Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Emergence of Humanitarian Secession as an International Response to Serious Violations of Human Rights

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

  • 764 Accesses

Abstract

The concept of secession is far from having a precise content in current international law. Moreover, this question is particularly controversial when it comes to recognition of a right to secede, which many deem incompatible with the principles upheld by the UN Charter. In view of this, as noted above, it must be concluded that international law takes a neutral position and neither recognizes nor prohibits secession. In contrast, it is unanimously accepted that undertaking secession is illicit when it is linked to infringements of any peremptory norms of international law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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. Wilson (2009), p. 472.

  2. 2.

    Cfr. Buchanan (1991), pp. 29–32.

  3. 3.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  4. 4.

    Cfr. Wilson (2009), p. 474.

  5. 5.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  6. 6.

    On the difficulty of determining what constitutes a people, see supra, Sect. 2.2.2.

  7. 7.

    Cfr. Buchheit (1978), p. 14.

  8. 8.

    Cfr. Ibid.

  9. 9.

    Cfr. Higgins (1993), p. 35.

  10. 10.

    Cfr. Oeter (1992), pp. 741–775.

  11. 11.

    Cfr. Dinstein (1996), pp. 299–302. Oeter (2012), p. 119.

  12. 12.

    Cfr. Raič (2002), p. 324.

  13. 13.

    Before this and during the life of UNMIK, the following are of note: Baggett (1999), p. 472. Charney (2001). Grant (2000), p. 53. Seidel (2001), pp. 203–215.

    At the time of the independence declaration by Kosovo, see: Parameswaran (2008), p. 178. Watson (2008), p. 281.

  14. 14.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 43.

  15. 15.

    Cfr. Tomuschat (2006), p. 38.

  16. 16.

    Prominent among the fore-runners of the doctrine of remedial secession is Allen E. Buchanan who referred to a remedial right in his works: 1991, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec; 1997, Theories of Secession, pp. 31–61; and 2004, Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination. Moral Foundations for International Law, p. 335.

    A selection from the most relevant literature on the doctrine of ‘remedial secession’ would include the following: Buchheit (1978), p. 220. Corten (2008), p. 724. Crawford (2007), p. 120. Grant (2009), p. 29. Hannum (1990), p. 471. Hilpold (2009), p. 55. Kemoklidze (2009), p. 119. Murswiek (1993), pp. 25–27. Raič (2002), at Ch. 7. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 575. Schaller (2008), p. 138. Tancredi (2006), p. 175. Tomuschat (2006), p. 33. Thürer (1984), p. 127. Umozurike (1972), p. 196. Vidmar (2009), p. 814.

  17. 17.

    Cfr. Buchanan (2004), p. 335. Jaber (2011), p. 935. Raič (2002), pp. 368–372.

  18. 18.

    Cfr. Burke-White (2014), p. 77.

  19. 19.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 342.

  20. 20.

    Cfr. Fleiner (2011), p. 882.

  21. 21.

    Cfr. Cassese (1995), p. 27. Fleiner (2011), p. 884.

    On the case of the Åland Islands, see: Barros (1968), 362 pp. Brown (1921), pp. 268–272. Padelford (1939), pp. 465–487. Seyersted (1982), pp. 23–28. De Visscher (1921), pp. 35–56 and 243–284.

  22. 22.

    Cfr. ‘Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs’, 16 April 1921, League of Nations Council Doc. B7/21/68/106 (1921), pp. 27–28.

  23. 23.

    Cfr. Id., p. 128. Nanda (1981), p. 266.

  24. 24.

    Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 107. Cfr. ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’ UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV) , of 24 October 1970, at Annex, ‘The Principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples’, para. 7. See supra, Sect. 2.1.3.

  25. 25.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 39.

  26. 26.

    See supra, Sect. 2.1.3. Cfr. ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’ UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV) , of 24 October 1970, at Annex, ‘The Principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples’, para. 7. Christakis (2014), p. 742.

  27. 27.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 581. Tancredi (2006), p. 176; and, by the same author Tancredi (2008), p. 39.

  28. 28.

    Cfr. Shaw (1997), p. 483.

  29. 29.

    Cfr. Intervention of Mr. Riphagen (The Netherlands), UN Doc. A/AC.125/SR.114, p. 52. Cited in Tancredi (2008), p. 40, note 11.

  30. 30.

    Cfr. Jaber (2011), p. 935.

  31. 31.

    Cfr. ‘Concurring Opinion of Judge Wildhaber, Joined by Judge Ryssdal’, ECHR (Chamber), Loizidou v. Turkey, Application No. 15318/89, Judgment (Merits), 28 July 1998, 42, p. 24, para. 1–2. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58007.

    See Jaber (2011), p. 936. Van den Driest (2013), pp. 129–131.

  32. 32.

    Cfr. Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al./Cameroon, Communication No. 266/2003, of 13–27 May 2009, p. 36, para. 190–194.

    In the matter Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, Merits, Communication No. 75/92, 8th Annual Activity Report, at para. 6, the African Commission accepted the safeguard clause in the following terms:

    In the absence of concrete evidence of violations of human rights to the point that the territorial integrity of Zaire should be called to question and in the absence of evidence that the people of Katanga are denied the right to participate in Government as guaranteed by Article 13(1) of the African Charter, the Commission holds the view that Katanga is obliged to exercise a variant of self-determination that is compatible with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire.

    A detailed examination of these matters may be found in: Van den Driest (2013), pp. 128–129 and 138–140. Also: Jaber (2011), p. 936. Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), p. 635.

  33. 33.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, supra, Chap. 2, note 71, p. 295, para. 154.

  34. 34.

    Id., p. 287, para. 138.

    For an examination of this aspect in the case of Quebec, see: Jaber (2011), p. 936. Van den Driest (2013), pp. 131–137.

  35. 35.

    Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 742. Van den Driest (2015), p. 343.

    Among the States supporting remedial secession Théodore Christakis quotes: Albania, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Jordan, Lithuania, Maldives, the Netherlands, Poland, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Kosovo. Opposed to the theory were: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, China, Cyprus, Iran, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Venezuela, and Vietnam. See also Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), p. 636, note 86, which distinguishes between those accepting remedial secession and those deeming it inapplicable to Kosovo.

  36. 36.

    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. 82 and 83.

    Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 107.

  37. 37.

    Cfr. Arp (2010), p. 853. Burri (2010), pp. 881–890. Hannum (2011), p. 156. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 86. Ryngaert (2010), p. 492.

    Cfr. ‘Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf’, and ‘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. 620, para. 5–6; and p. 480, para. 7.

  38. 38.

    Cfr. Vidmar (2010), pp. 42–50.

  39. 39.

    Cfr. Dugard and Raič (2006), pp. 120–130. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 583. Tancredi (2008), p. 40. Van den Driest (2013), p. 276. Vidmar (2010), p. 43.

    On the case of Bangladesh, see supra, Sect. 2.2.2 and Chap. 3.

  40. 40.

    Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 107, note 21. Tancredi (2008), p. 41. Van den Driest (2013), pp. 279–289. Vidmar (2010), pp. 42–48.

  41. 41.

    With regard to claims to secede outside a decolonization process, see supra, Sect. 3.1.

  42. 42.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 578.

    In respect of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in relation to Georgia, Antonello Tancredi holds that despite the Russian Federation’s claims that they should be seen as instances of remedial secession, in reality they failed in their aims. See supra, Sect. 3.1. Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 53.

  43. 43.

    See supra, Chap. 3.

  44. 44.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2013), p. 289. Van den Driest (2015), p. 345.

  45. 45.

    Cfr. Cismas (2010), p. 582.

  46. 46.

    Cfr. Goodwin (2007), p. 6. Wilson (2009), p. 477. Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), p. 636, and note 86.

    At the end of the arguments put forward by the Russian Federation during oral statements before ICJ the conclusion was:

    For Kosovo to be able to rely on “remedial secession” in 2008, it has to demonstrate that the situation had aggravated as compared to 1999 […] By 2008, there was clearly no threat to the population of Kosovo coming from the Serbian authorities […] Therefore, the notion of “remedial secession” is obviously inapplicable in the case at hand.

    Intervention of Mr. Gevorgian (Russian Federation), ‘Public sitting held on Tuesday 8 December 2009, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada, presiding, on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)’, ICJ Doc. CR 2009/30, 64, p. 44, para. 21–22. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/141-20091208-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf.

    On these same lines, see Romania, at para. 24–26. The Russian Federation had previously raised the question: ‘[C]ould the circumstances, as they were in 2008, be qualified as extreme?’. ‘Written Statement by the Russian Federation’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 16 April 2009, 43, p. 37, para. 98. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15628.pdf.

  47. 47.

    Cfr. Jaber (2011), pp. 941–942. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 585. Van den Driest (2013), p. 273. Vidmar (2010), p. 49. Yee (2010), p. 780.

  48. 48.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 584. Van den Driest (2015), p. 349.

  49. 49.

    Cfr. Oeter (2014), p. 58. See also, by the same author Oeter (2012), p. 118.

  50. 50.

    Van den Driest (2013), p. 290.

  51. 51.

    Cfr. Tomuschat (2006), p. 42. Cfr. North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, 3-57, p. 44, para. 77.

  52. 52.

    Cfr. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, 244–352, p. 299, para 111.

  53. 53.

    See D’Amato (1971), 286 pp.

  54. 54.

    Cfr. Jaber (2011), p. 941.

  55. 55.

    Cfr. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, supra, Chap. 6, note 50, pp. 98–100, para. 186–188.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 579.

    On the role of opinio juris as an autonomous source for contemporary international law, as a sort of collective conscience of the international community as a whole, manifesting itself in the shape of generalized recognition of which special account must be taken by international legal bodies, see: Piza Escalante (1987), p. 171, para. 36.

  56. 56.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 584.

  57. 57.

    Cfr. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment supra, Chap. 6, note 50, p. 109, para. 207.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 584.

  58. 58.

    North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, supra, Chap. 8, note 51, p. 44, para. 77.

  59. 59.

    Cfr. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 584.

  60. 60.

    Cfr. Hilpold (2009), p. 56, para. 15. Jaber (2011), p. 941. Müllerson (2009), p. 19. Yee (2010), p. 780.

  61. 61.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 48.

    Some authors have seen this more as an ‘extreme version of a collective right to self-defence’. Cfr. Oeter (2012), p. 118. Oeter (1992), p. 758.

  62. 62.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2013), p. 360. Yee (2010), p. 780.

  63. 63.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2013), p. 344. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 86. Röben (2010), p. 1075. Tancredi (2014), p. 81.

    See supra, Sect. 8.1.1.

  64. 64.

    Cfr. Van den Driest (2013), p. 351. Tancredi (2008), p. 49.

  65. 65.

    Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, supra, Chap. 3, note 14, p. 141.

  66. 66.

    See supra, Sect. 8.1.1.

  67. 67.

    See Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), pp. 351, 575–576.

  68. 68.

    Cfr. Arp (2010), p. 853, note 15. Ioannidis (2015), p. 178. Musgrave (2000), p. 154. Oeter (2012), p. 115. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 575.

  69. 69.

    Cfr. Ioannidis (2015), p. 178. Jaber (2011), p. 935. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 576. Van den Driest (2015), p. 351.

  70. 70.

    Cfr. Ioannidis (2015), p. 178. Jaber (2011), p. 935. Raič (2002), pp. 368–372. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 576. Tomuschat (2006), p. 41. Urrutia Libarona (2012), p. 124. Van den Driest (2015), p. 351.

  71. 71.

    Cfr. Buchanan (2004), p. 335. Ioannidis (2015), p. 178. Jaber (2011), pp. 935 and 942. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 64. Oeter (2012), p. 119. Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), p. 576. Tomuschat (2006), p. 41. Urrutia Libarona (2012), p. 124.

  72. 72.

    See supra, Sect. 3.1.

  73. 73.

    Cfr. Corten (2011), p. 93. Vidmar (2012), p. 168.

  74. 74.

    Cfr. Corten (2011), p. 93.

  75. 75.

    This view is what underlies the reasoning put forward by the Russian Federation in its ‘Written Statement by the Russian Federation’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 16 April 2009, 43, p. 32, para. 88. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15628.pdf.

  76. 76.

    Cfr. Shaw (1997), p. 483.

  77. 77.

    Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 168.

  78. 78.

    Cfr. Shany (2014), p. 238.

    See supra, Sect. 8.1.1, note 35.

  79. 79.

    ‘Plassnik: ‘Letter on Kosovo’s Recognition Signed’, Vienna, 28 February 2008, at para. 2. https://www.bmeia.gv.at/en/the-ministry/press/announcements/2008/plassnik-letter-on-kosovos-recognition-signed/.

  80. 80.

    ‘Written Statement by the Swiss Confederation’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 17 October 2008, 27, p. 17, para. 67. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15614.pdf. ‘Written Statement by the Federal Republic of Germany’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of April 2009, 43, p. 35. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15624.pdf. ‘Written Statement by the Kingdom of the Netherlands’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 17 April 2009, 14, p. 13, para. 3.20. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15652.pdf.

    Legal doctrine also recognizing this right to secession under circumstances of serious infringements of human rights is also abundant. Among many, representative examples would be Crawford (2007), p. 119. Doehring (2002), p. 58. Thürer (2000), p. 371.

  81. 81.

    ‘Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, pp. 541 and 560, para. 41, 42, 97 and ss.

    Cfr. Cirkovic (2010), p. 907. Hannum (2011), p. 157.

  82. 82.

    Cfr. Cfr. ‘Opinion on ‘Whether Draft Federal Constitutional Law No. 462741-6’, CDL-AD(2014)004, supra, Chap. 6, note 165, p. 9, para. 29.

  83. 83.

    ‘Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 560, para. 96.

  84. 84.

    Intervention of Mr. Türk (Slovenia), UN Doc. S/PV.4011, of 10 June 1999, 21, p. 10. Cfr. ‘Intervention of Mr. Fowler (Canada)’, UN Doc. S/PV.4011, of 10 June 1999, 21, p. 13.

  85. 85.

    Intervention of Mr. Türk (Slovenia), UN Doc. S/PV.4011, of 10 June 1999, 21, p. 11.

  86. 86.

    Intervention of Mr. Burleigh (United States of America), UN Doc. S/PV.4011, of 10 June 1999, 21, p. 14.

  87. 87.

    Cfr. Jacobs and Radi (2011), p. 348.

  88. 88.

    Intervention of Mr. Hongju Koh (United States of America), (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. 25, para. 6. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/141-20091208-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf.

  89. 89.

    International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the ICISS (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001), 108, p. 8, para. 1.35. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 42.

  90. 90.

    Cfr. Hannum (1993), p. 44. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 64. Stromseth (1992), p. 371.

  91. 91.

    Intervention of Mr. Demchenko (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.310, of 10 November 1950, 4, p. 4, para. 47. Cfr. Cassese (1981), p. 101.

  92. 92.

    Cfr. Burke-White (2014), p. 65.

  93. 93.

    Cfr. Oeter (2014), p. 57.

  94. 94.

    Cfr. ‘Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 597, para. 185, 239 and 240.

  95. 95.

    Cfr. Tancredi (2014), p. 94.

  96. 96.

    Cfr. Schrijver (1999), p. 98.

  97. 97.

    ‘Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 593, para. 176.

  98. 98.

    Cfr. Escudero Espinosa (2002), p. 310.

  99. 99.

    Cfr. UN Doc. S/RES/1244 (1999), of 10 June 1999, at para. 10.

  100. 100.

    ‘Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s Future Status’, UN Doc. S/2007/168, of 26 March 2007, 9, p. 4, para. 10. ‘Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement’, UN Doc. S/2007/168/Add.1, of 26 March 2007, 61.

  101. 101.

    Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, pp. 450–451, para. 116–117.

  102. 102.

    See supra, Sect. 6.3.1.

    Cfr Intervention of Ms. DiCarlo (United States of America), UN Doc. A/63/PV.22, of 8 October 2008, 15, p. 5.

  103. 103.

    Intervention of Mr. Nesho (Albania), UN Doc. S/PV.4011 (Reasumption 1), of 10 June, 1999, 20, p. 14.

  104. 104.

    ‘Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s Future Status’, UN Doc. S/2007/168, of 26 March 2007, 9, p. 5, para. 16.

  105. 105.

    Id., p. 4, para. 15.

  106. 106.

    Intervention of Mr. Jovanović (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), UN Doc. S/PV.4011, of 10 June 1999, 21, p. 6. Cfr. Intervention of President Tadić (Serbia); and intervention of Mr. Lê Luong Minh (Viet Nam), UN Doc. S/PV.5839, of 18 February 2008, 23, pp. 5 and 14.

  107. 107.

    Cfr. ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo’, UN Doc. S/2008/692, of 24 November 2008, 23, pp. 6–7, para. 21–22.

  108. 108.

    ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1, of 24 October 2005, 38, p. 30, para. 139.

References

  • Arp, B. 2010. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo and the International Protection of Minorities. German LJ 11: 847–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baggett, T. 1999. Human Rights Abuses in Yugoslavia: To Bring an End to Political Oppression, the International Community Should Assist in Establishing and Independent Kosovo. Ga.J. Int’l & Comp. L. 27: 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barros, J. 1968. The Åland Islands Question; Its Settlement by the League of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P.M. 1921. The Aaland Islands Question. AJIL 15: 268–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Theories of Secession. Philosophy & Public Affairs 26: 31–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination. Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Burri, T. 2010. The Kosovo Opinion and Secession: The Sounds of Silence and Missing Links. German LJ 11: 881–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, A. 1981. The Self-Determination of Peoples. In The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ed. L. Henkin, 95–113. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, J.I. 2001. Self-Determination: Chechnya, Kosovo, and East Timor. Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 34: 455–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, T. 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 

  • Cirkovic, E. 2010. An Analysis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence. German LJ 11: 895–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cismas, I. 2010. Secession in Theory and Practice: The Case of Kosovo and Beyond. GoJIL 2: 531–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten, O. 2008. Déclarations unilatérales d’indépendance et reconnaissance prématurées: du Kosovo à l’Ossétie du sud et à l’Abkhazie. RGDIP 112: 721–759.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, A.A. 1971. The Concept of Custom in International Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Visscher, F. 1921. La question des Iles d’Aaland. Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 2: 35–56, and 2: 243–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein, Y. 1996. Is There a Right to Secede? ASIL Proceedings 90: 299–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doehring, K. 2002. Self-Determination. In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, ed. B. Simma, 2nd ed., 58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard, J., and D. Raič. 2006. The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession. In Secession: International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 94–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Escudero Espinosa, J.F. 2002. Cuestiones en torno a la intervención humanitaria y el Derecho internacional actual. León: Universidad, Secretariado de Publicaciones y Medios Audiovisuales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiner, T. 2011. The Unilateral Secession of Kosovo as a Precedent in International Law. In From Bilateralism to Community Interests: Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma, ed. U. Fastenrath, 877–894. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. 2007. From Province to Protectorate to State? Speculation on the Impact of Kosovo’s Genesis Upon the Doctrines of International Law. German LJ 8: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T. 2000. Extending Decolonization: How the United Nations Might Have Addressed Kosovo. Ga.J. Int’l & Comp. L. 28: 9–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Regulating the Creation of States. From Decolonization to Secession. JILIR 5: 11–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum, H. 1990. Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights, 503. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Rethinking Self-Determination. VJIL 34: 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: An Opportunity Lost, or a Poisoned Chalice Refused? LJIL 24: 155–161.

    Article  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. 2009. The Kosovo Case and International Law: Looking for Applicable Theories. Chinese JIL 8: 47–61.

    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., and Y. Radi. 2011. Waiting for Godot: An Analysis of the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. LJIL 24: 331–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemoklidze, N. 2009. The Kosovo Precedent and the Moral Hazard of Secession. JILIR 5: 117–140.

    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 

  • Müllerson, R.A. 2009. Precedents in the Mountains: On the Parallels and Uniqueness of the Cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Chinese JIL 8: 2–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murswiek, D. 1993. The Issue of a Right to Secession – Reconsidered. In Modern Law of Self-Determination, ed. C. Tomuschat, 21–40. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda, V.P. 1981. Self-Determination under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede. Case W.Res.J. Int’l L. 13: 257–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter, S. 1992. Selbstbestimmungsrecht im Wandel. Überlegungen zur Debatte um Selbstbestimmung, Sezessionsrecht und ‘vorzeitige’ Anerkennung. ZaöRV 52: 741–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 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 

  • ———. 2014. The Role of Recognition and Non-Recognition with Regard to Secession. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 45–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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 

  • Padelford, N.J. 1939. The Aland Islands Question. AJIL 33: 465–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parameswaran, K. 2008. Der Rechtsstatus des Kosovo im Lichte der aktuellen Entwicklungen. AVR 46: 172–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piza Escalante, R.E. 1987. La ‘opinio juris’ como fuente autónoma del Derecho internacional (‘opinio juris’ y ‘jus cogens’). AHLADI 8: 131–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raič, D. 2002. Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    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 

  • Ryngaert, C., and C. Griffioen. 2009. The Relevance of the Right to Self-Determination in the Kosovo Matter: In Partial Response to the Agora Papers. Chinese JIL 8: 573–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaller, C. 2008. Die Sezession des Kosovo und der völkerrechtliche Status der internationalen Präsenz. AVR 46: 131–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver, N. 1999. The Changing Nature of State Sovereignty. BYIL 70: 65–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, G. 2001. A New Dimension of the Right of Self-Determination in Kosovo? In Kosovo and the International Community. A Legal Assessment, ed. C. Tomuschat, 203–215. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyersted, F. 1982. The Aaland Autonomy and International Law. Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret 51: 23–28.

    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. 1997. Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries. EJIL 8: 478–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromseth, J.E. 1992. Self-Determination, Secession and Humanitarian Intervention by the United Nations. ASIL Proceedings 86: 370–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi, A. 2006. A Normative ‘Due Process’ in the Creation of States Through Secession. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 171–207. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Thürer, D. 1984. Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. AVR 22: 113–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Self-Determination. In Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R. Bernhardt, vol. Vol. IV, 364–374. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.

    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 

  • Umozurike, U.O. 1972. Self-Determination in International Law. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urrutia Libarona, I. 2012. Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination: The Approach of International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. Revista destudis autonòmics i federals 16: 107–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Driest, S.F. 2013. Remedial Secession. A Right to External Self-Determination as a Remedy to Serious Injustices? Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 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 Justice’s 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. 2009. International Legal Responses to Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence. Vand. J. Transnatl L. 42: 779–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Remedial Secession in International Law: Theory and (Lack of) Practice. St. Antony’s International Review 6: 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, K.W. 2008. When in the Course of Human Events: Kosovo’s Independence and the Law of Secession. Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 17: 267–293.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 Emergence of Humanitarian Secession as an International Response to Serious Violations of Human Rights. 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_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72622-9_8

  • 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