Sovereignty and self-determination

Legal scholars have written extensively on the right to secede, explaining if and when such a right should exist. Most legal arguments for the right to secession are based on the right to self-determination. President Woodrow Wilson first raised the international profile of self-determination when he included it in his Fourteen Points in 1916, stating “every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they will live”. The right to self-determination then found expression in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and both of the most fundamental human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Article 1 of both of these human rights treaties provides that the right to self-determination is the right of a “people to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. Although this right is codified, its articulation has created some ambiguity. Not only is it unclear who possesses this right, but there is also some debate over what this right entails. The right to self-determination vests in “a people”, which has been left undefined in international law, leading to questions over what constitutes “a people.” The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has provided a list of attributes that a group should fulfill all or some of to constitute a “people”. These include: a common historical tradition; racial or ethnic identity; cultural homogeneity; linguistic unity; religious or ideological affinity; territorial connection; and common economic life. Traditionally a two-part test has been applied. The first part is objective and looks to the attributes listed above. The second part is subjective and examines “the extent to which individuals within the group self-consciously perceive themselves collectively as a distinct ‘people’”. The second point of contestation is whether it is appropriate to conflate the right to self-determination with the right to secession. Given the status of territorial integrity among international norms, secession is viewed with some wariness. “If each group within a state can claim the right to self-determination and succeed, self-destruction of virtually every state could result” (Roman 1999).

A number of scholars have attempted to clarify this area by distinguishing between internal and external self-determination. Internal self-determination refers to the protection of a people within a state through some level of autonomy and self-government. If a group can freely determine its political status and freely pursue its economic, social, and cultural development within the state, its right to self-determination will be deemed to have been met. The right to internal self-determination applies to all peoples and is not particularly controversial. External self-determination, on the other hand, is essentially secession. To the extent that a right to external self-determination is said to exist, it is a right to what is known as “remedial secession,” meaning that the right exists only to overcome an ongoing injustice. The home state must be violating the human rights of the group seeking secession for this remedial right to exist. The extent of these human rights violations varies depending on the scholar. According to Birtch (1984), if a “peoples’” internal right to self-determination is not met, that right will evolve into a right to external self-determination. According to Chandhoke (2012), the threshold is “irrevocable institutionalized injustice,” while for Buchanan (1997), the violations must be such that they pose an existential threat to the group seeking secession.

DRIVERS FOR SECESSION

Why do secessionist movements emerge? Secessionist movements often engage in deadly civil wars and ultimately risk everything to become a recognized state. What motivates movements to take such drastic actions? There are two aspects to this motivation, the “pull” factor and the “push” factor. The pull factor relates to the attractive benefits of statehood in the international system today, while the push factor relates to the specific domestic experiences of groups that lead them to want “out”.

The “Pull” Factor

There are a number of general benefits to statehood that new states stand to gain in terms of economics, politics, and security.The economic benefits of statehood take a variety of forms. First, only states have access to international financial institutions. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides a financial safety net for economically weak new states. New states have access to foreign aid through institutions, as well as individual or multilateral donors. In the case of East Timor, this aid comprised nearly 2% of GDP. Both Bangladesh and Eritrea quickly received millions of US dollars after they achieved independence. Finally, statehood status provides for easier access to foreign markets and investors. South Sudan, having achieved statehood, has become a more attractive environment for international investors, particularly in the oil sector. Unrecognized states have difficulty securing foreign direct investment, which is “typically conditional upon guarantees of insurance and arbitration”.

States also have greater access to political organizations. As a member of the United Nations, states have the opportunity to sit on the Security Council and through the rotating presidency, even weak states have the opportunity to play a role in agenda setting. All members of the UN have a voice through the voting system in the General Assembly. The same applies with respect to regional organizations like the European Union or the African Union.

Finally, there are important benefits of statehood that relate to security. The UN Charter protects states from the aggression of other states. Article 2(4) provides that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threator use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” For states that have achieved de facto status, but have not achieved international recognition, there is a constant threat that they could be reincorporated into the host state. To reap the benefits described above, the only necessary criterion is international recognition. If the international community grants a state recognition, that state will have access to international financial institutions, intergovernmental political organizations, and ultimately will enjoy the protections of the norm of non-intervention.

The “Push” Factor

Push factors generally relate to a group’s political and economic grievances, and attributes of the political structure and demography of a state. Scholars who address political grievances tend to focus on access to political representation and decision-making. Secessionist movements are more likely to emerge when particular ethnic groups are excluded from the political process. In terms of economic grievances, some scholars argue that secessionist movements are more likely when ethnic groups feel economically deprived. Others suggest that secessionism is more likely when an ethnic group is relatively wealthier, and carries a disproportionate share of the economic cost of maintaining the state. Others look to ethnic demography and its relationship with the political-administrative structure of the state. Secessionist movements are more likely to emerge in ethnically concentrated federal states. If a minority is territorially concentrated, it is more likely than a spatially dispersed one to form a secessionist movement. If the government sponsors migration programs that dilute an ethnically concentrated area, particularly if they are combined with policies that favor the newcomers over current residents, the likelihood of secessionist sentiment is greater.