A state is an independent political society which has a defined territorial area over which it exercises supreme authority as the sovereign. The nurturing of such sovereignty is the function of its constituent wings of government and state machinery established by law purposely for the preservation of the state. It is therefore unthinkable that part of it should be granted the right to secede. Its continuous existence is founded upon international recognition of it as sovereign, and independent and external aggression and secessionist tendencies are not acceptable. Its defence institutions have a primary duty to defend it by all means if necessary in the event of an external aggression or secession. The recognition of a state’s sovereignty is established in terms of peremptory norm or ius cojens and no international or external machinations or interest can lawfully trigger or support a break away of a constituent part of it. We are not at a point of a race to the bottom where tribes, regions, cultural or political differences can be grounds for secession in a sovereign state. It is thus imperative to sound a caveat against what is happening in Ukraine lest it turns out to be a forerunner of similar calls for secession in different parts of the world.
"No" is the answer. This precedes from Declarations of Friendly Relations which focuses on territorial integrity and political independence. Even in case of favorable voting for seceding from the federation it is not permitted until other states in a federation fully agree to it. This is the Canadian decision in re cubec. I think the internal legality is based on the Constitution of a particular country. If Constitution of the country and the constitutional practice of the country permits, it could be legitimized and otherwise it is not.
No.....As I understand the definition of sovereignty, it is conceptually illogical to speak of parts, because sovereignity entails unity. The kind of case you suggest would lead to a contradiction, i.e., sovereign power being used to undermine soveignity. The use of the language of rights, as in a right to secede in the scenario you suggest, is especially incogruent with the meaning of sovereignity. In a confederation, sovereignity and the right to secede remain with each constituent of the confederation. Gandhi Manimuthu's example of Quebec is a good example of leaving a federation in which constitutional provisions providing for such a process were in place.
I wrote an essay in the supplement to my book Human Rights, What Are They Really? It is called Disintegration of States. A pdf copy of the book is offered free until the end of the year at web site www.truehumanrights.com The essay does not take the statist approach that is evident in the above answers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science