 ILM 59.

  35. 35.

    Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, Communication No. 75/92; reproduced in (1996) 3 Intl Human Rights Rep 136. Emphasis supplied.

  36. 36.

    Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217.

  37. 37.

    ibid 287. Emphasis supplied.

  38. 38.

    For example: UNGA, 63rd Session, 22nd Plenary meeting of 8 October 2008, UN Doc A/63/PV.22; and UNSC, 65th year, 6347th meeting of 3 August 2010, UN Doc S/PV.6367.

  39. 39.

    ibid.

  40. 40.

    UNSC, 65th year (n 38) 24.

  41. 41.

    Kosovo’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports that 111 states had recognized Kosovo’s independence as at 12th September 2016: Republic of Kosovo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Countries that have recognized the Republic of Kosova” http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,224 accessed 12 September 2016. However, another website reports this figure to be 112 as at the same date: “Kosovo Thanks You” http://www.kosovothanksyou.com accessed 12 September 2016. Kosovo’s independence has thus been recognized by about half of the member states of the United Nations (UN). It is, however, unlikely to become a member anytime soon because it is not recognized by Russia and China.

  42. 42.

    Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, (Advisory Opinion) (2010) ICJ Reports 403 (Kosovo case). Also see Robert L Howse and Ruti Teitel, ‘Humanity Bounded and Unbounded: The Regulation of External Self-Determination under International Law’ (2013) 7 L and Ethics of Human Rights 155; Theodore Cristakis, ‘The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say about Secession?’ (2011) 24 Leiden J Intl L 73; Ioana Cismas, ‘Secession in Theory and Practice: The Case of Kosovo and Beyond’ (2010) 2 Gottingen J Intl L 531; and Ralph Wilde, ‘Self-Determination, Secession, and Dispute Settlement after the Kosovo Advisory Opinion’ (2011) 24 Leiden J Intl L 149. For a more supportive reading of the Kosovo Opinion, see also Marc Weller, ‘Modesty can be a Virtue: Judicial Economy in the ICJ Kosovo Opinion’ (2011) 24 Leiden J Intl L 127.

  43. 43.

    Separate Opinion of Judge Cançade Trindade in the Kosovo case, at paragraphs 14-20 and paragraph 24.

  44. 44.

    For example: UNGA, 68th session, 1 April 2014, UN Doc A/RES/68/262; UNSC, 69th year, 7134th meeting (13 March 2014), UN Doc S/PV.7134; and Simon Chesterman, ‘Crimean War 2.0: Ukraine and International Law’ (March 2014) The Straits Times 1.

  45. 45.

    Vidmar, Democratic Statehood (n 28) 245.

  46. 46.

    I borrow this concept of “righting from Karen Knop’s work: Karen Knop, ‘The Righting of Recognition: Recognition of States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union’ (1992) Canadian Council of International Law Proceedings 36.

  47. 47.

    Vidmar, Democratic Statehood (n 28) 61.

  48. 48.

    For an opposing view, see ibid and Jure Vidmar, ‘Remedial Secession in International Law: Theory and (Lack of) Practice’ (2010) 6 St. Anthony’s Intl Rev 37.

  49. 49.

    For example: UNGA, 63rd Session (n 38); and UNSC, 65th year (n 38).

  50. 50.

    ibid.

  51. 51.

    Obehi S Okojie, ‘Between Secession and Federalism: The Independence of South Sudan and the Need for a Reconsidered Nigeria’ (2013) 26 Glob Bus Dev L J 415; and Angela K Bourne, ‘Europeanization and Secession: The Cases of Catalonia and Scotland’ (2014) 13 J Ethnopolitics and Minority Language Issues 94.

  52. 52.

    Lovise Aalen, ‘Ethnic Federalism and Self-Determination for Nationalities in a Semi-Authoritarian State: The Case of Ethiopia’ (2006) 13 Intl J of Minority and Group Rights 243.

  53. 53.

    Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 48, 62-64.

  54. 54.

    William W Burke-White, ‘Crimea and the International Legal Order’ (2014) 56 Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 65; and Chesterman (n 44).

  55. 55.

    Letter from a Group of state allies of Taiwan to the President of the UNGA, 20 July 2005, UN Doc A/59/877; Letter from the Permanent Representative of China to the UN to the President of the UNGA 25 July 2005, UN Doc A/59/879; Letter from the Permanent Representative of China to the UN to the Secretary-General of the UN, 15 August 2005, UN Doc A/60/255.

  56. 56.

    Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 56-70.

  57. 57.

    For example: UNGA, 63rd Session (n 38); and UNSC, 65th year (n 38).

  58. 58.

    Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 56-70.

  59. 59.

    Vidmar, Democratic Statehood (n 28) 65-77.

  60. 60.

    Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 56.

  61. 61.

    Alec Stone Sweet, ‘Judicialization and the Construction of Governance’ (1999) 32 Comp Political Studies 147, 148-149.

  62. 62.

    Sujit Choudhry and Robert L Howse, ‘Constitutional Theory and the Quebec Secession Reference’ (2000) 13 Can J L Jur 143, 145.

  63. 63.

    Robert A Young, ‘A Most Politic Judgment’ (1998) 10 Constit Forum 14, 15.

  64. 64.

    Sterio (n 26).

  65. 65.

    Theodore Christakis, ‘Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and Fait Accompli in the Case of Crimea’ (2015) 75 Heidelberg J Intl L (forthcoming).

  66. 66.

    ibid.

  67. 67.

    Christian Marxsen, ‘The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective’ (2015) 72 Heidelberg J Intl L 367.

  68. 68.

    I owe this term to Makau Mutua’s fecund imagination: Makau Mutua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique (University of Pennsylvania Press 2002) 40.

  69. 69.

    Brad R Roth, ‘Secessions, Coups and the International Rule of Law: Assessing the Decline of the Effective Control Doctrine’ (2010) 11 Melbourne J Intl L 393.

  70. 70.

    Marxsen (n 67).

  71. 71.

    Okafor, ‘Entitlement’ (n 2) 55; Rein Mullerson, International Law, Rights and Politics (Routledge 1994) 85.

  72. 72.

    Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (OUP 2006) 79.

  73. 73.

    Marxsen (n 67).

  74. 74.

    Ralph Wilde, ‘Self-Determination, Secession, and Dispute Settlement after the Kosovo Advisory Opinion’ (2011) 24 Leiden J Intl L 149.

References

  • Aalen L (2006) Ethnic federalism and self-determination for nationalities in a semi-authoritarian state: the case of Ethiopia. Int J Minor Group Rights 13:243–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACHPR (African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights), Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire (1996), Communication No. 75/92; reproduced in Intl Human Rights Reports 3:136

    Google Scholar 

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1982) 21 ILM 59

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxi U (2006) The future of human rights. Oxford University Press, Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourne AK (2014) Europeanization and secession: the cases of Catalonia and Scotland. J Ethnopolit Minor Lang Issues 13:94–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1990) Principles of public international law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke-White WW (2014) Crimea and the international legal order. Surv Glob Polit Strateg 56:65–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1995) Self-determination of peoples: a reappraisal. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of the United Nations (1945) 26 June 1945. Bevans 3:1153

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesterman S (2014) Crimean War 2.0: Ukraine and International Law. The Straits Times 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhry S, Howse R (2000) Constitutional theory and the Quebec secession reference. Can J Law Juris 13:143–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2015) Self-determination, territorial integrity and fait accompli in the case of Crimea. Heidelberg J Int Law 75 (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cismas I (2010) Secession in theory and practice: the case of Kosovo and Beyond. Gottingen J Int Law 2:531–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (1979) The creation of states in international law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cristakis T (2011) The ICJ advisory opinion on Kosovo: has international law something to say about secession? Leiden J Int Law 24:73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J (1992) Secession: is the case of Yugoslavia a Precedent for Africa. Afr J Int Comp Law 5:163–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox GH (1995) Self-determination in the post-cold war era: a new internal focus. Mich J Int Law 16:733–791

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1993) Post-modern tribalism and the right to secession. In: Brolman C, Lefeber R, Zieck M (eds) Peoples and minorities in international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1995) Fairness in international law and institutions. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union (1991), reprinted in (1993) Eur J Intl L 9:46, annex at 72

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum H (1993) Rethinking self-determination. Va J Int Law 34:1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R, Teitel R (2013) Humanity bounded and unbounded: the regulation of external self-determination under international law. Law Ethics Hum Rights 7:155–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICJ (International Court of Justice), Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion (22 July 2010). ICJ Rep 403

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1967) ILM 6:368

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1967) ILM 6:368

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabir S, Edeh OJ (2014) An evaluation of the EU and international law: responses to the right of secession in Crimea. Mich Int Lawyer 26:4–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirgis F (1994) The degrees of self-determination in the United Nations Era. Am J Int Law 88:304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knop K (1992) The righting of recognition: recognition of states in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Canadian Council of International Law Proceedings 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (1991) The future of statehood. Harv Int Law J 32:392–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil F, Ruggie JG (1986) International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state. Int Org 40:753–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letter from a Group of state allies of Taiwan to the President of the UNGA (20 July 2005). UN Doc. A/59/877

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter from the Permanent Representative of China to the UN to the President of the UNGA (25 July 2005). UN Doc. A/59/879

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter from the Permanent Representative of China to the UN to the Secretary-General of the UN (15 August 2005). UN Doc. A/60/255

    Google Scholar 

  • Marxsen C (2015) The Crimea crisis – an international law perspective. Heidelberg J Int Law 72:367–391

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale R (1992) Self-determination beyond the colonial context and its potential impact on Africa. Afr J Int Comp Law 4:592–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullerson R (1994) International law, rights and politics. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutua M (2002) Human rights: a political and cultural critique. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okafor OC (2000) Re-defining legitimate statehood: international law and state fragmentation in Africa. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Okafor OC (2002) Entitlement, process and legitimacy in the international law of secession. Int J Minor Group Rights 9:41–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Okojie OS (2013) Between secession and federalism: the independence of South Sudan and the need for a reconsidered Nigeria. Glob Bus Dev Law J 26:415–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Oloka-Onyango J (1999) Heretical reflections on the right to self-determination: prospects and problems for a democratic global future in the New Millennium. Am Univ Int Law Rev 15:151–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Kosovo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Countries that have recognized the Republic of Kosovo” http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,224 Accessed 12 Sept 2016

  • Roth BR (2010) Secessions, coups and the international rule of law: assessing the decline of the effective control doctrine. Melbourne J Int Law 11:393–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterio M (2010) On the right to external self-determination: ‘Selfistans’, secession and the great powers’ rule. Minn J Int Law 19:137–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (1999) Judicialization and the construction of governance. Comp Pol Stud 32:147–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCC (Supreme Court of Canada), Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (1993) Self-determination in a post-colonial world. In: Tomuschat C (ed) Modern law of self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Toope S (1999) Re reference by governor in council concerning certain questions relating to secession of Quebec from Canada. Am J Int Law 93:519–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (1970) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970). UN Resolution A/RES/25/2625

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (2007) Third Committee, General Assembly, Sixty-first session, Summary record of the 40th Meeting, 7 November 2006 at 10am (5 January 2007). UN Doc A/C.3/61/SR.40

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (2008) Sixty-third Session, 22nd Plenary meeting (8 October 2008). UN Doc A/63/PV.22

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGA (2014) Sixty-eight session (27 March 2014). 1 April 2014, UN Doc A/RES/68/262

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC (2010) Sixty-fifth year, 6347th meeting (3 August 2010). UN Doc S/PV.6367

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC (2014) Sixty-ninth year, 7134th meeting (13 March 2014). UN Doc S/PV.7134

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar J (2010) Remedial secession in international law: theory and (lack of) practice. St Anthony’s Int Rev 6:37–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar J (2013) Democratic statehood in international law: the emergence of new states in post-cold war practice. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace-Bruce NL (1994) Claims to statehood in international law. Carlton Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller M (2011) Modestly can be a virtue: judicial economy in the ICJ kosovo opinion. Leiden J Int Law 24:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilde R (2011) Self-determination, secession, and dispute settlement after the Kosovo advisory opinion. Leiden J Int Law 24:149–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young C (1994) The African colonial state in comparative perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Young RA (1998) A most politic judgment. Constit Forum 10:14–18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, Geneva, Switzerland

    Obiora Chinedu Okafor

  2. Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Obiora Chinedu Okafor

  3. Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Abuja, Nigeria

    Obiora Chinedu Okafor

Authors
  1. Obiora Chinedu Okafor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Obiora Chinedu Okafor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Chile Eboe-Osuji

  2. School of Law, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom

    Engobo Emeseh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Okafor, O.C. (2018). The International Law of Secession and the Protection of the Human Rights of Oppressed Substate Groups: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In: Eboe-Osuji, C., Emeseh, E. (eds) Nigerian Yearbook of International Law 2017. Nigerian Yearbook of International Law , vol 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71476-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71476-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71475-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71476-9

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation