It is increasingly often suggested in literature that a right to unilateral secession, stemming from the right to self-determination of peoples, may arise in case of serious injustices suffered by a people. In those extreme circumstances, an alleged right to unilateral secession operates as an ultimum remedium. While such a right to remedial secession may well be morally desirable, the question is to what extent it has actually emerged under contemporary international law. The right to self-determination of peoples is generally considered to be one of the most fundamental norms in international law. Outside the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination is a continuous right, which is to be exercised primarily within the framework of an existing State. In contrast to this internal dimension of self-determination, claims to external self-determination beyond decolonization are much more controversial, primarily due to their relation with the principle of territorial integrity of States and the fear of the international community to create disrupting precedents. In seeking to answer the question as to the extent to which a right to remedial secession has emerged under contemporary international law, this book examines the conventional content and meaning of the right to self-determination and scrutinizes whether the various sources of international law disclose (traces of) a right to remedial secession. Assessing the existence of a customary norm in this respect, the international responses to attempts at unilateral secession are examined, paying particular attention to the recent case of Kosovo. It is concluded that while there is a certain body of support for the doctrine of remedial secession, no (customary) right to remedial secession has materialized under contemporary international law. However, in view of the humanization of the international legal order, an entitlement to remedial secession might emerge in the future.

Table of Contents:
Chapter I. Introduction 1. Balancing Order and Justice: External Self-Determination after Serious Injustices? 1.1. The Contentious Issue of Unilateral Secession 1.2. Unilateral Secession and Self-Determination 1.3. Unilateral Secession as a Remedial Right? 2. The Approach of this Study 2.1. Defining (Unilateral) Secession and Remedial Secession 2.2. Principal Research Question 2.3. Structure and Methodology Chapter II. Self-Determination: The Development from Principle to Right 1. Introduction 2. The Emergence of the Principle of Self-Determination 2.1. Democratic Political Theory 2.2. Ethnic Nationalism 2.3. Liberal Nationalism 3. Self-Determination Before the Second World War 3.1. Lenin's Conception of Self-Determination 3.2. Wilson's Conception of Self-Determination 3.3. Self-Determination in the Wake of the First World War 3.4. The Aland Islands Case 4. Self-Determination in the Post-War Era 4.1. The Charter of the United Nations 4.2. The Decolonization Process 4.2.1. The Meaning of Self-Determination in the Context of Decolonization 4.2.2. The Subjects and Legal Status of Self-Determination in the Context of Decolonization 5. Conclusions Chapter III. The Contemporary Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination 1. Introduction 2. Self-Determination as a Continuous Entitlement 2.1. The International Human Rights Covenants of 19 2.2. The Friendly Relations Declaration 2.3. Subsequent Documents 3. Internal Self-Determination 3.1. The Content of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.1.1. Implementation of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.1.2. Internal Self-Determination and Democratic Governance? 3.2. The Status of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.3. The Subjects of the Right to Internal Self-Determination 3.3.1. All Inhabitants of a State 3.3.2. Subgroups within States 3.3.3. Minorities 3.3.4. Indigenous Peoples 3.4. Conclusions on Internal Self-Determination 4. External Self-Determination 4.1. The Content of the Right to External Self-Determination 4.1.1. Dissolution 4.1.2. (Re)union or Merger 4 1.3. Secession 4.1.4. Dissolution and Secession: A Blurred Distinction 4.2. The Status and Subjects of the Right to External Self-Determination 4.3. Conclusions on External Self-Determination 5. Conclusions Chapter IV. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Contemporary International Law? 1. Introduction 2. Recognizing a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession? 2.1. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in International Conventions 2.2. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Doctrine 1 2.2.1. The Content of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession 1 2.2.2. The Subjects of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession 1 2.2.3. Contraindications 2.2.4. Conclusions on Doctrine 2.3. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Judicial Decisions and Opinions 2.3.1. The Aland Islands Case 2.3.2. Katangese Peoples' Congress v. Zaire 2.3.3. Loizidou v. Turkey 2.3.4. Reference re Secession of Quebec 2.3.5. Kevin Ngwanga Gumne et al. v. Cameroon 2.3.6. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo 2.3.6.1. Background of the Case 2.3.6.2. The Advisory Opinion 2.3.6.3. Individual Opinions of Judges on a Right to Remedial Secession 2.3.7. Conclusions on Judicial Decisions and Opinions 2.4. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in General Principles of (International) Law 2.4.1. The Principle of Respect for the Territorial Integrity of States 2.4.1.1. The Content of the Principle of Territorial Integrity 2.4.1.2. The Principle of Territorial Integrity and the Right to Self-Determination 2.4.1.3. A Balancing Approach 2.4.1.4. Conclusions on the Principle of Territorial Integrity 2.4.2. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 2.4.2.1. The Content of the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 2.4.2.2. The Applicability of the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 1 2.4.2.3. The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris and the Right to Self-Determination 2.4.2.4. Conclusions on the Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris 2.4.3. The Principle of Self-Determination 2.4.4. Conclusions on General Principles of (International) Law 2.5. Traces of a (Remedial) Right to Unilateral Secession in Other Possible Sources of International Law 2.5.1. Unilateral Acts of States 2.5.2. Acts of International Organizations 2.5.3. Conclusions on Other Possible Sources of International Law 3. Conclusions 1 Chapter V. Customary International Law: Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession 1. Introduction 2. The Two Conventional Elements of Customary International Law 2.1. State Practice 2.1.1. Uniformity 2.1.2. Extensiveness and Representativeness 2.1.3. Duration 2.1.4. The Interrelationship of the Three Factors 2.2. Opinio Juris 3. Customary International Law beyond the Conventional Model? 3.1. Progressive Approaches towards Customary International Law 3.2. A Critical Appraisal 4. Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession 5. Conclusions Chapter VI. A Customary Right to Remedial Secession? 1. Introduction 2. The Recognition of States: a Brief Introduction 2.1. The Constitutive and Declaratory Approach 2.2. Recognition and Unilateral Secession 3. Acknowledgement of A Right to Remedial Secession in Practice? 3.1. The Case of Kosovo 3.1.1. General Responses to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence 3.1.1.1. Recapitulation 3.1.2. The Advisory Proceedings before the International Court of Justice 3.1.2.1. Support for the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.1.1. Views and Arguments Supporting a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.1.2. Recapitulation 3.1.2.2. Opposition to the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.2.1. Views and Arguments Opposing the Existence of a Right to Remedial Secession 3.1.2.2.2. Recapitulation 3.1.3. Conclusions on the International Responses to Kosovo's Declaration of Independence 3.2. Other Cases 3.2.1. Bangladesh 3.2.2. Eritrea 3.2.3. The Baltic Republics (and the Other Successor States to the USSR) 3.2.4. Croatia and Slovenia (and the Other Successor States to the SFRY) 3.2.5. Conclusions on the International Responses to Other Cases 4. Legal Appraisal of International Responses to Attempts at Unilateral Secession: State Practice and Opinio Juris 4.1. State Practice 4.2. Opinio Juris 4.3. Taking Stock: A Customary Right to Remedial Secession? 5. Conclusions Chapter VII. Recapitulation, Conclusions, and Final Reflections 1. Introduction 2. A Right to Remedial Secession? 2.1. The Development of the Right to Self-Determination 2.2. The Contemporary Meaning of the Right to Self-Determination 2.3. Traces of a Right to Remedial Secession in Contemporary International Law 2.4. Preliminary Remarks on Assessing the Existence of a Customary Right to Remedial Secession 2.5. A Customary Right to Remedial Secession? 2.6. Conclusions on a Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Lata and De Lege Ferenda 2.6.1. A Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Lata 2.6.2. A Right to Remedial Secession De Lege Ferenda 3. Final Reflections on Remedial Secession 3.1. Effectuating Remedial Secession through Recognition? 3.2. Remedial Secession and the Humanization of the International Legal Order