Remedial secession : a right to external self-determination as a remedy to serious injustices /

Remedial secession : a right to external self-determination as a remedy to serious injustices /

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Author / Creator:Driest, Simone F. van den, 1984-
Imprint:Cambridge : Intersentia, [2013]
©2013
Description:xvi, 383 pages ; 24 cm.
Language:English
Series:School of Human Rights Research series ; volume 61
School of Human Rights Research series ; v. 61.
Subject:
State succession.
Self-determination, National.
Format: Dissertations Print Book
URL for this record:http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/9132591
Hidden Bibliographic Details
ISBN:9781780681535 (pbk.)
1780681534 (pbk.)
Notes:Thesis (Ph. D.)--Tilburg University.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 339-371) and index.
Summary:It is increasingly often suggested in literature that a right to unilateral secession, stemming from the right to self-determination of peoples, may arise in case of serious injustices suffered by a people. In those extreme circumstances, an alleged right to unilateral secession operates as an "ultimum remedium". While such a right to remedial secession may well be morally desirable, the question is to what extent it has actually emerged under contemporary international law. The right to self-determination of peoples is generally considered to be one of the most fundamental norms in international law. Outside the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination is a continuous right, which is to be exercised primarily within the framework of an existing State.
Table of Contents:
  • Acknowledgements
  • List of Abbreviations
  • Chapter I. Introduction
  • 1. Balancing Order and Justice: External Self-Determination after Serious Injustices?
  • 1.1. The Contentious Issue of Unilateral Secession
  • 1.2. Unilateral Secession and Self-Determination
  • 1.3. Unilateral Secession as a Remedial Right?
  • 2. The Approach of this Study
  • 2.1. Defining (Unilateral) Secession and Remedial Secession
  • 2.2. Principal Research Question
  • 2.3. Structure and Methodology
  • Chapter II. Self-Determination: The Development from Principle to Right
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The Emergence of the Principle of Self-Determination
  • 2.1. Democratic Political Theory
  • 2.2. Ethnic Nationalism
  • 2.3. Liberal Nationalism
  • 3. Self-Determination Before the Second World War
  • 3.1. Lenin's Conception of Self-Determination
  • 3.2. Wilson's Conception of Self-Determination
  • 3.3. Self-Determination in the Wake of the First World War
  • 3.4. The Åland Islands Case
  • 4. Self-Determination in the Post-War Era
  • 4.1. The Charter of the United Nations
  • 4.2. The Decolonization Process
  • 4.2.1. The Meaning of Self-Determination in the Context of Decolonization
  • 4.2.2. The Subjects and Legal Status of Self-Determination in the Context of Decolonization
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Chapter III. The Contemporary Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Self-Determination as a Continuous Entitlement
  • 2.1. The International Human Rights Covenants of 1966
  • 2.2. The Friendly Relations Declaration
  • 2.3. Subsequent Documents
  • 3. Internal Self-Determination
  • 3.1. The Content of the Right to Internal Self-Determination
  • 3.1.1. Implementation of the Right to Internal Self-Determination
  • 3.1.2. Internal Self-Determination and Democratic Governance?
  • 3.2. The Status of the Right to Internal Self-Determination
  • 3.3. The Subjects of the Right to Internal Self-Determination
  • 3.3.1. All Inhabitants of a State
  • 3.3.2. Subgroups within States
  • 3.3.3. Minorities
  • 3.3.4. Indigenous Peoples
  • 3.4. Conclusions on Internal Self-Determination
  • 4. External Self-Determination
  • 4.1. The Content of the Right to External Self-Determination
  • 4.1.1. Dissolution
  • 4.1.2. (Re)union or Merger
  • 4 1.3. Secession
  • 4.1.4. Dissolution and Secession: A Blurred Distinction
  • 4.2. The Status and Subjects of the Right to External Self-Determination
  • 4.3. Conclusions on External Self-Determination
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Chapter IV. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Contemporary International Law?
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Recognizing a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession?
  • 2.1. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in International Conventions
  • 2.2. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Doctrine
  • 2.2.1. The Content of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession
  • 2.2.2. The Subjects of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession
  • 2.2.3. Contraindications
  • 2.2.4. Conclusions on Doctrine
  • 2.3. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Judicial Decisions and Opinions
  • 2.3.1. The Åland Islands Case
  • 2.3.2. Katangese Peoples' Congress v. Zaire
  • 2.3.3. Loizidou v. Turkey
  • 2.3.4. Reference re Secession of Quebec
  • 2.3.5. Kevin Ngwanga Gumne etal. v. Cameroon
  • 2.3.6. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo
  • 2.3.6.1. Background of the Case
  • 2.3.6.2. The Advisory Opinion
  • 2.3.6.3. Individual Opinions of Judges on a Right to Remedial Secession
  • 2.3.7. Conclusions on Judicial Decisions and Opinions
  • 2.4. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in General Principles of (International) Law
  • 2.4.1. The Principle of Respect for the Territorial Integrity of States
  • 2.4.1.1. The Content of the Principle of Territorial Integrity
  • 2.4.1.2. The Principle of Territorial Integrity and the Right to Self-Determination
  • 2.4.1.3. A Balancing Approach
  • 2.4.1.4. Conclusions on the Principle of Territorial Integrity
  • 2.4.2. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris
  • 2.4.2.1. The Content of the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris
  • 2.4.2.2. The Applicability of the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris
  • 2.4.2.3. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris and the Right to Self-Determination
  • 2.4.2.4. Conclusions on the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris
  • 2.4.3. The Principle of Self-Determination
  • 2.4.4. Conclusions on General Principles of (International) Law
  • 2.5. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Other Possible Sources of International Law
  • 2.5.1. Unilateral Acts of States
  • 2.5.2. Acts of International Organizations
  • 2.5.3. Conclusions on Other Possible Sources of International Law
  • 3. Conclusions
  • Chapter V. Customary International Law: Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The Two Conventional Elements of Customary International Law
  • 2.1. State Practice
  • 2.1.1. Uniformity
  • 2.1.2. Extensiveness and Representativeness
  • 2.1.3. Duration
  • 2.1.4. The Interrelationship of the Three Factors
  • 2.2. Opinio Juris
  • 3. Customary International Law beyond the Conventional Model?
  • 3.1. Progressive Approaches towards Customary International Law
  • 3.2. A Critical Appraisal
  • 4. Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Chapter VI. A Customary Right to Remedial Secession?
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The Recognition of States: a Brief Introduction
  • 2.1. The Constitutive and Declaratory Approach
  • 2.2. Recognition and Unilateral Secession
  • 3. Acknowledgement of A Right to Remedial Secession in Practice?
  • 3.1. The Case of Kosovo
  • 3.1.1. General Responses to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence
  • 3.1.1.1. Recapitulation
  • 3.1.2. The Advisory Proceedings before the International Court of Justice
  • 3.1.2.1. Support for the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession
  • 3.1.2.1.1. Views and Arguments Supporting a Right to Remedial Secession
  • 3.1.2.1.2. Recapitulation
  • 3.1.2.2. Opposition to the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession
  • 3.1.2.2.1. Views and Arguments Opposing the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession
  • 3.1.2.2.2. Recapitulation
  • 3.1.3. Conclusions on the International Responses to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence
  • 3.2. Other Cases
  • 3.2.1. Bangladesh
  • 3.2.2. Eritrea
  • 3.2.3. The Baltic Republics (and the Other Successor States to the USSR)
  • 3.2.4. Croatia and Slovenia (and the Other Successor States to the SFRY)
  • 3.2.5. Conclusions on the International Responses to Other Cases
  • 4. Legal Appraisal of International Responses to Attempts at Unilateral Secession: State Practice and Opinio Juris
  • 4.1. State Practice
  • 4.2. Opinio Juris
  • 4.3. Taking Stock: A Customary Right to Remedial Secession?
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Chapter VII. Recapitulation, Conclusions, and Final Reflections
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. A Right to Remedial Secession?
  • 2.1. The Development of the Right to Self-Determination
  • 2.2. The Contemporary Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination
  • 2.3. Traces of a Right to Remedial Secession in Contemporary International Law
  • 2.4. Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession
  • 2.5. A Customary Right to Remedial Secession?
  • 2.6. Conclusions on a Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Lata and De Lege Ferenda
  • 2.6.1. A Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Lata
  • 2.6.2. A Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Ferenda
  • 3. Final Reflections on Remedial Secession
  • 3.1. Effectuating Remedial Secession through Recognition?
  • 3.2. Remedial Secession and the Humanization of the International Legal Order
  • Samenvatting
  • Bibliography
  • Index
  • Curriculum Vitae

Similar Items