The Absence of Any Right to 'Remedial Secession' in International Law

Abstract

The theory of remedial secession puts forward the idea of an opinio that considers it licit to exercise external self-determination in contexts of oppression and grave violations of human rights. This view would be supported by just a few cases in international practice. For the most part, the international community has been reluctant to recognize it, even though only Bangladesh and Kosovo came to secede in accordance with its precepts. Indeed, even the Kosovo case raises doubts about whether it should be seen as a remedial secession. In view of these facts, it becomes necessary to note the deep-rooted and unquestionable existence of just such an opinio juris. This requires the argumentation advanced by new entities in justifying secession to fall in line with the theory, rather than that the result achieved should match a claimed emerging right to remedial secession. In neither of the two instances did the new entities allude to exercising a right to remedial secession. International practice would appear to show that States are not convinced that such a right should be recognized.