Sterio: Self-Determination and Secession Under International Law: The Cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia

Milena Sterio (Cleveland-Marshall College of Law) has posted an ASIL Insight on Self-Determination and Secession Under International Law: The Cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia.

Fischer: Sezession im Völkerrecht – Faktisches Phänomen oder reale Utopie

Anna Fischer has published Sezession im Völkerrecht – Faktisches Phänomen oder reale Utopie: Die Geschichte eines Prinzips im Lichte eines unglücklichen Präzedenzfalls (Peter Lang 2017). Here's the abstract:

Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker ist eines der komplexesten, ambivalentesten und zugleich erfolgreichsten rechtlich-politischen Konzepte. Dieses Buch wirft einen Blick zurück auf das 20. Jahrhundert – dabei erscheint dieses als Jahrhundert der Selbstbestimmung und seine zweite Hälfte als Zeitalter der Sezession. Im Zentrum der Analyse steht der Fall Kosovo, der bis heute Gegenstand kontroversieller völkerrechtlicher und politischer Debatten ist. Das Buch geht der Frage nach, wie sich das Prinzip der Selbstbestimmung im Sinne einer «konkreten Utopie» weiterentwickeln könnte. Gerade durch seine Humanisierung in den letzten Jahrzehnten appelliert das Völkerrecht an das Gewissen der Staatengemeinschaft und fungiert dabei als Katalysator bei der Realisierung des Fernziels einer gerechten Weltordnung, welche die Menschenrechte und das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung gewährleistet.

Christakis & Constantinides: Territorial Disputes in the Context of Secessionist Conflicts

Theodore Christakis (Université Grenoble Alpes - Law) & Aristoteles Constantinides (Univ. of Cyprus - Law) have posted Territorial Disputes in the Context of Secessionist Conflicts (in Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law, Marcelo Kohen & Mamadou Hebie eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

In this chapter, we explore the territorial dimension of non-decolonization secessionist conflicts in international law. Our investigation is divided in three parts. The first part focuses on secessions resulting from violations of jus cogens norms. We conclude that contemporary international law prohibits such secessions and prescribes non-recognition as the legal consequence. In the second part, we explore the legal framework under general international law relating to unilateral secessions that do not involve violations of jus cogens. We conclude that even though international law neither authorizes nor outright prohibits unilateral secession it sets many obstacles and presumptions against its ultimate success, but ultimately leaves some space for the principle of effectiveness in exceptional cases. Our third part investigates consensual agreements in the context of secessionist conflicts, which have either led to the creation of new states or accommodated the self-determination aspirations of separatist entities within parent states based on territorial self-governance arrangements. This part also highlights the interplay between consent, effectivités and uti possidetis in state practice and also gives a close look to three arbitrations that dealt with territorial disputes in various non/post-colonial contexts.

Maia & Kolb: O Estatuto Internacional da Província Angolana de Cabinda à Luz do Direito Internacional Público

Catherine Maia (Universidade Lusófona do Porto - Law) & Robert Kolb (Université de Genève - Law) have published O Estatuto Internacional da Província Angolana de Cabinda à Luz do Direito Internacional Público (Almedina 2017). A French edition was published in 2015. Here's the abstract:

Este estudo visa aplicar alguns conceitos-chaves do direito internacional num contexto relativamente pouco conhecido, a saber, reivindicações de secessão em Angola. Antigos “tratados” celebrados com chefes indígenas podiam ser considerados como convenções de direito internacional ou eram atos de direito interno? Qual o papel que estes podem desempenhar nas atuais reivindicações de autodeterminação? Como apreciar em direito internacional a validade de um acordo relativo à independência de uma colónia concluído no âmbito de um direito constitucional português em plena mutação? A questão suscita comentários tanto do ponto de vista do direito nacional como do ponto de vista do artigo 46.º da Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados de 1969, cujo conteúdo poderia eventualmente ser aplicado a título de direito consuetudinário. O que pensar, em seguida, do argumento do direito de secessão a favor do “povo” cabindense? Será que tal povo existe na aceção do direito internacional? Além disso, o que é um povo no sentido do direito de autodeterminação? E como defini-lo neste caso? O que se deve pensar do argumento da secessão-remédio, segundo o qual uma minoria oprimida e sem acesso equitativo ao Governo de um Estado adquiriria um direito de secessão em direito internacional? Será que tal doutrina existe em direito internacional público geral? Como definir a opressão que visa? Qual a prática internacional a este respeito? Qual é, finalmente, a situação concreta dos nativos de Cabinda em relação ao Governo de Angola, ou seja, o seu tratamento em termos de direitos humanos ou de participação ao poder? Estas são algumas perguntas, entre outras, sobre as quais a presente obra tenta trazer esclarecimentos. O espaço lusófono, que serve aqui como pano de fundo, oferece-nos um prisma tangível aos vários aspetos de direito internacional público analisados.

Pronto: Irredentist Secession in International Law

Arnold N. Pronto (Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations) has posted Irredentist Secession in International Law (Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 103–122, Summer 2016). Here's the abstract:

Irredentism refers to the movement of people and territory from one state to another along with the modification of international boundaries and a transfer of sovereignty. Te concept, which originated in the nineteenth century, has been at the root of many territorial disputes since the Second World War. Te possibility of an irredentist outcome is rarely covered in the discourse on secession. This essay argues that irredentism is legally distinct from secession in the application of the principle of self-determination, the question of recognition by the international community, and the role of consent. It discusses the legal hurdles facing a people seeking to secede from one state in order to join another state, and outlines the contemporary legal framework applicable to irredentist secession based on the principles of territorial sovereignty, non-intervention and peaceful settlement of disputes. It concludes that international law significantly constrains the scope for irredentist secession as a legal and political phenomenon.

Rossi: Impaled on Morton’s Fork: Kosovo, Crimea, and the Sui Generis Circumstance

Christopher R. Rossi (Univ. of Iowa- Law) has published Impaled on Morton’s Fork: Kosovo, Crimea, and the Sui Generis Circumstance (Emory International Law Review, Vol. 30, no. 3, p. 353, 2016). Here's the abstract:

This Article investigates the problematic invocation of unique circumstances as a justification for circumventing international law relating to the use of force and state secession. Borrowing from the teachings of critical sociology, this Article addresses the lessons learned from NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo and Kosovo’s 2008 Declaration of Independence from Serbia; it adapts those teachings to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. Doctrinal, state-sponsored, and international juridical attempts to conform the Kosovo events to the international rule of law mask internal and unreconciled tensions within the United Nations Charter system. These tensions, which threaten to further weaken the system and expose it to dangerous manipulations, have upset international law’s delicate balance between respect for territorial integrity and the right of self-determination. These weaknesses also help explain why two of the most significant doctrinal developments to emerge from the mist of Kosovo—the Responsibility to Protect and remedial secession—have retreated from earlier enthusiastic assessments of their prospects in international law. Embedded in the recourse to the sui generis claim is the cautionary belief that its invocation may likely mask extra-legal intentions as support for international law’s progressive development.

Kassoti: The Sound of One Hand Clapping: Unilateral Declarations of Independence in International Law

Eva Kassoti (Hague University of Applied Sciences - Law) has published The Sound of One Hand Clapping: Unilateral Declarations of Independence in International Law (German Law Journal, Vol. 17, no. 2, 2016). Here's the abstract:

In light of the uncertainty surrounding recent unilateral declarations of independence, this Article purports to re-visit the question of their legal nature under international law. The Article shows that the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judgment in the Kosovo advisory opinion (hereafter referred to as the Kosovo Opinion) is of little assistance in establishing whether and to what extent such declarations fall within the ambit of international law. The Article proceeds to examine claims that unilateral declarations of independence are regulated—entirely or partly—by international law and argues that these claims are illfounded on multiple grounds. The Article asserts that international law is legally neutral towards the claims—a proposition in accord with both the factual nature of the process of state formation in international law and with the relevant practice.

Special Issue: Self-determination, Resources and Borders

The latest issue of the International Journal on Minority and Group Rights (Vol. 22, no. 4, 2015) focuses on "Self-determination, Resources and Borders." Contents include:

• Special Issue: Self-determination, Resources and Borders
• James Summers, Self-determination, Resources and Borders: Introduction to the Special Issue
• Simone F. van den Driest, From Kosovo to Crimea and Beyond: On Territorial Integrity, Unilateral Secession and Legal Neutrality in International Law
• Alexander Orakhelashvili, Kosovo: The Post-advisory Opinion Stage
• Arman Sarvarian, Uti Possidetis Iuris in the Twenty-First Century: Consensual or Customary?
• Duncan French, “You Will Always Have the Poor”: A Reflection on the Paradox of Justice as Law
• Joshua Castellino & Elvira Domínguez Redondo, The Title to Dokdo/Takeshima: Addressing the Legacy of World War ii Territorial Settlements/Finding the Right Settlement of Dispute Mechanism
• David M. Ong, A Bridge Too Far? Assessing the Prospects for International Environmental Law to Resolve the South China Sea Disputes

Ahmed: Boundaries and Secession in Africa and International Law: Challenging Uti Possidetis

Dirdeiry M. Ahmed (Dirdeiry and Associates) has published Boundaries and Secession in Africa and International Law: Challenging Uti Possidetis (Cambridge Univ. Press 2015). Here's the abstract:

This book challenges a central assumption of the international law of territory. The author argues that, contrary to the finding in the Frontier Dispute case, uti possidetis is not a general principle of law enjoining states to preserve pre-existing boundaries on state succession. It demonstrates that African state practice and opinio juris gave rise to customary rules that govern sovereign territory transfer in Africa. It explains that those rules changed international law as it relates to Africa in many respects, leading chiefly to creating norms of African jus cogens prohibiting secession and the redrawing of boundaries. The book examines in-depth the singularity of secession in Africa exploring extensive state practice and case law. Finally, it advances a daring argument for a right to egalitarian self-determination, addressing people-to-people domination in multi-ethnic African states, to serve as an exception to the fast special customary rule against secession.

Special Issue: The Crisis in Ukraine

The latest issue of the German Law Journal (Vol. 16, no. 3, 2015) focuses on "The Crisis in Ukraine." Contents include:

• Special Issue: The Crisis in Ukraine
• Zoran Oklopcic, Introduction: The Crisis in Ukraine Between the Law, Power, and Principle
• Jure Vidmar, The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People
• Brad R. Roth, The Virtues of Bright Lines: Self-Determination, Secession, and External Intervention
• Mikulas Fabry, How to Uphold the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine
• Umut Özsu, Ukraine, International Law, and the Political Economy of Self-Determination
• Outi Korhonen, Deconstructing the Conflict in Ukraine: The Relevance of International Law to Hybrid States and Wars
• Boris N. Mamlyuk, The Ukraine Crisis, Cold War II, and International Law
• Stephen Tierney, Sovereignty and Crimea: How Referendum Democracy Complicates Constituent Power in Multinational Societies
• Yaniv Roznai & Silvia Suteu, The Eternal Territory? The Crimean Crisis and Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity as an Unamendable Constitutional Principle
• Amandine Catala, Secession and Annexation: The Case of Crimea
• Ayelet Banai, Territorial Conflict and Territorial Rights: The Crimean Question Reconsidered
• Malcolm MacLaren, “Trust the People”? Democratic Secessionism and Contemporary Practice
• Zoran Oklopcic, The Idea of Early-Conflict Constitution-Making: The Conflict in Ukraine Beyond Territorial Rights and Constitutional Paradoxes
• Andrew Arato, International Role in State-Making in Ukraine: The Promise of a Two-Stage Constituent Process

Maia & Kolb: Le statut international de la province angolaise du Cabinda à la lumière du droit international public

Catherine Maia (Université Lusofona de Porto - Law) & Robert Kolb (Université de Genève - Law) have published Le statut international de la province angolaise du Cabinda à la lumière du droit international public (Pedone 2015). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

Cette étude a pour vocation d'appliquer certains concepts clés du droit international dans un contexte relativement peu connu en France, à savoir des revendications à la sécession en Angola.

Advertisement

D'anciens « traités » conclus avec des chefs indigènes pouvaient-ils être considérés comme des conventions de droit international ou étaient-ils des actes de droit interne ? Quel rôle peuvent-ils jouer dans des revendications actuelles d'autodétermination ? Comment apprécier en droit international la validité d'un accord relatif à l'indépendance d'une colonie conclu dans le cadre d'un droit constitutionnel portugais en pleine mutation? La question appelle des commentaires tant sous l'angle du droit national que sous celui de l'article 46 de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités, dont le contenu pourrait éventuellement être appliqué à titre de droit coutumier.

Advertisement

Que penser, ensuite, de l'argument du droit de sécession en faveur du « peuple » cabindais ? Un tel peuple existe-t-il au sens du droit international ? Qu'est-ce, d'ailleurs, qu'un peuple au sens du droit de l'autodétermination ? Et comment le définir en l'espèce ? Que faut-il penser de l'argument de la sécession-remède, selon lequel une minorité opprimée et sans accès équitable au Gouvernement d'un État acquerrait un droit de sécession en droit international ? Une telle doctrine existe-t-elle en droit international public général ? Comment définir l'oppression qu'elle vise ? Quelle est la pratique internationale à cet égard ? Quelle est, enfin, la situation concrète des natifs du Cabinda vis-à-vis du Gouvernement de l'Angola, c'est-à-dire leur traitement en matière de droits humains ou de participation au pouvoir?

Ce sont là des questions, parmi d'autres, sur lesquelles cet ouvrage tente d'apporter des lumières. L'espace lusophone servant ici de toile de fond est inédit, dans le sens qu'il a été jusqu'ici très peu étudié dans la littérature francophone. Cet espace donne, par ailleurs, un prisme tangible aux divers aspects de droit international public analysés, lesquels viennent s'agglutiner autour de lui en épousant ses contours.

Conference: State Oppression, Violence Against Minorities, and the Possibilities for Remedial Secession and Independence

On April 7-8, 2015, the George Washington University Law School will host a conference on "State Oppression, Violence Against Minorities, and the Possibilities for Remedial Secession and Independence." The program is here.

Wheatley: Modelling Democratic Secession in International Law

Steven Wheatley (Univ. of Lancaster - Law) has posted Modelling Democratic Secession in International Law (in Nationalism and Globalisation: New Settings, New Challenges, Stephen Tierney ed., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The objective of this chapter is to evaluate whether the emergent teleology of the international law system can accommodate a right of democratic secession: the right of a group to a State by virtue of the fact that its political leaders have been able to mobilize majority support around a nationalist case in favour of independence. The work first outlines the way in which international law responds to claims of national self-determination, concluding that the extant incoherence in the doctrine and practice suggests a requirement for a new conceptual model to make sense of this issue. In common with a long tradition in the social sciences (including law), the chapter looks to developments in the natural sciences to make sense of the social world – in this case by reference to a variant of systems theory known as complexity, which is focused on emergent systems that represent the patterned communications of networks of agents, without any central controller or guiding hand. Following the insights from complexity, we can develop an abstract model of State as the observation of the patterned communications of the coevolved and coexistent law and politics systems. The third part of the chapter relies on this abstract model to outline a right of democratic secession in three related steps: the rejection of the sovereign authority of the territorial State by certain subjects; the acceptance of the authority of emergent systems of law and politics of a new political entity; and observation (or ‘recognition’) of the political entity as possessing legitimate political authority. The work concludes by reflecting on the implications of the analysis for the events of 2014 in the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.

Peters: The Crimean Vote of March 2014 as an Abuse of the Institution of the Territorial Referendum

Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law) has posted The Crimean Vote of March 2014 as an Abuse of the Institution of the Territorial Referendum (in Liber amicorum Torsten Stein, Christian Calliess ed., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This contribution examines the international legal relevance of the recent Crimean referendum, starting from the premise that, as a matter of international customary law, and as a matter of legal consistency and fairness, a free territorial referendum is emerging as a procedural conditio sine qua non for any territorial re-apportionment. It concludes that the referendum was not free and fair, and could not form a basis for the alteration of Crimea’s territorial status.

Walter, von Ungern-Sternberg, & Abushov: Self-Determination and Secession in International Law

Christian Walter (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München - Law), Antje von Ungern-Sternberg (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München - Law), & Kavus Abushov (Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy - Political Science) have published Self-Determination and Secession in International Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2014). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

Peoples and minorities in many parts of the world assert a right to self-determination, autonomy, and even secession from a state, which naturally conflicts with that state's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The right of a people to self-determination and secession has existed as a concept within international law since the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, but the exact definition of these concepts, and the conditions required for their application, remain unclear. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the Declaration of Independency of Kosovo (2010), which held that the Kosovo declaration of independence was not in violation of international law, has only led to further questions.

This book takes four conflicts in the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a starting point for examining the current state of the law of self-determination and secession. Four entities, Transnistria (Moldova), South Ossetia, Abkhazia (both Georgia), and Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), claim to be entitled not only to self-determination but also to secession from their mother state. For this entitlement they rely on historic affiliations, and on charges of discrimination and massive human rights violations committed by their mother state. This book sets out its analysis of these critical issue in three parts, providing a detailed understanding of the principles of international law on which they rely: The first part sets out the contours and meaning of self-determination and secession, including an overall assessment of secession within the Commonwealth of Independent States. The second section provides case studies investigating the events in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabach in greater detail. The third and final section extends the scope of the examination, providing a comparative analysis of similar conflicts involving questions of self-determination and secession in Kosovo, Western Sahara, and Eritrea.

Nollkaemper: The Court and Its Multiple Constituencies: Three Perspectives on the Kosovo Advisory Opinion

André Nollkaemper (Univ. of Amsterdam - Law) has posted The Court and Its Multiple Constituencies: Three Perspectives on the Kosovo Advisory Opinion (in The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, Marko Milanovic & Michael Wood eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This paper assesses the Kosovo Advisory Opinion as an attempt by the ICJ to maintain its authority vis-à-vis multiple constituencies on which the Court to some extent is dependent. The Court controversial interpretation of SC Resolution 1244 and its neglect of questions of secession and self-determination allowed it to protect the interests of key constituencies. The fact that Kosovo appeared to benefit most is best understood as a side-effect of the Court´s decision to serve its longer-term interests. However, this strategy came with a price. The Opinion may fuel secessionist attempts, and moreover could jeopardize future international arrangements to stabilize war-torn societies if the relevant actors were to realize that they can always unilaterally pull out of such arrangements, even if they have been blessed by the Security Council.

Ker-Lindsay: The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States

James Ker-Lindsay (London School of Economics) has published The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:

How do states prevent the recognition of territories that have unilaterally declared independence? At a time when the issue of secession is becoming increasingly significant on the world stage, this is the first book to consider this crucial question. Analysing the efforts of the governments of Serbia, Georgia, and Cyprus to prevent the international recognition of Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and northern Cyprus the work draws on in depth interviews with a number of leading policy makers to explain how each of the countries has designed, developed, and implemented its counter secession strategies. After explaining how the principle of the territorial integrity of states has tended to take precedence over the right of self-determination, it examines the range of ways countries facing a separatist threat can prevent recognition by other states and considers the increasingly important role played by international and regional organisations, especially the United Nations, in the recognition process. Additionally, it shows how forms of legitimisation or acknowledgement are also central elements of any counter-recognition process, and why steps to prevent secessionist entities from participating in major sporting and cultural bodies are given so much attention. Finally, it questions the effects of these counter recognition efforts on attempts to solve these territorial conflicts. Drawing on history, politics, and international law this book is the first and only comprehensive account of this increasingly important field of foreign policy.

Mancini: Secession and Self-Determination

Susanna Mancini (Univ. of Bologna - Law) has posted Secession and Self-Determination (in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Michel Rosenfeld & Andras Sajo eds., 2012). Here's the abstract:

This chapter proceeds in three steps. I first briefly outline the principal theories that justify secession. Next, I analyze the evolution of secession in international law and in international practice, as a corollary of the right of all peoples to self-determination. Finally, in the last Section, I turn to the relationship between secession and constitutionalism and ask whether the constitutionalization of the right to secede can, in particular context, be regarded as a constructive response to secessionist challenges and what its implications are for constitutional law.

Pavkovic & Radan: The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession

Aleksandar Pavkovic (Macquarie Univ. - Politics and International Relations) & Peter Radan (Macquarie Univ. - Law) have published The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession (Ashgate 2012). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

Secession is a detachment of a territory from an existing state with the aim of creating a new state on the detached territory. Secession is usually an outcome of the political mobilization of a population on the territory to be detached and, as a political phenomenon, is a subject of study in the social sciences. Its impact on inter-state relations is a subject of study in international relations. But secession is also subject to regulation both in the constitutional law of sovereign states and in international law. Following a spate of secessions in the early 1990s, legal scholars have proposed a variety of ways to regulate the international responses to attempts at secessions. Moreover, since the 1980s normative justification of secession has been subject to an intense debate among political theorists and moral philosophers.

This research companion has the following three complementary aims. First, to offer an overview of the current theoretical approaches to secession in the social sciences, international relations, legal theory, political theory and applied ethics. Second, to outline the current practice of international recognition of secession and current domestic and international laws which regulate secession. Third, to offer an account of major secessionist movements - past and present - from a comparative perspective.

In their accounts of past secessions and current secessionist movements, the contributors to this volume focus on the following four components: the nature and source of secessionist grievances, the ideologies and techniques of secessionist mobilization, the responses of the host state or majority parties in the host state, and the international response to attempts at secession. This provides a basis for identification of at least some common patterns in the otherwise highly varied processes of secession.

Vidmar: Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law

Jure Vidmar (Univ. of Oxford - Law) has published Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 32, no. 1, p. 153, Spring 2012). Here's the abstract:

In the context of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, some governments and scholars advanced the view that declarations of independence do not fall within the purview of international law. Declarations of independence may be regulated by domestic law, while they are no more than ink on paper internationally. This article rejects such interpretations and argues that the question of whether or not a certain declaration of independence falls within the ambit of international law depends on the identity of the authors of the declaration. Thus, declarations of independence are not always issued in an international legal vacuum. Referring to the practice of states and UN organs, the article considers in which circumstances a declaration of independence itself, and not only its acceptance, may be illegal under general international law. In so doing, the article also shows that the illegality of a declaration is not determined by its unilateral character. It is concluded that international law neither endorses nor prohibits unilateral declarations of independence, but this is not to say that international law does not regulate declarations of independence at all.