Secession
View on WikipediaThis article's lead section may need to be rewritten. (June 2025) |
Secession (from Latin: sēcessiō, lit. 'a withdrawing') is a term and concept of the formal withdrawal of a group from a political entity.
In international law, secession is understood as a process in which an integral part of a state's territory unilaterally withdraws without the consent of the original state[1].
The process begins once a group proclaims an act of secession (such as a declaration of independence).[2] A secession attempt might be violent or peaceful, but the goal is the creation of a new state or entity independent of the group or territory from which it seceded.[3] Threats of secession can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.[4] There is some academic debate about this definition, and in particular how it relates to separatism.[5]
Secession theory
[edit]There is no consensus on the definition of political secession despite many political theories on the subject.[3]
According to the 2017 book Secession and Security, by political scientist Ahsan Butt, states respond violently to secessionist movements if the potential state poses a greater threat than the would-be secessionist movement.[6] States perceive a future war with a potential new state as likely if the ethnic group driving the secessionist struggle has deep identity division with the central state, and if the regional neighborhood is violent and unstable.[6]
Explanations for the 20th century increase in secessionism
[edit]According to political scientist Bridget L. Coggins, the academic literature contains four potential explanations for the drastic increase in secessions during the 20th century:[7]
- Ethnonational mobilization, where ethnic minorities have been increasingly mobilized to pursue states of their own.
- Institutional empowerment, where the growing inability of empires and ethnic federations to maintain colonies and member states increases the likelihood of success.
- Relative strength, where increasingly powerful secessionist movements are more likely to achieve statehood.
- Negotiated consent, where home states and the international community increasingly consent to secessionist demands.
Other scholars have linked secession to resource discoveries and extraction.[8] David B. Carter, H. E. Goemans, and Ryan Griffiths find that border changes among states tend to conform to the borders of previous administrative units.[9][10][11]
Several scholars argue that changes in the international system have made it easier for small states to survive and prosper.[12][13][14][15][16] Tanisha Fazal and Ryan Griffiths link increased numbers of secessions to an international system that is more favorable for new states. For example, new states can obtain assistance from international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the United Nations.[13] Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore argue that greater levels of free trade and peace have reduced the benefits of being part of a larger state, thus motivating nations within larger states to seek secession.[14]
Woodrow Wilson's proclamations on self-determination in 1918 created a surge in secessionist demands.[13]
Philosophy of secession
[edit]The political philosophy of the rights and moral justification for secession began to develop as recently as the 1980s.[17] American philosopher Allen Buchanan offered the first systematic account of the subject in the 1990s and contributed to the normative classification of the literature on secession. In his 1991 book Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Buchanan outlined limited rights to secession under certain circumstances, mostly related to oppression by people of other ethnic or racial groups, and especially those previously conquered by other people.[18] In his collection of essays from secession scholars, Secession, State, and Liberty,[19] professor David Gordon challenges Buchanan, making a case that the moral status of the seceding state is unrelated to the issue of secession itself.[20]
Justifications for secession
[edit]Some theories of secession emphasize a general right of secession for any reason ("Choice Theory") while others emphasize that secession should be considered only to rectify grave injustices ("Just Cause Theory").[21] Some theories do both. A list of justifications may be presented supporting the right to secede, as described by Allen Buchanan, Robert McGee, Anthony Birch,[22] Jane Jacobs,[23] Frances Kendall and Leon Louw,[24] Leopold Kohr,[25] Kirkpatrick Sale,[26] Donald W. Livingston[27] and various authors in David Gordon's "Secession, State and Liberty", includes:
- United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
- Former President Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William H. Crawford, Secretary of War under President James Madison, on June 20, 1816: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."[28]
- Economic enfranchisement of an economically oppressed class that is regionally concentrated within the scope of a larger national territory.
- The right to liberty, freedom of association and private property
- Recognition of the will of the majority to secede, in keeping with consent as an important democratic principle
- Increased ease for states to join with others in an experimental union
- Dissolution of such a union when goals for which it was constituted are not achieved
- Self-defense when larger group presents lethal threat to minority or the government cannot adequately defend an area
- Self-determination of peoples
- Preservation of culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group
- Furtherance of diversity by allowing diverse cultures to keep their identity
- Rectification of past injustices, especially past conquest by a larger power
- Escape from "discriminatory redistribution", i.e. tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs, and similar policies that distribute resources away to another area, especially in an undemocratic fashion
- Enhanced efficiency when the state or empire becomes too large to administer efficiently
- Preservation of "liberal purity" (or "conservative purity") by allowing less (or more) liberal regions to secede
- Provision of superior constitutional systems which allow flexibility of secession
- Minimizing the size of political entities and the human scale through right to secession
Political scientist Aleksander Pavkovic describes five justifications for a general right of secession within liberal political theory:[29]
- Anarcho-Capitalism: individual liberty to form political associations and private property rights together justify right to secede and to create a "viable political order" with like-minded individuals.
- Democratic Secessionism: the right of secession, as a variant of the right of self-determination, is vested in a "territorial community" which wishes to secede from "their existing political community"; the group wishing to secede then proceeds to delimit "its" territory by the majority.
- Communitarian Secessionism: any group with a particular "participation-enhancing" identity, concentrated in a particular territory, which desires to improve its members' political participation has a prima facie right to secede.
- Cultural Secessionism: any group which was previously in a minority has a right to protect and develop its own culture and distinct national identity through seceding into an independent state.
- The Secessionism of Threatened Cultures: if a minority culture is threatened within a state that has a majority culture, the minority needs a right to form a state of its own which would protect its culture.
Arguments against secession
[edit]Allen Buchanan, who supports secession under limited circumstances, lists arguments that might be used against secession:[30]
- "Protecting legitimate expectations" of those who now occupy territory claimed by secessionists, even in cases where that land was stolen
- "Self defense" if losing part of the state would make it difficult to defend the rest of it
- "Protecting majority rule" and the principle that minorities must abide by them
- "Minimization of strategic bargaining" by making it difficult to secede, such as by imposing an exit tax
- "Soft paternalism" because secession will be bad for secessionists or others
- "Threat of anarchy" because smaller and smaller entities may choose to secede until there is chaos, although this is not the true meaning of the political and philosophical concept
- "Preventing wrongful taking" such as the state's previous investment in infrastructure
- "Distributive justice" arguments posit that wealthier areas cannot secede from poorer ones
Types of secession
[edit]Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state:[4][29][31]
- Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units)
- Colonial wars of independence from an imperial state although this is decolonisation rather than secession.
- Recursive secession, such as India decolonising from the British Empire, then Pakistan seceding from India, or Georgia seceding from the Soviet Union, then South Ossetia seceding from Georgia.
- National secession (seceding entirely from the national state) versus local secession (seceding from one entity of the national state into another entity of the same state)
- Central or enclave secession (seceding entity is completely surrounded by the original state) versus peripheral secession (along a border of the original state)
- Secession by contiguous units versus secession by non-contiguous units (exclaves)
- Separation or partition (although an entity secedes, the rest of the state retains its structure) versus dissolution (all political entities dissolve their ties and create several new states)
- Irredentism where secession is sought in order to annex the territory to another state because of common ethnicity or prior historical links
- Minority secession (a minority of the population or territory secedes) versus majority secession (a majority of the population or territory secedes)
- Secession of better-off regions versus secession of worse-off regions
- The threat of secession is sometimes used as a strategy to gain greater autonomy within the original state
Rights to secession
[edit]Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.[32]
In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of majority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible through amending the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court in Texas v. White held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States".[33][34] The British Parliament in 1933 held that Western Australia could secede from the Commonwealth of Australia only upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient.[35]
The Chinese Communist Party followed the Soviet Union in including the right of secession in its 1931 constitution in order to entice ethnic nationalities and Tibet into joining. However, the Party eliminated the right to secession in later years, and had anti-secession clause written into the Constitution before and after the founding the People's Republic of China. The 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma contained an express state right to secede from the union under a number of procedural conditions. It was eliminated in the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (officially the "Union of Myanmar"). Burma still allows "local autonomy under central leadership".[32]
As of 1996, the constitutions of Austria, Ethiopia, France, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have express or implied rights to secession. Switzerland allows for the secession from current and the creation of new cantons. In the case of proposed Quebec separation from Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 ruled that only both a clear majority of the province and a constitutional amendment confirmed by all participants in the Canadian federation could allow secession.[32]
The European Union is not a sovereign state but an association of sovereign states formed by treaty; as such, leaving it, which is possible by simply denouncing the treaty, is not secession. Nonetheless, the 2003 draft of the European Union Constitution allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the representatives of the member-state which wanted to leave could not participate in the withdrawal discussions of the European Council or of the Council of Ministers.[32] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities[36] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005. In 2007 the Treaty on European Union included Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, establishing a mechanism for withdrawal from the EU.
As a result of the successful constitutional referendum held in 2003, every municipality in the Principality of Liechtenstein has the right to secede from the Principality by a vote of a majority of the citizens residing in that municipality.[37]
Indigenous peoples have a range of different forms of indigenous sovereignty and have the right of self-determination, but under current understanding of international law they have a mere "remedial" right to secession in extreme cases of abuse of their rights, because independence and sovereign statehood is a territorial and diplomatic claim and not one of self-determination and self-government, respectively, generally leaving rights to secession to the internal legislation of sovereign states.
Secession movements
[edit]National secessionist movements advocate that a population has the right to form its own nation-state.[38] Movements that work towards political secession may describe themselves as being autonomy, separatist, independence, self-determination, partition, devolution, decentralization, sovereignty, self-governance or decolonization movements instead of, or in addition to, being secession movements.
Notable examples of secession, and secession attempts, include:
- The United Provinces of the Netherlands breaking away from the Spanish Empire during the Eighty Years' War (1566-1648):
- The Thirteen Colonies (the later United States) revolting from the British Empire during the American Revolutionary War (1775-83);
- Hispanic America gaining independence from the Spanish Empire during Spanish American wars of independence;
- Texas leaving Mexico, during the Texas Revolution (1835-36);
- the Confederate States of America seceding from the Union, setting off the American Civil War;
- Panama seceding from Colombia in 1903, during United States acquisition of the Panama Canal;
- the Irish Republic leaving the United Kingdom;
- Finland voting to leave Soviet Russia in 1917, setting off the Finnish Civil War;
- Biafra leaving Nigeria (and returning, after losing the Nigerian Civil War);
- the former Soviet republics leaving the Soviet Union in 1991, causing its dissolution;
- the former republics leaving Yugoslavia during the 1990s, causing its dissolution.
Australia
[edit]During the 19th century, the single British colony in eastern mainland Australia, New South Wales (NSW) was progressively divided up by the British government as new settlements were formed and spread. Victoria (Vic) was formed in 1851 and Queensland (Qld) in 1859.
However, settlers agitated to divide the colonies throughout the later part of the century; particularly in central Queensland (centered in Rockhampton) in the 1860s and 1890s, and in North Queensland (with Bowen as a potential colonial capital) in the 1870s. Other secession (or territorial separation) movements arose and these advocated the secession of New England in northern central New South Wales, Deniliquin in the Riverina district also in NSW, and Mount Gambier in the eastern part of South Australia.
- Western Australia
Secession movements have surfaced several times in Western Australia (WA), where a 1933 referendum for secession from the Federation of Australia passed with a two-thirds majority. The referendum had to be ratified by the British Parliament, which declined to act, on the grounds that it would contravene the Australian Constitution.
The Principality of Hutt River claimed to have seceded from Australia in 1970, although its status was not recognised by Australia or any other country.
Azerbaijan
[edit]The Karabakh movement, also known as the Artsakh movement[2][5] was a national liberation movement[39][40][41] in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh between 1988 to 1991 that advocated for the reunification ("miatsum") of the Nagorno-Karabakh – formally an autonomous enclave in Soviet Azerbaijan – with Soviet Armenia. The movement was motivated by fears of cultural and physical erasure under government policies from Azerbaijan.[42][43][44] Throughout the Soviet period, Azerbaijani authorities implemented policies aimed at suppressing Armenian culture and diluting the Armenian majority in Nagorno-Karabakh through various means, including border manipulations,[40][45][46] encouraging the exodus of Armenians, and settling Azerbaijanis in the region.[47][48] In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Armenians protested against Azerbaijan's cultural and economic marginalization[7][49][50] A referendum in 1988 was held to transfer the region to Soviet Armenia, citing self-determination laws in the Soviet constitution.[a] In 1991, both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence from the Soviet Union. The Karabakh movement was met with a series of pogroms against Armenians across Azerbaijan, and in November 1991, the Azerbaijani government passed a motion aimed at abolishing the autonomy of the NKAO and prohibiting the use of Armenian placenames in the region.[52]
Austria
[edit]After being liberated by the Red Army and the U.S. Army, Austria seceded from Nazi Germany on April 27, 1945. This took place after seven years under Nazi rule, which began with the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938. The secession only took place once Nazi Germany had been defeated by the Allies.
Bangladesh
[edit]The Banga Sena (Bangabhumi) is a separatist[53] Hindu organisation, which supports the making of a Bangabhumi/separate homeland for Bengali Hindus in the People's Republic of Bangladesh.[54] The group is led by Kalidas Baidya.[53]
The Shanti Bahini (Bengali: শান্তি বাহিনী, "Peace Force") is the name of the military wing of the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti - the United People's Party of the Chittagong Hill Tracts aims are to create an indigenous Buddhist orientated Chacomas state within SE Bangladesh.
Belgium and the Netherlands
[edit]On August 25, 1830, during the reign of William I, the nationalistic opera La muette de Portici was performed in Brussels. Soon after, the Belgian Revolt occurred, which resulted in the Belgian secession from the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Brazil
[edit]In 1825, soon after the Empire of Brazil managed to defeat the Cortes-Gerais and the Portuguese Empire in an Independence War, the Platinean nationalists in Cisplatina declared independence and joined the United Provinces, which led to a stagnated war between both, as they were both weakened, lacking manpower and politically fragile. The peace treaty accepted Uruguay's independence, reasserted the rule of both nations over their land and some important points like free navigation in the Silver River.
Three rather disorganized secessionist rebellions happened in Grão-Pará, Bahia, and Maranhão, where the people were unhappy with the Empire (these provinces were Portuguese bastions in the Independence War). The Malê Revolt, in Bahia, was an Islamic slave revolt. These three rebellions were bloodily crushed by the Empire of Brazil.
The Pernambuco was one of the most nativist of all Brazilian regions. Over a series of five revolts (1645–1654, 1710, 1817, 1824, 1848), the province ousted the Dutch West India Company and tried to secede from the Portuguese and Brazilian Empires. In each attempt, the rebels were crushed, the leaders shot and their territory divided. Nevertheless, they kept revolting until Pernambuco's territory was a little fraction of what it was before.
In the Ragamuffin War, the Province of Rio Grande do Sul was undergoing a (at that time common) liberal vs conservative "cold" war. After Emperor Pedro II of Brazil favoured the conservatives, the liberals took the Capital and declared an independent Republic, fighting their way to the Province of Santa Catarina and declaring the Juliana Republic. Eventually they were slowly forced back, and made a reunification peace with the Empire. This was not considered a secessionist war, even if it could have resulted in an independent republic if the Empire had been defeated. After the Empire agreed to aid Santa Catarina's economy by taxing Argentina's products (like dry meat), the rebels reunited with the Empire and joined its military ranks.
In modern times, the South Region of Brazil has been the centre of a secessionist movement led by an organization called The South is My Country since the 1990s. Reasons cited for Southern Brazil's secession movement are taxation, due to it being one of the wealthiest regions in the country; political disputes with the northernmost states of Brazil; 2016 scandal revolving around the Workers' Party's involvement in a kickback scheme with state-owned oil company Petrobras;[55] and the impeachment of then-President Dilma Rousseff. Additionally, there is an ethnic divide as the South Region is predominately European, populated primarily by Germans, Italians, Portuguese and other European groups. In contrast, the rest of Brazil is a multicultural melting pot. The South Region in 2016 voted in an unofficial referendum called "Plebisul" in which 95% of voters supported secession and the creation of an independent South Region.
There is also a push for secession movement in the state of São Paulo, which seeks to become a country independent from the rest of Brazil.
Cameroon
[edit]In October 2017, Ambazonia declared its independence from Cameroon. Less than a month beforehand, tensions had escalated into open warfare between separatists and the Cameroon Armed Forces. The conflict, known as the "Anglophone Crisis", is deeply rooted in the October 1, 1961 incomplete decolonization of the former British Southern Cameroons (UNGA Resolution 1608). On January 1, 1960, French Cameroon was granted independence from France as the Republic of Cameroon and was admitted into the United Nations. The more advanced democratic and self-ruling people of British Cameroon were instead limited to two choices. Through a UN plebiscite, they were directed to either join the federation of Nigeria or the independent Republic of Cameroon as a federation of two equal states. While the Northern Cameroons voted to join Nigeria, the Southern Cameroons voted to integrate into the Republic of Cameroon, but they did so without a formal Treaty of Union on record at the UN. In 1972, Cameroon used its majority population to abolish the federation and implement a system which resulted in the occupation of the former South Cameroons territory by French-speaking Cameroon administrators. In 1984, Cameroon heightened tensions by returning to its name at independence, "Republic of Cameroun", which did not include the territory of the former British Southern Cameroons or Ambazonia. For more than fifty years the English-speaking people of the Former British Southern Cameroons made multiple attempts both nationally and internationally to get the Cameroon government to address these issues and possibly return to the previously agreed federation at independence. In 2016, after all these attempts failed, Cameroon engaged in a military crackdown, including cutting the internet in the English-speaking regions. In response, the people of Southern Cameroon declared on October 1, 2017, the restoration of their UN state of Southern Cameroons, which they called the "Federal Republic of Ambazonia".
Canada
[edit]Throughout Canada's history, there has been tension between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Under the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Province of Quebec (including parts of what are today Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador) was divided in two: Lower Canada (which retained French law and institutions and is now part of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador) and Upper Canada (a new colony intended to accommodate the many new English-speaking settlers, including the United Empire Loyalists, and now part of Ontario). The intent was to provide each group with its own colony. In 1841, the two Canadas were merged into the Province of Canada. The union proved contentious, however, resulting in a legislative deadlock between English and French legislators. The difficulties of the union, among other factors, led in 1867 to the formation of the Canadian Confederation, a federal system that united the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (later joined by other British colonies in North America). The federal framework did not eliminate all tensions, however, leading to the Quebec sovereignty movement in the latter half of the 20th century.
Other occasional secessionist movements have included anti-Confederation movements in the 19th century Atlantic Canada (see Anti-Confederation Party), the North-West Rebellion of 1885, and various small separatist movements in Alberta particularly (see Alberta separatism) and Western Canada generally (see, for example, Western Canada Concept).
Central America
[edit]After the 1823 collapse of the First Mexican Empire, the former Captaincy-General of Guatemala was organized into a new Federal Republic of Central America. In 1838, Nicaragua seceded. The Federal Republic was formally dissolved in 1840, all but one of the states having seceded amidst general disorder.
China
[edit]The People's Republic of China government claims control over Taiwan and describes the political status of Taiwan as an issue of secession, despite having never governed the territory. The Republic of China (Taiwan) government administers control over Taiwan and outlying islands but lacks widespread official international recognition. The Anti-Secession Law, passed in 2005, formalized the long-standing policy of the People's Republic of China to use military means against Taiwan independence in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible.
Western regions of Xinjiang (East Turkistan) and Tibet are the focus of secessionist calls by the Tibetan independence movement and East Turkestan Independence Movement. The East Turkistan Government in Exile does not view East Turkistan as a part of China but rather an occupied country, so it does not view independence from China as "secession" but rather "decolonization".
The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has a secessionist movement in the city that the Chinese Communist Party has placed on the national security agenda in 2017 which is called the Hong Kong independence movement.
Congo
[edit]In 1960, the State of Katanga declared independence from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. United Nations troops crushed it in Operation Grand Slam.
Cyprus
[edit]
In 1974, Greek irredentists launched a coup d'état in Cyprus, in an attempt to annex the island with Greece. Almost immediately, the Turkish Army invaded northern Cyprus to protect the interests of the ethnic Turkish minority, who in the following year formed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus and in 1983 declared independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey.
East Timor
[edit]
The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (also known as East Timor) has been described as having "seceded" from Indonesia.[56][57][58] After Portuguese sovereignty was terminated in 1975, East Timor was occupied by Indonesia. However, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice refused to recognize this incorporation. Therefore, the resulting civil war and eventual 1999 East Timorese vote for complete separation are better described as an independence movement.[59]
Ethiopia
[edit]Following the May 1991 victory of Eritrean People's Liberation Front forces against the communist Derg regime during the Eritrean War of Independence, Eritrea (formerly known as "Medri Bahri") gained de facto independence from Ethiopia. Following the United Nations observation 1993 Eritrean independence referendum, Eritrea gained de jure independence.
European Union
[edit]Before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009, no provision in the treaties or law of the European Union outlined the ability of a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, after the failure to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, that provision was then included in the Lisbon Treaty.
The treaty introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. This formalised the procedure by stating that a member state may notify the European Council that it wishes to withdraw, upon which withdrawal negotiations begin; if no other agreement is reached, the treaty ceases to apply to the withdrawing state two years after such notification.[60]
On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in a binding referendum voted for by parliament, and finally left the European Union on January 31, 2020.[61] This is informally known as Brexit.
Finland
[edit]Finland successfully and peacefully seceded from the newly-formed and unstable Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1917. The latter was led by Lenin, who had sought refuge in Finland during the Russian Revolution. Unsuccessful attempts at greater autonomy or peaceful secession had already been made during the preceding Russian Empire but had been denied by the Russian emperor. However, with the country still at war and under great pressure, Lenin allowed Finland to secede. Its peripheral location made it difficult to defend and less strategically important than Russia's other territories, so he conceded sovereignty to the Finns rather than try to defend it.[62]
France
[edit]France was one of the European Great Powers with populous foreign empires. Like the others – the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and formerly Germany and the Ottoman Empire – its populous states abroad have all seceded, in most cases been granted independence. These secessionist movements generally took place at similar stages by continent. See decolonization of the Ottoman Empire, Americas, Asia and Africa. As to France's contiguous state, these have few present representatives at the national level, see:
Gran Colombia
[edit]
After a decade of tumultuous federalism, Ecuador and Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia in 1830, leaving the similarly tumultuous United States of Colombia (now the Republic of Colombia), which also lost Panama in 1903.
India
[edit]Pakistan seceded from the British-Indian Empire in what is known as the Partition. Today, the Constitution of India does not allow Indian states to secede from the Union.
The Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir hosts some paramilitary nationalists who advocate for a Muslim state, in opposition to the Indian establishment. They are mostly in the Valley of Kashmir since 1989, where the Indian Army sometimes patrols, having bases along the nearby international border. They are supported by Pakistan, which has allegedly funded many terrorist, separatist outfits with the goal of destabilizing India, according to the Indian Research and Analysis Wing, though the country denies any direct involvement. The Kashmir insurgency reached at its peak influence in the 1990s.
Other secessionist movements in Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Punjab (known as the Khalistan movement), Mizoram and Tripura, Tamil Nadu . The violent Naxalite–Maoist insurgency operates in eastern rural India is rarely considered secessionist as its goal is to overthrow the government of India. The Communist Party of India (Maoist)'s commanders idealise a Communist republic to be made up swathes of India.
Iran
[edit]Active secession movements include: Iranian Azeri, Assyrian independence movement, Bakhtiary lurs movement in 1876, Iranian Kurdistan; Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Khūzestān Province Balochistan and independence movement for free separated Balochistan, (Arab nationalist); Al-Ahwaz Arab People's Democratic Popular Front, Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz (See Politics of Khūzestān Province: Arab politics and separatism), and Balochistan People's Party (BPP) supporting Baloch Separatism.[63]
Italy
[edit]The Movement for the Independence of Sicily (Movimento Indipendentista Siciliano, MIS) has its roots in the Sicilian Independence Movement of the late 1940s; it was active for around 60 years. Today, the MIS no longer exists, though many other parties have emerged. One is Nation Sicily (Sicilia Nazione), which still believes in the idea that Sicily, due to its deeply personal and ancient history, should be a sovereign country. Moreover, a common ideology shared by all the Sicilian independentist movements is to fight against Cosa Nostra and all the other Mafia organizations, which have a very deep influence over Sicily's public and private institutions. The Sicilian branch of the Five Star Movement, which polls show is Sicily's most popular party, has also publicly expressed the intention to start working for a possible secession from Italy if the central government would not collaborate in shifting the nation's administrative organization from a unitary country to a federal state.
In Southern Italy, several movements have expressed a will to secede from Italy. This newborn ideology is called neo-Bourbonism, because the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was under the control of the House of Bourbon. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was created in 1816 after the Congress of Vienna, and it comprised both Sicily and continental Southern Italy. The Kingdom came to an end in 1861, being annexed to the newborn Kingdom of Italy. However, the patriotic feelings shared among the southern Italian population is more ancient, starting in 1130 with the Kingdom of Sicily, which was composed by both the island and south Italy. According to the neo-Bourbonic movements the Italian regions which should secede are Sicily, Calabria, Basilicata, Apulia, Molise, Campania, Abruzzo, and Latio's provinces of Rieti, Latina and Frosinone. The major movements and parties which believe in this ideology are Unione Mediterranea, Mo! and Briganti.
Lega Nord has been seeking the independence of the region known to separatists as Padania, which includes lands along the Po Valley in northern Italy. Some organizations separately work for the independence of Venetia or Veneto and the secession or reunification of South Tyrol with Austria. Lega Nord governing Lombardy has expressed a will to turn the region into a sovereign country. Also, the island of Sardinia is home to a notable nationalist movement.
Japan
[edit]The ethnic Ryukyuan (a branch of modern Okinawan) people had their own state historically (Ryukyu Kingdom). Although some Okinawan people have sought independence from Japan since they were annexed by Japan in 1879, and especially after 1972 when the islands were transferred from U.S. rule to Japan, their activism and movement have been consistently supported by single digit[64] of Okinawan people.[65]
Malaysia
[edit]When racial and partisan strife erupted, Singapore was expelled from the Malaysian federation in 1965.
Mexico
[edit]
- Texas seceded from Mexico in 1836 (see Texas Revolution), after animosity between the Mexican government and the American settlers of the Coahuila y Tejas State. It was later annexed by the United States in 1845.
- The Republic of the Rio Grande seceded from Mexico on January 17, 1840. It rejoined Mexico on November 6 of the same year.
- After the federal system was abandoned by President Santa Anna, the Congress of Yucatán approved in 1840 a declaration of independence, establishing the Republic of Yucatán. The Republic rejoined Mexico in 1843.
Netherlands
[edit]The United Provinces of the Netherlands, commonly referred to historiographically as the Dutch Republic, was a federal republic formally established from the formal creation of a federal state in 1581 by several Dutch provinces seceded from Spain.
New Zealand
[edit]Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. A Premier of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was amongst the first people to make this call, which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington in the same year.
The NZ South Island Party, with a pro-South agenda, fielded only five candidates (4.20% of electoral seats) candidates in the 1999 General Election but achieved only 0.14% (2622 votes) of the general vote. The reality today is that although South Islanders have a strong identity rooted in their geographic region, secession does not carry any real constituency; the party was not able to field any candidates in the 2008 election, as they had less than 500 paying members, a requirement by the New Zealand Electoral commission. The party is treated more as a "joke" party than any real political force.
Nigeria
[edit]
Between 1967 and 1970, the Eastern Region seceded from Nigeria and established the Republic of Biafra, which led to a war that ended with the state returning to Nigeria.[66] In 1999, at the beginning of a new democratic regime, other secessionist movements emerged, including the Indigenous People of Biafra led by Nnamdi Kanu formed as a Political wing of the Republic of Biafra.[67]
Norway and Sweden
[edit]Sweden, having left the Kalmar Union with Denmark–Norway in the 16th century, entered into a loose personal union with Norway in 1814. Following a constitutional crisis, on June 7, 1905, the Norwegian Storting declared that King Oscar II had failed to fulfil his constitutional duties. He was therefore removed as King of Norway. Because the union depended on the two countries sharing a king, it was dissolved. After negotiations, Sweden agreed to mutual independence on October 26 and on April 14.
Pakistan
[edit]After the Awami League won the 1970 national elections, negotiations to form a new government floundered, resulting in the Bangladesh Liberation War by which East Pakistan seceded, becoming Bangladesh. The Balochistan Liberation Army (also Baloch Liberation Army or Boluchistan Liberation Army) (BLA) is a Baloch nationalist militant secessionist organization. The stated goals of the organization include the establishment of an independent state of Balochistan free of Pakistani, Iranian and Afghan Federations. The name Baloch Liberation Army first became public in the summer of 2000, after the organization claimed credit for a series of bomb attacks in markets and removal of railways lines.[68]
Papua New Guinea
[edit]The island of Bougainville has made several efforts to secede from Papua New Guinea.
Somalia
[edit]Somaliland is an autonomous region,[69] which is part of the Federal Republic of Somalia.[70][71] Those who call the area the Republic of Somaliland consider it to be the successor state of the former British Somaliland protectorate. Having established its own local government in Somalia in 1991, the region's self-declared independence remains unrecognized by any country or international organization.[72][73]
South Africa
[edit]In 1910, following the Boer Republics defeat by the British Empire in the Boer Wars, four self-governing colonies in the south of Africa were merged into the Union of South Africa. The four regions were the Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Natal and Transvaal. Three other territories, High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Basutoland (now Lesotho) and Swaziland (now Eswatini) later became independent states in the 1960s. Following the election of the Nationalist government in 1948, some English-speaking whites in Natal advocated either secession or a loose federation.[74] There were also calls for secession, with Natal and the eastern part of the Cape Province breaking away[75] following the referendum in 1960 on establishing a republic. In 1993, prior to South Africa's first elections under universal suffrage and the end of apartheid, some Zulu leaders in KwaZulu-Natal[76] again considered secession as did some politicians in the Cape Province.[77]
In 2008, a political movement calling for the return to independence of the Cape resurged in the shape of the political organisation, the Cape Party. The Cape Party contested their first elections on 22 April 2009.[78] They finished the Western Cape provincial elections in 2019 with 9,331 votes, or 0.45% of votes, gaining no seats[79]
The idea gained popularity in the early half of the 2020s, with polling suggesting that 58% of Western Cape Voters want a referendum on independence in July 2021.[80]
South Sudan
[edit]A referendum took place in Southern Sudan from 9 to 15 January 2011, on whether the region should remain a part of Sudan or become independent. The referendum was one of the consequences of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M).[81]
On 7 February 2011, the referendum commission published the final results, with 98.83% voting in favour of independence. While the ballots were suspended in 10 of the 79 counties for exceeding 100% of the voter turnout, the number of votes was still well over the requirement of 60% turnout, and the majority vote for secession is not in question.[82]
A simultaneous referendum was supposed to be held in Abyei on whether to join Southern Sudan but it has been postponed because of conflict over demarcation and residency rights. In October 2013, a symbolic referendum was held in which 99.9% of voters in Abyei voted to join Southern Sudan. However, this resolution was non-binding.[83] As of February 2024, an official referendum still has not taken place. Abyei currently holds "special administrative status".[84]
The predetermined date for the creation of an independent state was 9 July 2011.
Soviet Union
[edit]
On November 15, 1917, the day in which Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia was declared by the Bolsheviks, Finland seceded after the non-Socialist Senate proposed that Parliament declare Finland's independence, which was voted by the Parliament on 6 December 1917. On December 18, 1917, it was recognized by Council of People's. It was followed by the Finnish Civil War.
The Constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed all SSRs the right to secede from the Union. In 1990, after free elections, the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic declared independence and other republics, including certain break-away polities, soon followed. Despite the Soviet central government's refusal to recognize the independence of the republics, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.
Spain
[edit]
Present-day Spain (known officially as "the Kingdom of Spain") was assembled as a central state in the French model between the 18th and 19th centuries from various component kingdoms with varying languages, cultures and legislations. Spain has several secessionist movements, the most notable ones being in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia.
Sri Lanka
[edit]The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, operated a de facto independent state for Tamils called Tamil Eelam in eastern and northern Sri Lanka until 2009.
Switzerland
[edit]In 1847, seven disaffected Catholic cantons formed a separate alliance because of moves to change the cantons of Switzerland from a confederation to a more centralized government federation. This effort was crushed in the Sonderbund War and a new Swiss Federal Constitution was created.[85]
Ukraine
[edit]
In 2014 after the start of Russian intervention in Ukraine, several groups of people declared the independence of several Ukrainian regions:
- The Donetsk People's Republic was declared to be independent from Ukraine on 7 April 2014, comprising the territory of the Donetsk Oblast. There have been military confrontations between the Ukrainian Army and the forces of the Donetsk People's Republic when the Ukrainian Government attempted to reassert control over the oblast.
- The Lugansk Parliamentary Republic was proclaimed on 27 April 2014.[86] before being succeeded by the Lugansk People's Republic. The Lugansk forces have successfully occupied vital buildings in Lugansk since 8 April, and controlled the City Council, prosecutor's office, and police station since 27 April.[87] The Government of the Luhansk Oblast announced its support for a referendum, and granted the governorship to independence leader Valeriy Bolotov.[88]
United Kingdom
[edit]The Irish republicans attempted to withdraw Ireland from the United Kingdom during the Easter Rebellion of 1916. Ireland gained independence as the Irish Free State in 1922, except for six Ulster counties which chose to remain in the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has a number of secession movements:
- In Northern Ireland, Irish republicans and nationalists have long called for the secession of Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. This is opposed by Unionists. A minority have supported the independence of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom without joining the Republic of Ireland.
- In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigns for Scottish independence and direct Scottish membership in the European Union. It has representation at all levels of Scottish politics and forms the devolved Scottish government. Later pro-independence parties have had lesser electoral success. The Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party are most widely publicised. However, all independence movements/parties are opposed by unionists. A referendum on independence in which voters were asked "Should Scotland be an independent country?" took place in September 2014. It saw "no" win, as 55.3% of voters voted against independence.[89]
- In Wales, Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) stands for Welsh independence within the European Union. It is also represented at all levels of Welsh politics and has often been the second largest party in the Senedd (Welsh Parliament).
- England:
- In Cornwall, supporters of Mebyon Kernow call for the creation of a Cornish Assembly and separation from England, giving the county significant self-government, whilst remaining within the United Kingdom as a fifth home nation.
- London has supporters of an independent or semi-autonomous city-state since the 2016 EU Referendum in which Londoners voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. A London independence party, known as Londependence, was established in June 2019. Their calls increased after the 2019 General Election in which most Londoners voted for the Labour Party, gaining a representative, bucking the national trend.
- The Northern Independence Party is a party formed in 2020 that seeks to make Northern England an independent state under the name Northumbria.
United States
[edit]Discussions and threats of secession often surfaced in American politics during the first half of the 19th century, and secession was declared by the Confederate States of America in the South during the American Civil War. However, in 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that unilateral secession was not permitted, saying that the union between a state (Texas in the case before the bar) and the other states "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."[34][33] Current secession movements still exist, the most notable example of which is the Hawaiian sovereignty movement which formed after the illegal annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the United States under the Newlands Resolution passed by Congress in 1898. Many international organizations consider Hawaii under American occupation. [citation needed]
Yemen
[edit]North Yemen and South Yemen merged in 1990; tensions led to a 1994 southern secession which was crushed in a civil war.[90]
Yugoslavia
[edit]
On June 25, 1991, Croatia and Slovenia seceded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia also declared independence, after which the federation broke up, causing the separation of the remaining two countries Serbia and Montenegro. Several wars ensued between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and seceding entities and among other ethnic groups in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later, Kosovo. Montenegro peacefully separated from its union with Serbia in 2006.
Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008, and was recognized by around 100 countries, with the rest considering it remaining under United Nations administration.
See also
[edit]Lists
[edit]- Lists of historical separatist movements
- Lists of active separatist movements
- List of unrecognized countries
- List of U.S. state secession proposals
- List of U.S. county secession proposals
Topics
[edit]- Autonomy
- Bioregionalism
- City state
- Decentralization
- Dissolution
- Homeland
- Independence
- Intersectionality
- Irredentism
- Micronation
- Nullification (U.S. Constitution)
- Partition
- Schism (religion)
- Separatism
- Urban secession
Movements
[edit]- Balochistan Liberation Army
- Black Liberation Army
- Cape Independence
- Cascadia
- East Turkestan Independence Movement
- Essex Junto
- European Free Alliance
- Free State Project
- Hartford Convention
- Kurdistan
- League of the South
- New York City secession
- Orania, Northern Cape
- Secession of Quebec
- Scottish Secession Church
- Second Vermont Republic
- South Carolina Exposition and Protest
- Texas Secession Movement
- Tibetan Independence Movement
- Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
Notes
[edit]- ^ According to the Constitution of the USSR, if a union republic voted to leave the Soviet Union, its autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okrugs had the right to hold their own referendums to independently decide whether to remain in the USSR or to leave alongside the seceding union republic. They also had the right to raise questions regarding their own state-legal status.[51]
References
[edit]- ^ Sieniawski, Piotr (2024). De facto States in the Post-Soviet Space. The Cases of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie. p. 67. ISBN 978-83-8281-411-8.
- ^ a b Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2013). The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 3. ISBN 9780754677024.
- ^ a b Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2007). Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. p. 6. ISBN 9780754671633.
- ^ a b Allen Buchanan, "Secession", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007.
- ^ a b "Secessionism and Separatism Monthly Series: "Secession and Secessionism" by Alexandar Pavković - H-Nationalism - H-Net". networks.h-net.org. Archived from the original on 2016-04-01. Retrieved 2016-03-21.
- ^ a b Butt, Ahsan I. (2017-11-15). Secession and Security: Explaining State Strategy against Separatists. Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 9781501713941.
- ^ a b Coggins, Bridget (2011). "Friends in High Places: International Politics and the Emergence of States from Secessionism". International Organization. 65 (3): 433–467. doi:10.1017/S0020818311000105. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 145424331.
- ^ Gehring, Kai; Schneider, Stephan A. (2020). "Regional resources and democratic secessionism". Journal of Public Economics. 181 104073. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104073. hdl:10419/185534. ISSN 0047-2727.
- ^ Carter, David B.; Goemans, H. E. (2011). "The Making of the Territorial Order: New Borders and the Emergence of Interstate Conflict". International Organization. 65 (2): 275–309. doi:10.1017/S0020818311000051. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 23016813. S2CID 54863822.
- ^ Griffiths, Ryan D. (2015). "Between Dissolution and Blood: How Administrative Lines and Categories Shape Secessionist Outcomes". International Organization. 69 (3): 731–751. doi:10.1017/S0020818315000077. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 154530138.
- ^ Abramson, Scott F.; Carter, David B. (2016). "The Historical Origins of Territorial Disputes". American Political Science Review. 110 (4): 675–698. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000381. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 152201006.
- ^ Thorhallsson, Baldur; Steinsson, Sverrir (2017-05-24), "Small State Foreign Policy", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484, ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7, retrieved 2020-05-02
- ^ a b c Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (2014). "Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79–106. doi:10.1111/misr.12099. ISSN 1521-9488.
- ^ a b Alesina, Alberto (7 November 2003). The Size of Nations. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262012041. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
- ^ Thorhallsson, Baldur (2018), "The small state in international relations", "The Small State in International Relations" from Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland's External Affairs (Routledge, 2019), Routledge, pp. 13–23, doi:10.4324/9780429463167-2, ISBN 978-0-429-46316-7, S2CID 240133027, retrieved 2020-05-02
- ^ Lake, David A.; O’mahony, Angela (2004). "The Incredible Shrinking State". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 48 (5): 699–722. doi:10.1177/0022002704267766. ISSN 0022-0027. S2CID 8619491.
- ^ Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2008). On the Way to Statehood: Secession and Globalisation. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 133. ISBN 9780754673798.
- ^ Allen Buchanan, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, West View Press, 1991.
- ^ Gordon, David (February 28, 2002). Secession, State, and Liberty. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765809435.
- ^ Gordon, David (December 5, 2012). "Is Secession a Right?". Mises Institute.
- ^ Allen Buchanan, How can We Construct a Political Theory of Secession?, paper presented October 5, 2006 to the International Studies Association.
- ^ Anthony H. Birch, "Another Liberal Theory of Secession". Political Studies 32, 1984, 596–602.
- ^ Jane Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Vintage, 1985.
- ^ Frances Kendall and Leon Louw, After Apartheid: The Solution for South Africa, Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1987. One of several popular books they wrote about canton-based constitutional alternatives that include an explicit right to secession.
- ^ Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations, Routledge & K. Paul, 1957
- ^ Human Scale, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1980.
- ^ Livingston, Donald (1998). The Secession Tradition in America. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 17–49. ISBN 1-56000-362-6.
- ^ "Full text of "The writings of Thomas Jefferson;"". archive.org. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
- ^ a b Aleksandar Pavkovic, Secession, Majority Rule and Equal Rights: a Few Questions, Macquarie University Law Journal, 2003.
- ^ Allen Buchanan, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Chapter 3, pp. 87–123.
- ^ Steven Yates, "When Is Political Divorce Justified" in David Gordon, 1998.
- ^ a b c d Andrei Kreptul, The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100.
- ^ a b Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession, p. 222, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
- ^ a b Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection.
- ^ Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2003). "In Pursuit of Sovereignty and Self-determination: Peoples, States and Secession in the International Order". Macquarie Law Journal. 3: 1.
- ^ Xenophon Contiades, Sixth Scholarly Panel: Cultural Identity in the New Europe, 1st Global Conference on Federalism and the Union of European Democracies, March 2004. Archived January 5, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "The Reform of the Constitution in 2003". fuerstenhaus.li. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
- ^ Roeder, Philip G. (2018). National Secession: Persuasion and Violence in Independence Campaigns. Cornell University Press. pp. 23–25. ISBN 978-1-5017-2598-2. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt21h4x5m.
- ^ Vicken Cheterian (2011). War and Peace in the Caucasus Russia's Troubled Frontier. Oxford University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-78738-186-5.
By June 1989, the Armenian National Movement (Hayots Hamazkayin Sharzhoum, ANM) was formed, transforming the Karabakh Committee into an instrument for the struggle of national independence.
- ^ a b "Anniversary of Karabakh movement reminds Yerevan residents about national idea". Caucasian Knot. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
- ^ Civilnet (2018-02-22). "Yerevan Photo Exhibit Celebrates 30th Anniversary of Karabakh Movement". CIVILNET. Retrieved 2025-09-17.
- ^ Malkasian 1996, pp. 27–28.
- ^ Chorbajian, Levon; Donabédian, Patrick; Mutafian, Claude (1994). The Caucasian knot: the history & geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh. Politics in contemporary Asia. London: Atlantic Highlands, NJ : Zed Books. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-85649-287-4.
- ^ Eduard Abrahamyan (2025). Small States, Russia and the West Polarity, Constellations and Heterogeneity in the Geopolitics of the Caucasus. Taylor & Francis. p. 1964. ISBN 978-10-4035016-4.
The violence prompted the Armenian society of the crumbling Soviet Union of 1990-1991 to act in self-defence, perceiving a 'tangible prospect of looming genocide in Artsakh.'
- ^ Chorbajian, Mutafian & Donabedian 1994, pp. 138–140, 154: "The borders were to be drawn before 15 August by a mixed commission...but without the participation of either Yerevan or Moscow. All would be presided over by Karaiev. Under such circumstances, the Armenians could expect to be grossly disappointed. On the one hand...they excluded, on the west, the 'corridor' made up of Lachin, Kelbajar, and Kedabek, which had been carefully emptied of its Armenian population to separate Mountainous Karabagh from Armenian Zangezur. On the other hand, in the north, without any justification, they removed the districts of Shamkhor, Khanlar, Dashkesan and Shahumian.. where the Armenian population was predominant (about 90 per cent)... From Shamkhor in the north to Shahumian in the south, Armenian villages in these districts have been systematically emptied...Mountainous Karabagh delimited in this way is only a portion of what had always been Armenian Karabagh, which itself is only a part of what was included in the ancient Armenian provinces of Artsakh and Utik...The spectre of ‘Nakhichevanization’ haunts...Mountainous Karabagh, which had 125,000 inhabitants in 1926 who were 89 percent Armenian. This region has become an ‘enclave’ since the ‘cleansing’ of the Hagaru Valley in order to separate Karabagh from Zangezur by a narrow strip emptied of Armenians...Azerbaijan still contained a large Armenian minority. Aside from the ‘bastion’ of the Autonomous Region of Mountainous Karabagh, Armenians were numerous in Baku and in the region north of the Autonomous Region, up to Shamkhor, where the Armenian villages had been deliberately left outside the frontiers drawn in 1923 and, thereby, subjected to direct Azerbaijani authority. From north to south, these areas had already largely been ‘swept clean,’ with the exception of the area of Shahumian, the northern gateway to the Autonomous Region. The Azerbaijani plan was clearly described in the declaration by the Karabagh Committee on 2 December 1988: 'Exploiting the anarchic situation, the Azerbaijani authorities are about to unleash a monstrous programme: to expel Armenians from their several millennia old homes in Gandzak and the areas north of Artsakh, in preparation for an invasion of Mountainous Karabagh.' Already about 120,000 Armenians have left Azerbaijan, and 50,000 have sought refuge in Armenia and the others in the North Caucasus and Central Asia."
- ^ Walker, Christopher. Armenia: A Very Brief History. Rouben Galichian, 2022. p. 41. ISBN 978-9939-68-926-5.
The borders between Armenia and Artsakh were manipulated such that Armenia could have no direct link with Artsakh.
- ^ Hein, Patrick (7 April 2024). "From Stalin to the Aliyev clan: 70 years of hindered autonomy in Nagorno-Karabakh". Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism. 24 (2): 197–215. doi:10.1111/sena.12420. ISSN 1473-8481.
- ^ Patrick Wilson Gore (2008). 'Tis Some Poor Fellow's Skull Post-Soviet Warfare in the Southern Caucasus. iUniverse. p. xii. ISBN 978-0-595-48679-3.
So after the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh that the Azeris undertook in 1991, Azeris...were settled in formerly Armenian towns and villages to reduce the oblast's overwhelmingly Armenian complexion.
- ^ Suny 1993, pp. 192–194.
- ^ Zürcher 2007, p. 154.
- ^ "СОЮЗ СОВЕТСКИХ СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКИХ РЕСПУБЛИК. ЗАКОН О порядке решения вопросов, связанных с выходом союзной республики из СССР" (in Russian). Archived from the original on 12 September 2016. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ Harzl, Benedikt (2025). Secessionist Entities and International Law: The South Caucasus Disputes between Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity, and the Quest for a European Engagement Policy. Human Rights and Humanitarian Law E-Books Online, Collection 2025. Leiden Boston: Brill | Nijhoff. p. 390. ISBN 978-90-04-68710-3.
On 23 November 1991, when the National Assembly of Azerbaijan adopted the Law 'About Abolition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan Republic' This law not only revoked the autonomy arrangement of 1980, but also provided for culturally driven ethnic cleansing by returning alleged 'historical names' to the cities of Stepanakert, Mardakert, and Martuni, which was tantamount to prohibiting the use of their Armenian names and allowing only their Azerbaijani names (ibid., Art. 2).
- ^ a b Seema Guha (2004-01-07). "Dhaka seeks proof, Delhi readies maps". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on February 3, 2013. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
- ^ "400 Banga Sena activists held at Bangla border". Indiainfo.com. 2003-02-18. Archived from the original on 2008-09-04. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
- ^ Spagnuolo, Sergio (September 15, 2016). "Brazil's Lula charged as 'top boss' of Petrobras graft scheme". Reuters. Retrieved February 14, 2024.
- ^ Santosh C. Saha, Perspectives on contemporary ethnic conflict, p. 63, Lexington Books, 2006 ISBN 0-7391-1085-3.
- ^ Paul D. Elliot, The East Timor Dispute, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1978).
- ^ James J. Fox, Dionísio Babo Soares, Out of the ashes: destruction and reconstruction of East Timor, p. 175, ANU E Press, 2003, ISBN 0-9751229-1-6
- ^ Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and national minorities, p. xiii, Oxford University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-19-829898-6
- ^ Poptcheva, Eva-Maria (February 2016). "Article 50 TEU: Withdrawal of a Member State from the EU" (PDF). europa.eu.
- ^ Payne, Adam. "Business Insider". businessinsider.com. Business Insider. Retrieved December 20, 2019.
- ^ Douds, Lara (2017-01-13). "'The dictatorship of the democracy'? The Council of People's Commissars as Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary coalition government, December 1917-March 1918". Historical Research. 90 (247): 32–56. doi:10.1111/1468-2281.12170. ISSN 0950-3471.
- ^ "UNPO: West Balochistan". unpo.org. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
- ^ "Opinion Polls among Residents of the Okinawa Prefecture (Japanese)". Asahi Shinbun Digital. Asahi Shinbun. 12 May 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
- ^ Molasky, Michael S. (8 March 2001). The American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa: Literature and Memory. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-203-98168-9. OCLC 1048580450.
- ^ Daly, Samuel Fury Childs (2020-08-07). A History of the Republic of Biafra. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108887748. ISBN 978-1-108-88774-8. S2CID 225266768.
- ^ Moses, A. Dirk; Heerten, Lasse, eds. (6 July 2017). Postcolonial conflict and the question of genocide: the Nigeria-Biafra War, 1967–1970. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-85866-3. OCLC 993762001.
- ^ "Balochistan Liberation Army | Mapping Militant Organizations". web.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
- ^ No Winner Seen in Somalia's Battle With Chaos New York Times, June 2, 2009
- ^ The Transitional Federal Charter of the Somali Republic Archived 2009-03-25 at the Wayback Machine: "The Somali Republic shall have the following boundaries. (a) North; Gulf of Aden. (b) North West; Djibouti. (c) West; Ethiopia. (d) South south-west; Kenya. (e) East; Indian Ocean."
- ^ "The World Factbook". cia.gov. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
- ^ Lacey, Marc (June 5, 2006). "The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia". The New York Times.
- ^ "UN in Action: Reforming Somaliland's Judiciary" (PDF).
- ^ SOUTH AFRICA: Cry of Secession TIME, Monday, May 11, 1953
- ^ Secession Talked by Some Anti-Republicans, Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 11 October 1960
- ^ Launching Democracy in South Africa: The First Open Election, April 1994, R. W. Johnson, Lawrence Schlemmer, Yale University Press, 1996
- ^ Party Wants the Cape to Secede", Business Day, December 24, 1993.
- ^ Cape Party Website, Monday, May 11, 1953
- ^ "Results Dashboard". www.elections.org.za. Retrieved 2019-05-11.
- ^ Charles, Marvin. "Cape Independence: Lobby group says recent survey 'places intense pressure' on DA to hold referendum". News24. Retrieved 2021-08-31.
- ^ "Referendum in Southern Sudan. UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan". peacekeeping.un.org. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
- ^ "South Sudan referendum: 99% vote for independence". BBC News. 2011-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
- ^ Gridneff, Ilya (October 31, 2013). "Thousands in contested Abyei vote to join South Sudan, risking tensions". Reuters. Retrieved February 14, 2024.
- ^ "Abyei Arbitration (Government of Sudan/Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army)". International Law Reports. 144: 348–699. 2011. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511675812.004. ISSN 0309-0671. S2CID 232254340.
- ^ A Brief Survey of Swiss History, Switzerland Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
- ^ "Federalization supporters in Luhansk proclaim people's republic". TASS: World. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
- ^ "Ukraine crisis: Pro-Russia activists take Luhansk offices". BBC News. 29 April 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2015.
- ^ "Luhansk regional council backs referendum on region's status". kyivpost.com. 5 May 2014. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
- ^ Smout, Alistair; MacLellan, Kylie; Holton, Kate (September 19, 2014). "Scotland stays in UK, but Britain faces change". Reuters – Special Report. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved September 19, 2014.
- ^ Hiro, Dilip (2019-03-01), "Saudi-Iranian Détente", Cold War in the Islamic World, Oxford University Press, pp. 141–162, doi:10.1093/oso/9780190944650.003.0009, ISBN 978-0-19-094465-0
Sources
[edit]- Chorbajian, Levon; Mutafian, Claude; Donabedian, Patrick (1994). The Caucasian Knot: The History and Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-288-1.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Malkasian, Mark (1996). Gha-ra-bagh!: The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0-8143-2605-6.
- Suny, Ronald Grigor (1993). Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20773-9.
- Zürcher, Christoph [in German] (2007). The Post-Soviet Wars: Rebellion, Ethnic Conflict, and Nationhood in the Caucasus ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). New York: New York University Press. p. 168. ISBN 9780814797099.
Further reading
[edit]- Buchanan, Allen, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law, Oxford University Press, 2007.
- Buchanan, Allen, Secession: The Morality Of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter To Lithuania And Quebec, Westview Press, 1991.
- Coppieters, Bruno; Richard Sakwa, Richard (eds.), Contextualizing Secession: Normative Studies in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2003
- Kohen, Marcelo G. (ed.), Secession: International Law Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
- Kohr, Leopold, The Breakdown of Nations, Routledge & K. Paul, 1957.
- Lehning, Percy, Theories of Secession, Routledge, 1998.
- López Martín, Ana Gemma and Perea Unceta, José Antonio, Statehood and Secession: Lessons from Spain and Catalonia, Routledge, 2021
- Norman, Wayne, Negotiating Nationalism: Nation-Building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multinational State, Oxford University Press, 2006.
- Roeder, Philip G. 2018. National secession: persuasion and violence in independence campaigns. Cornell University Press.
- Sorens, Jason, Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2012.
- Sorens, Jason (2008). "Secessionism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Sessionism. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 455–56. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n277. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- Spencer, Metta, Separatism: Democracy and Disintegration, Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.
- Weller, Marc, Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution (Kindle Edition), Taylor & Francis, 2007.
- Wellman, Christopher Heath, A Theory of Secession, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- Secession And International Law: Conflict Avoidance – regional Appraisals, United Nations Publications, 2006.
External links
[edit]- Secession (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- Fleming, Walter Lynwood (1911). . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 584–585.
Secession
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Conceptual Foundations
Definition and Scope
Secession refers to the unilateral withdrawal of a portion of a state's territory and its associated population from the authority of the parent state, with the intent to establish a new independent sovereign entity. This process typically involves a group or region asserting sovereignty over a defined geographic area previously integrated into the existing state, often in opposition to the central government's claims of territorial integrity. Unlike negotiated partitions or the dissolution of a state into multiple successors—such as the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia—secession stricto sensu presupposes the continuity of the original state alongside the emergent one, without mutual consent.[2][1] The scope of secession encompasses both legal and extralegal dimensions, as international law generally upholds the principle of territorial integrity under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting unilateral secessions that disrupt established borders absent exceptional circumstances like severe human rights abuses or colonial legacies. It excludes separations of non-self-governing territories under decolonization frameworks, which are treated as exercises of external self-determination rather than internal secession from metropolitan cores. Secession may involve diverse actors, including ethnic minorities, regions with distinct cultural identities, or economically divergent areas, but requires effective control over territory, a viable population, and diplomatic recognition for the new entity's viability—criteria derived from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933). Empirical instances range from the American Confederacy's 1860–1861 withdrawal from the Union to contemporary claims like Catalonia's 2017 referendum, though success hinges on factors beyond mere declaration, such as military capacity and international support.[2][3] In conceptual terms, secession delineates from mere autonomy demands or federal rearrangements, as it seeks full sovereign independence rather than devolved powers within the existing polity. Scholarly analyses emphasize its distinction from irredentism, where a group seeks unification with a neighboring state rather than standalone sovereignty, and from revolutionary state-building, which may replace the entire government without territorial partition. While no general right to secession exists in customary international law—evidenced by non-recognition of entities like Somaliland since 1991 despite de facto control—the practice persists through pragmatic state practice and selective recognitions, as in Kosovo's 2008 declaration following UN-supervised administration. This scope underscores secession's tension with state sovereignty, often resolved through power asymmetries rather than normative entitlements.[1][2][13]Etymology and Terminology
The term "secession" originates from the Latin sēcessiō (nominative secessiō), denoting "a withdrawing" or "separation," derived from the verb sēcedere, a compound of sē- ("apart") and cēdere ("to go" or "to yield").[14] This etymon reflects an action of retreat or dissociation, initially applied in ancient Roman contexts to plebeian withdrawals from the city as a form of protest against patrician rule, known as secessio plebis, which occurred in events such as 494 BCE.[14] The word entered English in the early 16th century, with the Oxford English Dictionary recording its first usage in 1533 in a translation by John Bellenden, where it connoted general withdrawal or schism rather than strictly political detachment.[15] In modern political terminology, secession specifically refers to the formal withdrawal of a constituent territory, group, or state from a larger political union or federation, typically with the aim of establishing independent sovereignty.[1] This usage crystallized in the 19th century, prominently during the American Southern states' exit from the Union in 1860–1861, marking a shift toward its association with constitutional crises and self-determination claims.[16] Political scientists distinguish secession from related concepts such as partition (mutual division of territory), dissolution (breakup of the entire entity), or revolution (overthrow without formal withdrawal), emphasizing its focus on a subset detaching while the parent entity persists.[8] Key subtypes include unilateral secession, executed without the consent of the central authority and often contested legally or militarily, and consensual secession, achieved through negotiated agreement, as in the 1993 Velvet Divorce between Czechoslovakia's republics.[1] Synonyms like "withdrawal," "separation," or "breakaway" capture the core idea of detachment but lack secession's precise implication of challenging an existing political bond, often evoking legal or constitutional dimensions absent in broader terms such as "defection" or "schism."[17] In international law contexts, the term aligns with efforts to invoke rights of self-determination under frameworks like the UN Charter's Article 1, though it remains normatively contested without codified universal enforcement.[2]Historical Overview
Ancient and Pre-Modern Instances
In the ancient Near East, a prominent early example of secession unfolded after the death of King Solomon circa 930 BCE, when the northern Israelite tribes, comprising ten of the twelve, rejected the succession of Rehoboam to the throne of the united monarchy, citing his refusal to alleviate their burdens. Led by Jeroboam, a former overseer under Solomon, the northerners established the independent Kingdom of Israel with its capital at Shechem (later Samaria), while the southern tribes remained loyal to the Davidic line in the Kingdom of Judah centered at Jerusalem. This division, rooted in tribal rivalries, economic grievances, and religious divergences—such as Jeroboam's establishment of golden calves to prevent pilgrimages to Judah—persisted until the Assyrian conquest of Israel in 722 BCE, though Judah endured until 586 BCE. During the Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman Empire, marked by invasions, economic collapse, and rapid emperor turnover from 235 to 284 CE, multiple provinces attempted secession to restore order locally. In 260 CE, Marcus Cassianius Latinius Postumus, governor of Germania Inferior, proclaimed the Gallic Empire, encompassing Gaul, Hispania, and Britannia, after defeating a usurper and repelling Germanic tribes; this breakaway state issued its own coinage, senate, and emperors until its reintegration by Aurelian in 274 CE following the Battle of Châlons. Concurrently, in the east, Septimius Odaenathus of Palmyra assumed control of Roman Syria and Mesopotamia amid Persian Sassanid incursions, evolving into the Palmyrene Empire under his widow Zenobia by 267 CE, which expanded to Egypt and Anatolia before Aurelian reconquered it in 272–273 CE after battles at Immae and Palmyra. These ephemeral empires exploited central Roman weakness but lacked broad ideological claims to permanent sovereignty, prioritizing defensive autonomy over full independence.[18] In medieval Europe, the formation of the Old Swiss Confederacy exemplifies pre-modern secessionist alliances against feudal overlords. In 1291 CE, the cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden swore mutual defense in the Federal Charter, effectively withdrawing allegiance from Habsburg counts who claimed suzerainty within the Holy Roman Empire; victories at Morgarten (1315 CE) and Sempach (1386 CE) against Habsburg forces solidified de facto independence, expanding the confederation to eight cantons by 1353 CE. Though nominally imperial until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, this process reflected communal resistance to distant authority, driven by alpine geography, economic self-sufficiency in herding and trade, and shared opposition to serfdom-enforcing nobles, laying foundations for modern Swiss neutrality and federalism.[19]19th-Century Secessions and Nationalism
The 19th century witnessed a surge in secessionist movements fueled by emerging nationalist ideologies, which prioritized ethnic, linguistic, and cultural homogeneity over multi-ethnic empires or federations. These efforts often drew inspiration from Enlightenment principles of self-determination and popular sovereignty, as seen in the successful breakaways from Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule in Latin America between 1808 and 1826. Creole elites, motivated by resentment toward metropolitan trade restrictions and administrative centralization, led wars that fragmented Spain's empire into independent republics such as Venezuela (1811), Argentina (1816), Chile (1818), and Mexico (1821). By 1825, nearly all Spanish colonies had seceded, with Portugal losing Brazil in 1822 under Emperor Pedro I, establishing a constitutional monarchy. These secessions were not purely ethnic nationalism but pragmatic responses to economic exploitation and political exclusion, though they invoked ideals of republican liberty to legitimize separation.[20] In Europe, the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830) exemplified romantic nationalism's role in secession from the Ottoman Empire. Greek revolutionaries, organized under the Filiki Eteria society founded in 1814, sought to revive classical Hellenic identity against Ottoman millet-based governance, which subordinated Christians through devshirme taxation and irregular warfare. The uprising began in March 1821 in the Peloponnese, attracting philhellenic support from Britain, France, and Russia, culminating in naval victories like Navarino (1827) and the London Protocol (1830) recognizing Greek sovereignty. Casualties exceeded 100,000, including massacres on both sides, but the conflict established Greece as the first modern nation-state born of Balkan nationalism, influencing subsequent ethnic irredentism.[21] The Belgian Revolution of 1830 further illustrated secession driven by cultural and confessional divides within artificial post-Napoleonic constructs. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands, formed in 1815 to buffer France, imposed Dutch Protestant dominance over French-speaking Catholic Walloons and Flemings, exacerbating grievances over underrepresentation (only 4 of 55 parliamentary seats for Belgians) and economic favoritism toward Amsterdam. Sparked by opera-inspired riots in Brussels on August 25, 1830, the revolt led to a provisional government's declaration of independence on October 4, 1830, and the National Congress's adoption of a liberal constitution. Dutch forces were repelled in the Ten Days' Campaign (1831), and the Treaty of London (1839 formalized Belgium's neutrality and secession, creating a bifurcated state along linguistic lines that prefigured modern federalism.[22] In the Americas, the Texas Revolution (1835–1836) represented Anglo-American settlers' secession from Mexico amid centralist reforms under President Santa Anna. Following Mexico's 1824 federal constitution's abolition in 1835, Texian colonists—many from the U.S. South, numbering about 30,000 amid 3,500 Mexicans—rebelled against abolition of slavery (which Mexico banned in 1829) and loss of local autonomy. The Consultation declared independence on November 7, 1835; delegates formalized the Republic of Texas on March 2, 1836, at Washington-on-the-Brazos. Decisive victory at San Jacinto on April 21, 1836, captured Santa Anna, securing de facto independence until U.S. annexation in 1845. This event highlighted transplantation of U.S. federalist nationalism into frontier contexts, prioritizing property rights including slavery.[23] The U.S. Confederate secession of 1860–1861 marked the century's most industrialized secession attempt, rooted in Southern states' defense of slavery as a constitutional right against perceived Northern aggression. South Carolina led with its ordinance on December 20, 1860, followed by Mississippi (January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10), Alabama (January 11), Georgia (January 19), Louisiana (January 26), and Texas (February 1), forming the Confederacy on February 8. Declarations explicitly cited threats to slavery, such as non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and Lincoln's election on an anti-expansion platform, with South Carolina's document stating the Union's purpose was "to form a more perfect union... to secure the blessings of liberty," now subverted by abolitionism. Economic divergence—cotton exports comprising 57% of U.S. total in 1860—reinforced a distinct Southern identity, though military defeat in 1865 nullified the effort, affirming federal supremacy over unilateral secession.[24][25]20th-Century Colonial Dissolutions
The dissolution of European colonial empires in the 20th century, accelerating after World War II, represented one of the largest waves of secessionist independence in history, with approximately 36 new states emerging in Asia and Africa between 1945 and 1960 alone.[26] This process dismantled holdings controlled by Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal, driven by indigenous nationalist movements, metropolitan exhaustion from wartime costs, and international norms favoring self-determination as articulated in the Atlantic Charter of 1941 and the United Nations Charter of 1945. While many transitions were negotiated, others involved prolonged armed conflicts, resulting in the creation of over 80 sovereign entities by 1980, fundamentally reshaping global territorial boundaries.[27] In Asia, early post-war secessions included the partition of British India on August 15, 1947, which separated the subcontinent into the independent dominions of India and Pakistan amid communal violence that displaced 14 million people and caused up to 2 million deaths.[28] Indonesia declared independence from Dutch rule on August 17, 1945, following Japanese occupation during the war, but faced a four-year revolutionary struggle until formal recognition in 1949, securing control over the world's fourth-most populous nation. French Indochina fragmented through conflict, with Vietnam achieving partition in 1954 after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, leading to North Vietnam's independence and eventual unification in 1975 after further war. These cases illustrated how colonial secessions often intertwined with ideological divides, including communism's appeal in anti-imperial struggles. African decolonization peaked in the 1950s and 1960s, with Ghana's independence from Britain on March 6, 1957, serving as a model for non-violent transition under Kwame Nkrumah. The year 1960, dubbed the "Year of Africa," saw 17 sub-Saharan states gain sovereignty, including Nigeria (October 1), Senegal (June 20), and Mali (September 22), primarily from French and British rule, as colonial powers conceded amid economic unviability and rising unrest.[29] Belgium's hasty withdrawal from the Congo on June 30, 1960, triggered immediate civil strife, underscoring the fragility of rapid secession without institutional preparation. Algeria's war of independence from France, lasting from 1954 to 1962 and costing over 1 million lives, exemplified violent dissolution, ending with the Evian Accords and the establishment of a sovereign state on July 5, 1962. The Portuguese empire persisted longest, resisting decolonization until the Carnation Revolution coup on April 25, 1974, which overthrew the authoritarian Estado Novo regime after 13 years of colonial wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau that mobilized 800,000 troops and resulted in about 10,000 Portuguese deaths.[30] This internal upheaval prompted unilateral declarations of independence: Guinea-Bissau on September 10, 1974; Mozambique on June 25, 1975; Angola on November 11, 1975; and Cape Verde on July 5, 1975. These late secessions often devolved into civil wars proxy-fought during the Cold War, highlighting how colonial dissolutions could exacerbate internal divisions rather than resolve them. By the decade's end, nearly all formal colonies had seceded, though legacies of arbitrary borders persisted in post-independence conflicts.Post-Cold War Developments
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 marked the beginning of widespread secession in post-Cold War Eastern Europe and Eurasia, with fifteen former republics achieving independence, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which had declared sovereignty earlier in 1990 and 1991 amid Gorbachev's perestroika reforms.[31] Similarly, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia fragmented starting in June 1991, when Slovenia and Croatia declared independence, followed by Macedonia in September 1991 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in March 1992, triggering ethnic conflicts that resulted in over 100,000 deaths and displaced millions before the Dayton Accords in 1995 stabilized Bosnia.[32][33] In contrast, Czechoslovakia underwent a peaceful "Velvet Divorce" effective January 1, 1993, splitting into the Czech Republic and Slovakia through mutual parliamentary agreement without violence or referendum, driven by economic disparities and nationalist sentiments post-Velvet Revolution.[34] Eritrea secured independence from Ethiopia on May 24, 1993, following a UN-supervised referendum from April 23-25, 1993, where 99.8% voted for secession after a 30-year war, though subsequent border disputes led to conflict in 1998-2000.[35] Later instances included East Timor's vote for independence from Indonesia in a 1999 UN referendum, with 78.5% favoring separation amid violence that killed over 1,000, leading to full sovereignty in 2002 under UN administration.[36] Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008, citing prior autonomy revocation and 1999 NATO intervention; as of 2024, it has recognition from 100 UN member states including the US and most EU countries, but lacks UN membership due to Russian and Chinese vetoes, with Serbia maintaining territorial claims.[37][38] South Sudan achieved independence on July 9, 2011, after a January 2011 referendum where 98.83% supported secession from Sudan, per the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, though civil war erupted soon after, causing over 400,000 deaths.[39][40] Contested movements persisted into the 2010s, such as Scotland's 2014 referendum rejecting independence from the UK by 55% to 45%, and Catalonia's unauthorized October 1, 2017, vote where 90% favored separation but turnout was 43%, leading to Spain's suspension of regional autonomy and arrests of leaders.[36] In Ukraine's Donbas region, pro-Russian separatists held referendums in May 2014 claiming 89-96% support for independence, establishing self-proclaimed republics backed by Russian military intervention, escalating into war after Russia's 2022 annexation claims, which lack broad international recognition beyond a few states aligned with Moscow.[41] These cases highlight varying degrees of international support, with successful secessions often tied to negotiated referendums or military outcomes rather than uniform legal criteria under international law.[42]Theoretical and Philosophical Dimensions
Core Theories of Secession
Theories of secession are broadly categorized into remedial right only approaches and primary right approaches. Remedial theories posit that secession is morally justified solely as a last-resort remedy for specific grave injustices inflicted by the parent state, such as massive violations of basic human rights, systematic discrimination that precludes effective self-government, or existential threats to a group's cultural or physical survival.[1] Philosopher Allen Buchanan, in his analysis, contends that these conditions create a limited unilateral right to secede, analogous to a right of revolution, but emphasizes that secession should not be permitted for lesser grievances or as a tool for conquest, as it risks destabilizing liberal democracies and international order.[43] Buchanan's framework, outlined in works like Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec (1991), prioritizes remedies short of secession, such as autonomy arrangements, and requires that the seceding entity demonstrate viability as an independent state without imposing undue burdens on the remainder. In contrast, primary right theories assert that certain groups possess an inherent moral entitlement to secede independent of prior wrongdoing by the parent state, provided secession meets threshold conditions like majority support within the territory and the resulting entities' capacity for self-governance.[1] These theories subdivide into ascriptivist variants, which ground the right in intrinsic group qualities such as national identity, and plebiscitary variants, which emphasize democratic choice over ascribed traits.[1] Philosopher Christopher Heath Wellman defends a primary right to political self-determination, arguing that voluntary political associations imply a corresponding right to disassociate, akin to divorce in personal relationships, as long as both the seceding group and the residual state remain viable polities capable of protecting individual rights.[44] Wellman's position, detailed in A Theory of Secession (2005), rejects nationality as a prerequisite, focusing instead on remedial thresholds only to exclude predatory or non-viable claims, though critics note this could incentivize frequent border revisions absent strong institutional safeguards.[45] National self-determination theories, often aligned with primary rights, further specify that groups constituting distinct nations—defined by shared culture, history, and mutual recognition—hold a presumptive claim to territorial sovereignty enabling self-rule.[46] David Miller argues that such claims justify secession when accommodation within the existing state, via federalism or devolution, proves infeasible, as national identity underpins democratic legitimacy and public goods provision; however, he cautions against secession that fragments shared national territories or violates minority rights within the seceding unit.[47] This perspective, rooted in Miller's On Nationality (1995) and subsequent essays, underscores causality between national cohesion and political stability but acknowledges empirical risks of escalation, as seen in historical Balkan conflicts where unchecked self-determination claims fueled violence.[48] Debates between remedial and primary theories persist, with remedial views gaining traction in policy circles for constraining fragmentation, while primary advocates highlight their alignment with individual autonomy and consent-based legitimacy.[49]Primary Justifications for Secession
Primary justifications for secession generally fall into two broad categories: remedial theories, which condition the right on prior injustices by the parent state, and primary right theories, which affirm a presumptive entitlement to separate absent such wrongs. Remedial theories, most prominently articulated by philosopher Allen Buchanan, argue that secession becomes justifiable only as a last-resort remedy for grave violations, such as systematic human rights abuses, territorial conquest through aggression, or the state's failure to safeguard minority protections after internal remedies like federalism or autonomy have been exhausted.[50][43] Buchanan emphasizes that this approach aligns with liberal principles by limiting secession to cases where the state has forfeited its legitimate authority, as seen in historical precedents like Bangladesh's 1971 secession from Pakistan amid genocide and mass atrocities documented by international reports estimating 300,000 to 3 million deaths.[51] This theory gains traction in international discourse because it prioritizes stability, permitting secession only when causal evidence of state failure—such as discriminatory policies or security breakdowns—renders continued union untenable, thereby avoiding incentives for opportunistic breakaways.[52] Primary right theories, in contrast, posit an inherent entitlement to secession for groups meeting certain criteria, independent of mistreatment, often grounded in national self-determination. Advocates like David Miller contend that nations—defined by shared culture, language, and historical narratives—possess a moral claim to sovereign self-rule, as subjection to an alien majority undermines their ability to democratically pursue collective goods like cultural preservation.[53] This justification draws from Wilsonian principles post-World War I, which facilitated the redrawing of European borders into nation-states, though empirical outcomes varied; for instance, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles created states like Czechoslovakia based on ethnic majorities, yet subsequent ethnic minorities (e.g., 3 million Germans in Sudetenland) fueled instability leading to Nazi revanchism.[54] Critics within academia note potential biases in defining "nations," as self-identification can mask irredentist claims, but proponents argue empirical data from stable multiethnic states like Switzerland show self-determination thrives when groups opt for separation to avoid assimilation pressures.[55] A subset of primary theories emphasizes plebiscitary democracy, where a clear majority vote in a defined territory—typically requiring supermajorities like 60-75% to ensure viability—legitimizes secession as an exercise of popular sovereignty. This view, defended by theorists like Wayne Norman, treats secession akin to democratic divorce, justifiable when a region's residents rationally prefer independence for better governance or resource control, as evidenced by Quebec's 1995 referendum where 49.4% supported separation amid economic grievances over federal transfers exceeding CAD 10 billion annually.[56] Empirical studies of post-colonial secessions, such as Eritrea's 1993 independence from Ethiopia following a 99% referendum approval, suggest this mechanism correlates with reduced internal conflict when paired with international mediation, though it risks minority entrapment without exit safeguards.[57] Associative theories further bolster this by framing secession as an extension of voluntary political association, where groups retain a right to exit compacts lacking perpetual consent, echoing Lockean contractarianism but constrained by viability thresholds like population size over 400,000 and resource self-sufficiency to prevent failed states.[43] These justifications collectively underscore causal links between mismatched governance and instability, prioritizing empirical remedies over abstract territorial integrity.Counterarguments and Critiques of Secession
Critics of secession emphasize the principle of territorial integrity as a cornerstone of international order, arguing that unilateral separation undermines the stability of established states without sufficient justification. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, a norm reinforced in declarations such as the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law, which prioritizes preserving existing borders over accommodating self-determination claims unless colonial contexts apply.[5] This stance reflects a causal understanding that altering borders through secession invites irredentism and chain reactions, as evidenced by the post-Yugoslav fragmentations that triggered conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo between 1992 and 1999, resulting in over 100,000 deaths and mass displacement. Philosophically, opponents contend there exists no general moral right to secede, as it disregards the collective interests and democratic decisions of the broader polity, treating political unions as dissolvable contracts rather than enduring frameworks for mutual security and prosperity. Political theorists like David Miller argue that secessionist claims often fail first-principles tests of fairness, since regional majorities may impose losses on national minorities or non-secessionist majorities within the seceding territory, violating egalitarian principles without remedial necessity such as genocide or systemic oppression.[12] In remedial theories, even proponents like Allen Buchanan limit secession to extreme cases of injustice, critiquing blanket entitlements as destabilizing incentives that encourage opportunistic breakaways rather than internal reforms.[58] Empirically, secession frequently correlates with adverse economic and social outcomes, including reduced per capita GDP and heightened instability, due to disrupted trade networks, loss of fiscal transfers, and the costs of establishing new institutions. A panel analysis of countries from 1960 to 2010 found that newly independent states experience an average 10-15% drop in GDP per capita in the first decade post-secession, attributable to border closures, capital flight, and inefficient scaling of public goods like defense and infrastructure.[59] Cases like South Sudan's 2011 independence from Sudan illustrate this: despite oil resources, civil war erupted in 2013, leading to over 400,000 deaths and economic contraction of 13.8% in 2017 alone, as ethnic divisions and weak governance supplanted any gains from separation.[60] Similarly, post-1991 Soviet republics saw uneven growth, with smaller entities like Moldova and Armenia lagging behind Russia in GDP per capita by factors of 2-3 through 2020, underscoring interdependence's role in causal chains of prosperity.[61] Further critiques highlight the risk of perpetual fragmentation and minority entrapment, where successful secessions spawn sub-secessions, eroding viable state sizes below thresholds for effective governance—typically around 2-5 million people for basic economies of scale, per models from Alesina and Spolaore.[62] In diverse polities, new entities often replicate or exacerbate ethnic conflicts, as in Biafra's 1967-1970 secession attempt from Nigeria, which ended in 1-3 million deaths from warfare and famine without achieving viability.[63] These patterns suggest secession's causal efficacy is overstated by advocates, who underweight selection biases in successful cases like Singapore's 1965 exit from Malaysia, enabled by exceptional geography and pre-existing wealth rather than separation per se.[64]Legal and Normative Frameworks
Domestic Constitutional Perspectives
Domestic constitutional perspectives on secession predominantly emphasize the preservation of territorial integrity and the indissoluble nature of the state, with most national constitutions either explicitly prohibiting unilateral secession or interpreting silence as precluding it.[65] In federal systems, courts have reinforced this by ruling that subunits lack inherent rights to secede without mutual consent, viewing the union as a perpetual compact formed through ratification or foundational acts.[66] This approach prioritizes stability and the rule of law over remedial claims by regions, though some jurisdictions permit negotiated separation following clear democratic expressions like referendums.[67] In the United States, the Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869) held that the Union is "indestructible" and "perpetual," rendering unilateral secession by states unconstitutional absent consent from other states or revolutionary upheaval altering the constitutional framework.[66] The decision interpreted the Constitution's structure—ratified as a compact among states—as binding them irrevocably, with secession ordinances like Texas's 1861 declaration deemed nullities that did not sever ties.[68] This ruling, arising from a dispute over Civil War-era bonds, has endured as precedent, underscoring that domestic law treats secession as a breach of federal obligations rather than a valid exercise of state sovereignty.[69] Canada's Supreme Court addressed secession in the Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998), ruling that unilateral declaration by Quebec would violate Canadian constitutional principles, including federalism, democracy, and the rule of law, as no provision in the Constitution Act, 1867, or subsequent amendments grants such a right.[67] However, the Court acknowledged that a clear majority on a clear question in a referendum could trigger a constitutional duty for the rest of Canada to negotiate terms, balancing self-determination claims against indivisibility without endorsing extraconstitutional remedies.[70] This nuanced stance influenced the Clarity Act (2000), which sets federal standards for referendum validity but reaffirms that amendments require provincial consent under the amending formula.[67] Spain's 1978 Constitution explicitly bases the state on the "indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation," recognizing regional autonomies but subordinating them to national integrity in Article 2, which courts have invoked to invalidate secessionist actions like Catalonia's 2017 declaration.[71] The Constitutional Court has ruled that such unity precludes any right to self-determination entailing territorial dismemberment, treating secession bids as assaults on the constitutional order enforceable by judicial and coercive measures.[72] In the United Kingdom, lacking a codified constitution, parliamentary sovereignty governs, with statutes like the Scotland Act 1998 declaring the Scottish Parliament a "permanent" institution within the UK but granting no competence for independence referendums without Westminster's authorization.[73] The UK Supreme Court in 2022 unanimously held that Holyrood lacks power to legislate for an advisory independence vote, as it relates to reserved matters of the Union, reinforcing that secession requires legislative consent rather than unilateral regional action.[74] This reflects a convention-based system where devolution is revocable, prioritizing the indivisibility of the sovereign Parliament over subunit claims.[75] Explicit constitutional allowances for secession remain exceptional; Ethiopia's 1995 Constitution permits ethnic regions to secede via referendum, but implementation has been limited, and most federations opt for prohibitions to deter fragmentation.[65] These perspectives underscore a causal emphasis on constitutional design as a bulwark against dissolution, with empirical outcomes showing that permissive ambiguity invites conflict while strictures promote negotiated resolutions or suppression of irredentist movements.[76]International Law on Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity
The principle of self-determination in international law originates from the United Nations Charter, where Article 1(2) identifies it as a foundational purpose for developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. This right has been interpreted primarily as an internal entitlement to democratic governance and participation within existing states, rather than a license for unilateral secession by subnational groups.[5] In contrast, Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, establishing a norm that prioritizes state sovereignty and border stability to prevent chaos from cascading fragmentations.[77] The 1970 UN General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law further reconciles these by affirming that self-determination must not impair the territorial integrity of states whose governments represent all peoples without distinction. For the dissolution of a union formed by previously sovereign states, such as the unification of North and South Yemen in 1990, the strongest framework under international law is dissolution by mutual consent through peaceful agreement between the parties; unilateral dissolution remains difficult due to Article 2(4)'s emphasis on territorial integrity, with alternatives including a negotiated referendum under UN supervision or invocation of a fundamental change of circumstances pursuant to Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, though unilateral attempts risk international isolation, as illustrated by South Yemen's failed 1994 secession bid that precipitated civil war and garnered no significant recognition.[78][79] International jurisprudence, particularly from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), reinforces that external self-determination—potentially leading to secession—is exceptional and largely confined to decolonization contexts. In the 1975 Western Sahara advisory opinion, the ICJ recognized self-determination for colonial peoples but tied it to free choice via informed consent, not automatic separation from metropolitan powers. Similarly, the 1995 East Timor case affirmed Portugal's responsibility to ensure the Timorese people's self-determination, underscoring its application to overseas territories rather than integral state provinces. For non-colonial settings, the ICJ has consistently upheld territorial integrity; in the 1986 Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, it invoked the principle of uti possidetis juris to preserve colonial-era borders post-independence, preventing self-determination claims from destabilizing frontiers. The doctrine of remedial secession is a proposed exception to the general prohibition on unilateral secession, suggested by some legal scholars (e.g., in the Supreme Court of Canada's Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998), para. 138), allowing it if a people faces severe, systematic human rights violations and has exhausted internal remedies.[80] It remains theoretically debated but lacks firm grounding as customary international law. Proponents cite historical anomalies like Bangladesh's 1971 separation from Pakistan amid genocide allegations, facilitated by Indian intervention, yet this was not endorsed as a legal entitlement but tolerated ex post facto due to geopolitical realities.[5] The ICJ's 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence ruled that no specific international rule prohibits such declarations, nor did it violate resolutions on Serbia's territorial integrity, but the Court explicitly avoided endorsing a general right to secession or remedial separation, emphasizing instead the absence of prohibition rather than affirmative legality.[81] Critics of remedial secession argue it undermines the peremptory norm of territorial integrity, potentially incentivizing irredentism, with empirical evidence showing that successful secessions (e.g., Eritrea in 1993 after referendum) typically involve negotiated consent or overwhelming force rather than pure legal entitlement.[51] In practice, international recognition of post-secession states hinges on political consensus rather than strict adherence to self-determination norms overriding integrity, as seen in the limited memberships of entities like Kosovo (recognized by 100+ states as of 2023 but not UN-admitted) or Somaliland (unrecognized despite stability).[82] While self-determination is a jus cogens norm, its external exercise remains subordinate to territorial integrity outside decolonization, reflecting a realist balance favoring state preservation to avert global disorder, with violations often resolved through diplomacy or Security Council action rather than legal secession rights.[4] This framework has constrained secessionist movements, privileging internal autonomy arrangements (e.g., federalism or minority protections) as the primary fulfillment of self-determination.[5]Criteria for State Recognition Post-Secession
The primary criteria for an entity emerging from secession to be recognized as a sovereign state under international law are outlined in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), which specifies four essential elements of statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government capable of maintaining effective control, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.[83] These factual criteria reflect a declaratory approach, wherein statehood arises objectively upon fulfillment of these conditions, independent of external validation, as affirmed in customary international practice.[84] Post-secession, effective governmental control over the territory becomes particularly stringent, as contested claims from the parent state often undermine this requirement unless the seceding entity demonstrates sustained administrative authority, as seen in cases where provisional administrations fail to consolidate power.[85] While the Montevideo criteria establish the baseline for state existence, formal recognition by other states remains a discretionary political act, often influenced by geopolitical interests rather than strict legal obligation, contrasting with constitutive theories that posit recognition as conferring legal personality.[86] In practice, widespread bilateral recognitions signal legitimacy, enabling diplomatic ties and economic engagement, but partial recognition—as with Kosovo, acknowledged by 101 UN members as of 2023 but not by Serbia or Russia—limits full sovereignty, highlighting how secession's unilateral nature can provoke non-recognition on grounds of territorial integrity violations under UN Charter Article 2(4).[87] Entities failing Montevideo standards, such as those lacking defined borders amid ongoing conflict, rarely achieve even de facto recognition, as international actors prioritize stability over abstract self-determination claims. Admission to the United Nations serves as a proxy for collective recognition, requiring an applicant to first qualify as a state under the above criteria, demonstrate peace-loving intentions, accept Charter obligations, and secure Security Council recommendation (including no veto) followed by General Assembly approval by two-thirds majority.[88] Post-secession examples include South Sudan, which met these thresholds after its 2011 referendum and independence from Sudan, gaining UN membership on July 14, 2011, after 99 of 193 members recognized it within months.[89] Conversely, entities like Somaliland, despite controlling territory since 1991 and fulfilling de facto governance, remain unrecognized due to insufficient international support and prioritization of Somalia's unity, illustrating that UN processes amplify political hurdles beyond empirical statehood.[90] Recognition criteria thus blend legal empirics with realist assessments of viability, where secessions involving violence or ethnic cleansing face heightened scrutiny, as non-recognition can perpetuate isolation and internal fragility.Types and Mechanisms of Secession
Peaceful Negotiated Processes
Peaceful negotiated processes in secession involve bilateral diplomatic agreements between the seceding territory and the parent state, often formalized through treaties, parliamentary resolutions, or constitutional mechanisms, with provisions for asset division, debt allocation, citizenship determination, and border delineation, all conducted without armed conflict.[1] These processes typically require elite consensus among political leaders, public referendums to gauge support, and mutual recognition to ensure stability, distinguishing them from unilateral declarations or coercive separations. Such outcomes are rare, as they demand low escalation risks, economic interdependence incentives for compromise, and external non-interference, enabling the parent state to concede without perceived existential threat.[91] A prominent historical case is the 1905 dissolution of the personal union between Norway and Sweden. Established in 1814 after the Napoleonic Wars, the union frayed over Norwegian demands for a separate consular service and greater autonomy. On June 7, 1905, the Norwegian Storting (parliament) unilaterally declared the union dissolved, citing Sweden's failure to ratify a consular treaty, but tensions de-escalated through arbitration. A Norwegian referendum on August 13, 1905, approved independence with 368,208 votes in favor and only 184 against, reflecting near-unanimous domestic support. Negotiations at the Karlstad Convention from August to September 1905 addressed demilitarization of border forts, trade continuity, and extraterritorial rights, culminating in Sweden's formal recognition of Norwegian sovereignty on October 26, 1905. Prince Carl of Denmark ascended as King Haakon VII on November 18, 1905, marking the transition without violence, attributed to Sweden's military superiority deterring aggression and shared Scandinavian cultural ties facilitating compromise.[92][93] The 1993 Velvet Divorce of Czechoslovakia provides another example of negotiated partition. Formed in 1918 from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the federation faced ethnic and economic divides post-1989 Velvet Revolution, with Slovak leaders under Vladimír Mečiar seeking greater autonomy amid fears of Czech dominance. Federal assembly elections in June 1992 yielded stalemated results, prompting Czech Premier Václav Klaus and Mečiar to negotiate a split outside public referendums, which polls showed opposed dissolution (e.g., only 37% Slovak support in November 1992 surveys). The agreement divided the state effective January 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, apportioning federal assets (e.g., gold reserves split 2:1 favoring Czechs) and debts proportionally by population, with dual citizenship offered initially. Military equipment was divided 2:1, and the Czech koruna became the Czech currency while Slovakia adopted its own. The process remained bloodless, with GDP continuity and EU accession paths preserved, though long-term critiques note elite-driven decisions overrode public preference, enabling rapid stabilization but forgoing deeper federal reforms.[34][94] Singapore's separation from Malaysia on August 9, 1965, exemplifies expulsion framed as negotiated independence. Merged in 1963 to counter communism, frictions arose over racial policies, economic control, and PAP influence in Malaysian politics, culminating in Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's decision to expel Singapore to avert riots after 1964 race clashes. Secret talks from June to August 1965 outlined terms, including water supply agreements from Malaysia and tariff-free trade, formalized in the 1965 Separation Agreement. No violence ensued, with Singapore's leadership under Lee Kuan Yew reluctantly accepting sovereignty; Malaysian parliament ratified the act unanimously on August 9, and the UN admitted Singapore on September 21, 1965. Economic provisions ensured continuity, though initial vulnerabilities spurred Singapore's rapid industrialization. This case highlights how parental state initiative can yield peaceful outcomes when ideological incompatibilities outweigh unity benefits.[95][96] These cases demonstrate that successful peaceful negotiations hinge on pragmatic elite bargaining, verifiable public mandates where feasible, and post-separation safeguards like economic pacts, reducing incentives for reversal. However, they often bypass broad plebiscites, prioritizing stability over democratic purity, and succeed in contexts of symmetric power or external pressures favoring de-escalation rather than dominance.[97]Unilateral and Remedial Secessions
Unilateral secession occurs when a region or group declares independence from a parent state without its consent, often leading to disputes over legitimacy and territorial integrity. This mechanism contrasts with consensual processes by bypassing negotiation, frequently resulting in military conflict or diplomatic isolation. Historical instances include the Confederate States of America's secession from the United States in 1861, which precipitated the American Civil War, and Catalonia's 2017 declaration, invalidated by Spain's Constitutional Court. Such actions challenge the principle of state sovereignty, as articulated in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prioritizes territorial integrity.[1][98] Remedial secession theory posits unilateral secession as a justified remedy for severe, irremediable injustices by the parent state, such as systematic human rights violations, ethnic cleansing, or denial of internal self-determination. Proponents argue it serves as a last resort when minority protections fail and negotiation is futile, drawing from just war analogies where secession rectifies grave harms. However, the doctrine lacks firm grounding in international law, with critics noting its theoretical weaknesses and potential to destabilize states by encouraging opportunistic claims. Scholarly analysis highlights that while remedial secession invokes self-determination under UN instruments like the 1970 Declaration, it remains contested and non-customary.[51][99] Prominent examples include Bangladesh's 1971 secession from Pakistan, triggered by Operation Searchlight—a military crackdown killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions—culminating in Indian intervention and Pakistani surrender on December 16, 1971. Kosovo's parliament declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008, following NATO's 1999 intervention against Yugoslav forces amid ethnic Albanian persecution, leading to UN administration under Resolution 1244; over 100 states have recognized it, though Serbia and allies like Russia contest its validity. East Timor's path involved a 1999 UN-supervised referendum yielding 78.5% independence votes, preceded by Indonesian occupation atrocities since 1975, enabling eventual secession in 2002. These cases illustrate remedial arguments but underscore variable international responses, with recognition often geopolitical rather than norm-driven.[100][101][102]Violent or Coercive Secessions
Violent or coercive secessions involve attempts to achieve territorial separation through armed conflict, civil war, or military coercion, often escalating from political disputes over autonomy or grievances like ethnic discrimination or resource control. These processes typically arise in states with deep internal divisions, where unilateral declarations of independence provoke military responses from central authorities. Empirical analyses indicate that such secessions are more prevalent in non-democracies, with 61% of movements there turning violent compared to 42% in democracies, reflecting weaker institutional channels for negotiation.[103] Success remains rare without external intervention, as central governments leverage superior resources to suppress rebellions, though victories can establish new states amid high human and economic costs.[104] The American Civil War (1861–1865) exemplifies a failed coercive secession, where eleven Southern states declared independence to form the Confederate States of America, primarily to preserve slavery amid fears of federal abolition following Abraham Lincoln's election. South Carolina seceded first on December 20, 1860, triggering a chain reaction and the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, which ignited the war. The Union prevailed after four years of conflict, resulting in approximately 620,000–750,000 deaths and the reintegration of the seceding states without independence.[105] This outcome underscored the challenges of secession in federal systems with strong national militaries, where economic blockades and total war tactics coerced submission. In Nigeria, the Biafran War (1967–1970) represented another unsuccessful violent secession, driven by Igbo ethnic fears of marginalization after pogroms and military coups. On May 30, 1967, the Eastern Region declared the Republic of Biafra, prompting federal forces to launch offensives that encircled the enclave. The conflict caused 1–3 million deaths, largely from starvation due to blockades, and ended with Biafra's surrender on January 15, 1970, without international recognition or territorial gains.[106] The failure highlighted how resource asymmetries and limited foreign support can doom insurgent efforts, leading to humanitarian crises rather than viable statehood.[107] Conversely, the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 achieved coercive secession through violence bolstered by external aid. East Pakistan declared independence on March 26, 1971, after West Pakistani forces initiated Operation Searchlight, killing thousands in targeted suppressions. Mukti Bahini guerrillas, supported by India, fought Pakistani troops until Indian intervention in December 1971 decisively defeated them, with Pakistan surrendering on December 16 and recognizing Bangladesh. Estimates place deaths at 300,000–3 million, including widespread atrocities, but the war birthed a sovereign nation of over 70 million.[108] This case illustrates how alliances with regional powers can tip balances in asymmetric conflicts, enabling secession despite initial military disadvantages.[109] The Yugoslav Wars (1991–1999) involved multiple coercive secessions amid the federation's collapse, with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later Kosovo pursuing independence through armed struggle against Serb-dominated forces. Croatia's 1991 declaration sparked clashes, including the siege of Vukovar, while Bosnia's 1992 referendum led to ethnic cleansing and the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, killing over 8,000 Bosniak men. NATO's 1999 bombing campaign facilitated Kosovo's de facto separation from Serbia. Overall, the conflicts claimed about 140,000 lives and displaced millions, resulting in new states but entrenched divisions and war crimes prosecutions.[33] These wars demonstrate how ethnic federalism can fracture violently, with coercion succeeding piecemeal via international military pressure rather than unilateral rebel strength.[32] Quantitative reviews of secessionist outcomes reveal that violent paths yield independence in roughly 20–30% of cases post-1945, often at the expense of prolonged instability and economic disruption, as seen in post-war reconstructions requiring billions in aid.[104] Coercive methods exacerbate civilian suffering through blockades, sieges, and reprisals, frequently prolonging conflicts beyond initial military phases and complicating post-secession governance due to weakened institutions and refugee flows.[60] While enabling separation in oppressed peripheries, they rarely resolve underlying grievances without subsequent interventions, underscoring the causal link between violence and heightened risks of state failure in new entities.[103]Empirical Analysis of Outcomes
Metrics of Success in Historical Secessions
Success in historical secessions is typically evaluated through empirical metrics that gauge the establishment and sustainability of the new entity as a sovereign state, rather than mere initial separation from the parent polity. Key indicators include the duration of independent statehood without reabsorption or collapse, the extent of international diplomatic recognition, economic performance relative to pre-secession baselines or comparable entities, and sociopolitical stability marked by the absence of renewed internal conflict or authoritarian backsliding. These metrics reveal that while a minority of secessions—fewer than 20% of post-1945 attempts—achieve enduring viability, success correlates strongly with peaceful processes, pre-existing institutional capacity, and external support, rather than inherent ideological or cultural factors alone.[104][110] State survival and longevity serve as foundational metrics, with successful cases maintaining territorial control and functional governance for at least two decades post-independence. For instance, Norway's 1905 secession from Sweden endured without reversal, evolving into a stable constitutional monarchy with uninterrupted sovereignty. Similarly, the Baltic states' 1991 declarations from the Soviet Union persisted through economic transitions, achieving over 30 years of independence by 2025. In contrast, short-lived entities like Biafra (1967–1970) fail this threshold due to military defeat and reintegration. Empirical analyses indicate that survival rates for non-decolonization secessions hover around 16% when opposed by the parent state, rising to near 77% in legally permitted contexts like decolonization, underscoring the causal role of minimal violence and mutual consent in longevity.[6][111] International recognition, often proxied by United Nations membership, measures de facto sovereignty and access to global institutions. Fully recognized secessions, such as East Timor's 2002 independence from Indonesia following a UN-supervised referendum, secure broad diplomatic ties and aid flows, enabling integration into international trade and security frameworks. By 2025, entities like Kosovo (declared 2008) hold partial recognition from over 100 states but lack UN status due to vetoes, limiting economic partnerships and exposing vulnerabilities. Studies attribute recognition's value to its facilitation of foreign investment and deterrence of aggression, though it does not guarantee internal cohesion; unrecognized or frozen conflicts, like Transnistria since 1990, exhibit stalled development despite de facto control.[112][113] Economic outcomes provide quantifiable assessments of viability, with GDP per capita growth, trade volumes, and fiscal self-sufficiency as core indicators. Peaceful secessions like Singapore's 1965 exit from Malaysia yielded rapid industrialization, elevating GDP per capita from approximately $500 in 1965 to over $80,000 by 2023 (constant dollars), driven by entrepôt advantages and policy autonomy. The Czech-Slovak "Velvet Divorce" of 1993 showed divergent paths: Czechia's GDP per capita (PPP) grew 150% by 2022, outpacing Slovakia's 120% gain, yet both exceeded pre-split forecasts absent conflict. Violent cases, however, often incur lasting costs; Bangladesh's 1971 war with Pakistan initially halved GDP growth rates, with recovery delayed until the 1990s amid partition-induced disruptions. Aggregate reviews find no systematic "independence dividend," with non-conflictual splits neutral at best and warfare reducing long-term growth by 1–2% annually due to capital flight and infrastructure loss.[114][61][115]| Secession Case | Year | Longevity (Years to 2025) | UN Recognition | GDP per Capita Change (Post vs. Pre, Approx. %) | Stability Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norway from Sweden | 1905 | 120 | Yes (1919) | +500% (1905–1920 baseline) | Democratic consolidation; no civil war |
| Singapore from Malaysia | 1965 | 60 | Yes (immediate) | +15,000% (1965–2023) | High stability; authoritarian efficiency |
| Czechia/Slovakia split | 1993 | 32 | Yes (both) | +150%/120% (1993–2022 PPP) | Peaceful; EU integration aided recovery |
| Eritrea from Ethiopia | 1993 | 32 | Yes (1993) | Stagnant (~0% net 1993–2023) | Border war resumption; isolation |
| South Sudan from Sudan | 2011 | 14 | Yes (2011) | -50% decline (2011–2023 est.) | Civil war; humanitarian crisis |
Case Studies of Failed or Suppressed Secessions
Republic of Biafra (1967–1970)The Republic of Biafra declared independence from Nigeria on May 30, 1967, led by Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, following anti-Igbo pogroms in the Northern Region that killed 30,000 Igbos after the January 1966 coup and subsequent counter-coup.[106] [117] The secession stemmed from ethnic tensions exacerbated by Nigeria's federal structure, perceived Igbo marginalization, and failures in equitable resource distribution.[106] War erupted on July 6, 1967, when Nigerian federal forces advanced into Biafran territory; Biafra relied on guerrilla tactics and oil revenues but faced a naval and air blockade that induced widespread famine.[106] [118] Federal forces, numbering over 250,000 by 1969, captured key Biafran cities including Port Harcourt in May 1968 and Owerri in December 1969, eroding Biafran supply lines.[106] The blockade caused 1 to 3 million deaths, predominantly Biafran civilians from starvation and disease, with daily mortality reaching 3,000 to 5,000 in peak periods.[118] [119] [120] Biafra received limited international aid but no formal recognition beyond Tanzania, Côte d'Ivoire, Zambia, and Gabon; diplomatic efforts failed amid Nigerian insistence on unity.[106] Ojukwu fled to Côte d'Ivoire on January 11, 1970, and Biafra surrendered on January 15, 1970, leading to reintegration under General Yakubu Gowon's "no victor, no vanquished" policy, which granted amnesty but did not resolve underlying ethnic grievances.[106] [121] State of Katanga (1960–1963)
Katanga Province seceded from the newly independent Democratic Republic of the Congo on July 11, 1960, days after Congo's independence from Belgium on June 30, under President Moïse Tshombe, motivated by the province's vast mineral wealth—producing 70% of Congo's copper and other resources—and fears of central government instability under Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Belgian paratroopers and mining companies like Union Minière du Haut-Katanga provided military and financial support to safeguard economic interests, deploying mercenaries and advisors. The United Nations deployed 10,000 peacekeepers by August 1960 to stabilize Congo, but its mandate expanded after Lumumba's murder on January 17, 1961, leading to operations against Katangese forces. [122] UN forces faced resistance in battles like the Siege of Jadotville in September 1961, where Irish UN troops were overwhelmed by Katangese and mercenary units. Operation Grandslam from December 1962 to January 1963 involved UN air strikes and ground advances that captured Elisabethville (now Lubumbashi), forcing Tshombe to negotiate reintegration on January 14, 1963; he fled in June 1963 after refusing full compliance. Casualties were relatively low in Katanga-specific fighting—dozens per engagement, such as 30 Katangese killed in a September 1961 UN assault—but contributed to the broader Congo Crisis death toll exceeding 100,000.[123] The suppression reinforced central authority, paving the way for Joseph Mobutu's 1965 coup, though it highlighted foreign intervention's role in prolonging African post-colonial conflicts. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (1991–2009)
The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria declared independence from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic on November 1, 1991, under Dzhokhar Dudayev, capitalizing on the Soviet Union's dissolution and local grievances over Russification and resource exploitation.[124] The First Chechen War (December 1994–August 1996) ended in a Khasavyurt ceasefire granting de facto autonomy, but instability from kidnappings and Islamist incursions persisted.[125] Tensions escalated with Shamil Basayev's August 1999 invasion of Dagestan and apartment bombings in Russia, prompting the Second Chechen War from October 1999.[124] Russian forces, totaling around 110,000 (80,000 Ministry of Defense and 30,000 Interior Ministry troops), encircled and captured Grozny by February 6, 2000, after a three-week assault starting January 17, 2000.[124] Chechen fighters, estimated at 25,000–30,000 regulars and 20,000–30,000 guerrillas, retreated to southern mountains, sustaining insurgency through terrorist attacks, but Russian counterinsurgency—installing Ramzan Kadyrov as pro-Moscow leader—suppressed organized resistance by 2009, when Russia declared the conflict over.[124] [125] Casualties included 2,100–15,000 Russian military, 1,100–10,000 Chechen fighters, and up to 45,000 civilians in the war's initial phase, with total deaths exceeding 100,000 across both wars from combat, atrocities, and displacement of over 500,000.[124] The failure stemmed from Russia's superior firepower, internal Chechen divisions between nationalists and jihadists, and lack of international recognition, reducing Ichkeria to nominal exile governments.[124]