Theory of the unilateral right to secede

 

Theory of the unilateral right to secede

Moral theories regarding unilateral secession can be classified into two main categories: Remedial Right and Primary Theories. Remedial Right views the right to secede as similar to the right of revolution, as understood in mainstream liberal theories of revolution. This view sees secession as a last resort for addressing persistent and grave injustices. While revolution seeks to overthrow the government, secession focuses on breaking away from a part of the state's territory to establish a new state there. 

Both the Remedial Right of unilateral secession and the mainstream liberal view of the right to revolution share a common principle: the right to act arises only under conditions of grave injustice. Just as there is no justification for revolution against a reasonably just government, there is also no unilateral right to secede from such a just state.

Different versions of the Remedial Right Only approach define the injustices that justify secession as a last resort in varying ways. Some versions recognise only situations of unjust annexation, genocide, or severe violations of fundamental human rights as valid reasons for unilateral secession. Others may also include the state's violations of intrastate autonomy arrangements for minority groups or the failure to acknowledge a legitimate claim to such autonomy.

It should be emphasised that Remedial Right Theories concern the conditions under which there is a unilateral right to secede. They support a flexible approach to negotiated or constitutional secession. Thus, Remedial Right Theories appear less conservative than expected.

Mehrab Sarjov