Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Legal Color of Secession

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
On State Secession from International Law Perspectives

  • 286 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter the legal color of secession is explored according to Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, so international conventions, international custom, the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law including judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations are taken into consideration. Through this thorough exploration of international legal sources, it is revealed that lex generalis, such as international legal principles, is not in a position to offer a satisfactory solution to secessionist conflicts: the high degree of ambiguity embodied in legal principles invariably leaves them open to numerous and contradicting interpretations. A satisfactory solution to secessionist conflicts is much more concerned with lex specialis, namely an agreement between conflicting parties. In order to formulate such an agreement, the influence of state recognition cannot be ignored: premature recognition disturbs the formulation of an agreement between the conflicting parties and thus negatively affects the solution. Since another major obstacle to the formulation of an agreement between conflicting parties is the divergence of opinion between opponents and proponents of remedial secession, it is meaningful to consider moderating the disagreement between them by replacing a remedial right to secession with a right to a remedy.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Declaration of Judge Simma, I.C.J. Reports 2010, pp.480–481, paras. 8–9.

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 1, Note 32.

  3. 3.

    See Chap. 1, Note 33.

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Brownlie (2003), p. 5; Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 24; Hudson (1934), pp. 601 ff. quoted from Shaw (2008), p. 70.

  5. 5.

    Thirlway (2010), p. 114.

  6. 6.

    Eleftheriadis (2008), p. 5.

  7. 7.

    Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para.111, http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  8. 8.

    Eleftheriadis (2008), pp. 2–3.

  9. 9.

    Shaw (2008), p. 93.

  10. 10.

    A/RES/25/2625.

  11. 11.

    Kohen (2006), p. 10.

  12. 12.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 618, para. 11.

  13. 13.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p.523, para. 176.

  14. 14.

    Del Mar (2013), pp. 80–81.

  15. 15.

    Shaw (1997), p. 483.

  16. 16.

    See above Note 11.

  17. 17.

    The ICJ treated General Assembly resolutions in the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua as evidence of opinio juris, see Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgement. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 188; in the case of Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons General Assembly resolutions were also treated as evidence of opinio juris, see Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, para. 73.

  18. 18.

    Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (Treaty of Nicosia), http://peacemaker.un.org/cyprus-nicosia-treaty60, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  19. 19.

    Agreement among the People’s Republic of Angola, the Republic of Cuba, and the Republic of South Africa (Tripartite Agreement), http://peacemaker.un.org/angola-tripartite-agreement88, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  20. 20.

    See the official Website of United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) regarding the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, https://unmis.unmissions.org/comprehensive-peace-agreement, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Declaration of Judge Simma, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 481, para. 9.

  23. 23.

    Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland (Edinburgh Agreement), 15 October 2012, http://www.gov.scot/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  24. 24.

    Scottish independence: Post-referendum agreement reached, 18 June 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27906062, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  25. 25.

    Sudan: Second Review Under the 2009-10 Staff-Monitored Program-Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Sudan, IMF Country Report No. 11/86, April 2011, p. 4.

  26. 26.

    For instance, Quebec as the secessionist entity used to have this misinterpretation, so the Canadian Supreme Court made it clear in the Reference re Secession of Quebec: “the democratic principle identified above would demand that considerable weight be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada, even though a referendum, in itself and without more, has no direct legal effect, and could not in itself bring about unilateral secession”, see Reference re Secession of Quebec, para. 87.

  27. 27.

    Solum (2004), p. 182.

  28. 28.

    Edinburgh Agreement, paras. 5 and 7.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Solum (2004), p. 316.

  31. 31.

    Ibid. p. 264.

  32. 32.

    See above Note 22.

  33. 33.

    Hart (1961), p. 155.

  34. 34.

    Thirlway (2010), pp. 102–103.

  35. 35.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, para. 73.

  36. 36.

    Thirlway (2010), p. 103.

  37. 37.

    Weller (2008a), p. 33.

  38. 38.

    Raič (2002), p. 314.

  39. 39.

    Škrk (1999), pp. 8–9.

  40. 40.

    Mikulka (1999), p. 109.

  41. 41.

    Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, A/51/18 (1996), p. 126.

  42. 42.

    Walter (2009), pp. 7–8.

  43. 43.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgement. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 184.

  44. 44.

    Shaw (2008), p. 98.

  45. 45.

    Ibid. p. 99.

  46. 46.

    Brierly (2012), pp. 63–64.

  47. 47.

    Buchheit (1978), p. 51.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Hobbes (1962), p. 143.

  50. 50.

    Ibid. p. 233.

  51. 51.

    Buchheit (1978), p. 52.

  52. 52.

    Grotius (1964), p. 150.

  53. 53.

    Müllerson (2009), p. 21.

  54. 54.

    Grotius (1964), pp. 261–262.

  55. 55.

    Livius (1853), http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19725/19725-h/19725-h.htm#b32, last accessed on 15.06.2018.

  56. 56.

    de Vattel (1964), Book 1, Chapter 2 §16.

  57. 57.

    Ibid. Chapter 17 §200.

  58. 58.

    Ibid. Chapter 17 §201.

  59. 59.

    Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para.92.

  60. 60.

    Pufendorf (1964), Book 8, Chapter 11 §4.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Locke (2012), Chapter 11 §22.

  63. 63.

    Ibid. Chapter 11, §135.

  64. 64.

    Ibid. Chapter 11, §168.

  65. 65.

    Ibid. Chapter 11, §225.

  66. 66.

    United States Declaration of Independence (1776).

  67. 67.

    Jasanoff (2012), pp. 5–53.

  68. 68.

    Peters (2011), p. 104.

  69. 69.

    Buchanan (2004), p. 354.

  70. 70.

    Bentham (1843), p. 501.

  71. 71.

    Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Introduction, quoted from Brierly (2012), p. 20.

  72. 72.

    Brierly (2012), p. 21.

  73. 73.

    Shaw (2003), pp. 248–249.

  74. 74.

    Thirlway (2010), p. 110.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Shaw (2008), p. 110.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.

  78. 78.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 275, para. 28.

  79. 79.

    Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3, paras. 56–58.

  80. 80.

    Thirlway (2010), p. 111.

  81. 81.

    Shaw (2008), p. 112.

  82. 82.

    Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para.1.

  83. 83.

    Ibid. para. 26.

  84. 84.

    Shaw (2008), p. 99.

  85. 85.

    Wolfrum (2011), para. 46.

  86. 86.

    Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 153.

  87. 87.

    Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 100.

  88. 88.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bennouna, I.C.J. Reports 2010, pp. 500–501.

  89. 89.

    Ibid. p. 501.

  90. 90.

    Ibid. p. 504.

  91. 91.

    Ibid. p. 505.

  92. 92.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Separate Opinion of Judge Keith, I.C.J. Reports 2010, pp. 483–484.

  93. 93.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Declaration of Vice President Tomka, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 455.

  94. 94.

    Ibid. pp. 455–456.

  95. 95.

    Ibid. p. 462.

  96. 96.

    Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 31.

  97. 97.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 407, para. 1.

  98. 98.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 618, para. 17.

  99. 99.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 438, para. 83.

  100. 100.

    Ibid. p. 452, para. 122.

  101. 101.

    Falk (2011), pp. 51–52.

  102. 102.

    Shaw (2008), pp. 445–446.

  103. 103.

    Dugard and Raič (2006), p. 100.

  104. 104.

    Brierly (2012), p. 149.

  105. 105.

    Craven (2010), p. 242.

  106. 106.

    Ryngaert and Sobrie (2011), p. 477.

  107. 107.

    Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 143.

  108. 108.

    Shaw (2008), p. 447.

  109. 109.

    Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, paras. 142 § 146.

  110. 110.

    Vidmar (2012), p. 378.

  111. 111.

    Brierly (2012), p. 151.

  112. 112.

    Christakis (2011), p. 75.

  113. 113.

    See above Note 107.

  114. 114.

    Shaw (2008), p. 461.

  115. 115.

    Security Council Resolution 217 (1965), para. 6.

  116. 116.

    Security Council Resolution 541 (1983), para. 7.

  117. 117.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 403, para. 81.

  118. 118.

    Weller (2008b), p. 64.

  119. 119.

    A/RES/60/147, Annex: Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.

  120. 120.

    Nolte (2006), pp. 85–86.

  121. 121.

    Kohen (2006), p. 11.

  122. 122.

    Müllerson (2003), p. 128.

  123. 123.

    Janik (2013), p. 54.

  124. 124.

    See Chap. 1, Note 2.

  125. 125.

    Sisson and Rose (1990), p. 207.

  126. 126.

    United Nations Security Council Official Records, 1611th Meeting, 12 December 1971, S/PV. 1611, paras. 124 and 128.

References

  • Bentham J (1843) Anarchical fallacies: being an examination of the declaration of rights, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Band 2, edited by Sir John Bowring, William Tait, Prince Street, p 501

    Google Scholar 

  • Brierly JL (2012) Law of Nations, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2003) Principles of public international law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (2004) Justice, legitimacy and self-determination: moral foundations for international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 354

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchheit LC (1978) Secession: the legitimacy of self-determination. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 51

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2011) The ICJ advisory opinion on Kosovo: “Has International Law Something to Say about Secession?”. Leiden J Int Law 24:75

    Google Scholar 

  • Craven M (2010) Statehood, self-determination, and recognition. In: Evans MD (ed) International law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 242

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1964) The law of nations or the principles of natural law (trans: Fenwick CG). Oceana Publications Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Mar K (2013) The myth of remedial secession. In: French D (ed) Statehood and self-determination: reconciling tradition and modernity in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J, Raič D (2006) The role of recognition in the law and practice of secession. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 100

    Google Scholar 

  • Eleftheriadis P (2008) Legal rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Falk R (2011) The Kosovo advisory opinion: conflict resolution and precedent. Am J Int Law 105:51–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius H (1964) De Jure Belli ac Pacis (trans: Kelsey FW) Book I, Chapter 4. Oceana Publications Inc., New York, p 150

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 155

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes T (1962) Leviathan, edited by John Plamenatz, Fontana Library, p 143

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson MO (1934) The Permanent Court of international justice. The Macmillan Company, New York, p 601 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Janik R (2013) The responsibility to protect as an impetus for secessionist movements — on the necessity to re-think territorial integrity. In: Kettemann MC (ed) Grenzen im Völkerrecht. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, pp 41–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff M (2012) Liberty’s exiles: American loyalists in the revolutionary World. Vintage Books, New York, pp 5–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY, Watts AD (eds) (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, 9th edn. Pearson Education, Limited, London, p 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2006) Introduction. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Livius T (1853) The History of Rome (trans: Spillan D) Book 2. John Childs and Son, Bungay. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19725/19725-h/19725-h.htm#b32. Accessed 15 June 2018

  • Locke J (2012) The second treatise of government. Philipp Reclam jun, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulka V (1999) The dissolution of Czechoslovakia and succession in respect of treaties. In: Mrak M (ed) Succession of states. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 109

    Google Scholar 

  • Müllerson R (2003) Sovereignty and secession: then and now, here and there. In: Dahlitz J (ed) Secession and international law: conflict avoidance – regional appraisals. United Nations Publications, New York, p 128

    Google Scholar 

  • Müllerson R (2009) Precedents in the mountains: on the parallels and uniqueness of the cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Chin J Int Law 8:21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolte G (2006) Secession and external intervention. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 85–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2011) Does Kosovo lie in the lotus-land of freedom? Leiden J Int Law 24:104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pufendorf S (1964) De Jure Naturae Et Gentium Libri Octo (trans: Oldfather CH, Oldfather WA). Oceana Publications Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Raič D (2002) Statehood and the law of self-determination. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 314

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C, Sobrie S (2011) Recognition of states: international law or realpolitik? The practice of recognition in the Wake of Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Leiden J Int Law 24:477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (1997) Peoples, territorialism and boundaries. Eur J Int Law 8:483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2003) The role of recognition and non-recognition with respect to secession: notes on some relevant issues. In: Dahlitz J (ed) Secession and international law: conflict avoidance - regional appraisals. United Nations Publications, New York, pp 248–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 70

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sisson R, Rose LE (1990) War and secession: Pakistan, India and the creation of Bangladesh. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 207

    Google Scholar 

  • Škrk M (1999) Recognition of states and its (Non-) implication on state succession: the case of successor states to the former Yugoslavia. In: Mrak M (ed) Succession of states. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 8–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum LB (2004) Procedural justice. South Calif Law Rev 78:182

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2010) The sources of international law. In: Evans MD (ed) International law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 95–121

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar J (2012) Explaining the legal effects of recognition. Int Comp Law Q 61:378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter BF (2009) Reputation and civil war: why separatist conflicts are so violent. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weller M (2008a) Why the legal rules on self-determination do not resolve self-determination disputes. In: Weller M, Metzger B (eds) Settling self-determination disputes: complex power-sharing in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 33

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller M (2008b) Escaping the self-determination trap. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 64

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R (2011) Sources of international law, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, last updated in May 2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

    Jing Lu

Authors
  1. Jing Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lu, J. (2018). Exploring the Legal Color of Secession. In: On State Secession from International Law Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97448-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97448-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97447-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97448-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation