Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Absence of Any Basis for Secession in the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples and in the Serious Violations of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Implications of Territorial Secession in Spain

Abstract

The creation of States through secession, that is, regarding a separation not consented to by the parent State, has a very varied practice, especially depending on whether or not they are finally successful, but it allows the establishment of differentiating characteristics. The instruments adopted in the UN on the right of self-determination of peoples are aimed at a class of peoples: the colonies. Other peoples, such as national minorities, have a legal regime in current International Law that protects their rights to differentiation and non-discrimination, but does not recognize their external self-determination. However, as a consequence of the “safeguard clause” contained in UNGA Resolution 2615 of 1970, a doctrine of remedial-secession is being developed, which promotes the right of secession in the event of a serious violation of human rights. So far without recognition in international norms, neither in the conventional nor customary sense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Castellino (2008), p. 513.

  2. 2.

    On the different secessionist processes, in their various typologies, see López Martín and Perea Unceta (2018), p. 100 and following. In particular on those relating to Southern Sudan and Eritrea, see Heraclides (1991), p. 107 ff. and 177 ff.

  3. 3.

    When it has this purpose, Heraclides (1991), p. 1, calls it secession stricto sensu.

  4. 4.

    On this example of secession and integration see Bermejo García (2015).

  5. 5.

    Crawford (2006), p. 375.

  6. 6.

    In the case Chigarov and others v. Armenia (Application No. 13216/05), with a judgment of June 16, 2015, after stating the facts (para. 58 et seq.) and after analysing Armenia’s military, economic and political support to the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (para. 69 et seq.), the Court concludes that

    186. All of the above reveals that Armenia, from the early days of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has had a significant and decisive influence over the “NKR”, that the two entities are highly integrated in virtually all important matters and that this situation persists to this day.

  7. 7.

    Among others, Martínez Jiménez (2015), p. 251.

  8. 8.

    In the same vein, Roben (2010), p. 1077, and Oeter (2012), p. 64.

  9. 9.

    Some of these territories have the status of colonial enclaves, which since they have their historical origin in the subtraction of a part of the territory of a State, have certain specialities derived from the need to preserve the territorial integrity of the State from which they were separated, as prescribed in General Assembly resolution 2353 (XXII) of 1967 concerning Gibraltar.

  10. 10.

    Similarly, the 1977 Report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Francesco Capotorti (Study on the rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, E/CN.4/Sub.2/384, Rev.1, para. 568). A full report on the definitions provided in United Nations texts is available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Minorities/SR/A74160_Definitions_Descriptions.docx. On the issue of the definition of minority, see Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Minorities of July 15, 2019, UN Doc. 59 of this report proposes the following definition for study: “An ethnic, religious or linguistic minority is any group of persons constituting less than half of the population of the whole territory of a State and whose members share common features of culture, religion or language, or a combination thereof. A person may freely belong to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority without any requirement of citizenship, residence, official recognition or any other circumstance. It differs mainly from the one used at European level in that it intentionally removes the temporary link of residence or nationality.

  11. 11.

    For example, Hungary’s Act No. LXXVII on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities of 7 July 1993 requires “at least one century of life in the Republic of Hungary”. In the Polish Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and National Languages of January 6, 2005, it is required that they identify themselves “with a community having its own State” (Article 2.1.f).

  12. 12.

    IPCJ, Upper Silesian Minority Rights Case, Judgment of April 26, 1928, Series A, No. 15, pp. 46–47.

  13. 13.

    Capotorti Report 1979, page 35, and UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7, Add. 4, page 30.

  14. 14.

    In the preparatory works one can read: “The principle conformed to the purposes of the Charter only insofar as it implied the right of self-government of peoples and not the right to secession”, UNCIO, 1945, vol. 6, page 296. For some authors, such as Russell, only the internal dimension of self-determination was actually proclaimed in article 1.2, with the regulation of Chapters XI to XIII being only a regime either voluntary for colonial empires or imposed on defeated countries, but not a universal right. See Russell (1958), p. 811.

  15. 15.

    Anderson (2016), p. 1207.

  16. 16.

    In the terms used in different international texts of the time, for example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which ends its preamble with the expression “both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

  17. 17.

    Article 2, paragraph 2: “Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

  18. 18.

    Intervention of the Representative of the United Kingdom of July 2, 1955, of Australia of July 20. 1955 and of the Netherlands of August 29, 1955, UN Doc., A/2910/Add.1, Annexes, 5, 11 and 14. On the preparatory work and art. 1 of the ICCPR, see Palmisano (1997), pp. 107–145.

  19. 19.

    Cassese (1995), p. 49.

  20. 20.

    UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.676 (1955).

  21. 21.

    In the same vein Bossuyt (1987), pp. 32–37.

  22. 22.

    Among others, Rigo Sureda (1973), pp. 107–110; Humphrey (1984), p. 129; Higgins (1994), p. 111 ff.; Musgrave (2000), pp. 92–93; and Pentassuglia (2002), p. 308. In the opposite direction, Buchheit (1978), p. 83; Cassese (1995), p. 143, and Anderson (2016), p. 1213.

  23. 23.

    See, inter alia, Abi-Saab (1991), pp. 639–661, and Schrijver (1997), especially pages 49 ff. for the relations between the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and that of self-determination of peoples.

  24. 24.

    See, on the relationship with ancestral land, Final report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Erica-Irene Daes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21, and on natural resources, Final report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Daes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/3.

  25. 25.

    Cassese (1995), pp. 51–61.

  26. 26.

    Hannum (1993), p. 25.

  27. 27.

    CCPR/C/69/D/760/1996, Communication No 760/1997 of July 25, 2000.

  28. 28.

    CCPR/C/21/rev.1/Add.5, para. 5.3. Previously, General Comment no. 12, from 1984, which dealt with “the right of self-determination (article 1)”, offers few express references, although it refers generally to the right of internal self-determination, the economic rights of peoples and the obligations with the autonomous territories and in escrow.

  29. 29.

    UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ‘General Recommendation XXI on self-determination’ (1996), UN Doc A/51/18, Annex VIII, para. 6.

  30. 30.

    In five points it refers to national minorities: adjustment of Italian borders (point 9), peoples of Austria-Hungary (10), Balkan States (11), non-Turkish nationalities of the Ottoman Empire (12) and Poland as an independent State (13).

  31. 31.

    Mentioned by Musgrave (2000), p. 24.

  32. 32.

    On the principle of nationalities, see among the authors who studied it in the inter-war period, Redslob (1931), pp. 1–82.

  33. 33.

    Lara Martínez (2005), p. 18 ff.

  34. 34.

    Musgrave (2000), p. 30.

  35. 35.

    Report of the International Commission of Jurists (1920), LNOJ Spec. Supp. 3, p. 5 y The Aaland Islands Question: Report Submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs (1921), League Doc. B7.21/68/106.

  36. 36.

    Report of the International Committee of Jurists, Advisory Opinion upon de Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Que Upper Silesian Minority Rights Case, 1928, PCIJ Reports, Series A, No. 15, p. 4. Question, League of Nations, O.J. Spec. Supp. 3, 5, 1920.

  37. 37.

    PCIJ, Upper Silesian Minority Rights Case, 1928, Reports, Series A, No. 15, p. 4.

  38. 38.

    See on this debate López Martín and Perea Unceta, JA (2018), pp. 148–151, and in general on the international regime for indigenous peoples, among others, Torrecuadrada (2001).

  39. 39.

    Along the same lines, the Lund Recommendations of September 1, 1999.

  40. 40.

    AG/RES. 2888, XLVI-O/16.

  41. 41.

    On the failure to consider the right of self-determination with respect to indigenous claims, see, inter alia, Report No. 89/13, Admissibility of Petition 879-07, Loni Edmonds and Sons v. Canada, November 4, 2013, para. 34.

  42. 42.

    Kamenu (1974), p. 355 ff.; Nayar (1975), p. 321 ff., specially p. 343; Suzuki (1976), p. 779 ff.; and Buchheit (1978), pp. 172–174 and 222.

  43. 43.

    Rosenstock (1971), pp. 713–735; Nanda (1981), p. 257 ff., specially pp. 273–278. Later other authors such as Franck (1993), pp. 3–27; Musgrave (2000), p. 189; Crawford (2006), pp. 126 and 393; Dugard and Raic (2006), pp. 94–137, specially p. 120 ff.; and Anderson (2016), p. 126.

  44. 44.

    Carey (1977), p. 55 ff., and White (1981), pp. 147–170.

  45. 45.

    Theodorakis (1999).

  46. 46.

    Lauwers and Smis (2000), pp. 43–70; Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009), pp. 573–587; and Soroeta Liceras (2013).

  47. 47.

    Martínez Jiménez (2015), p. 191.

  48. 48.

    Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, Jugements de la Cour Suprême de Canada, vol. 2, 1998, pages 217–297.

  49. 49.

    Constitutional Court, Sentence 114/2017, of October 17, 2017, in the appeal of unconstitutionality 4334–2017, against the Law of the Parliament of Catalonia 19/2017, of September 6, called “of the self-determination referendum”.

  50. 50.

    Tomuschat (2006), pp. 23–45, and Cassese (1995), p. 120.

  51. 51.

    Cited above.

  52. 52.

    Arangio-Ruiz (1979), pp. 73–88, and Brownlie (2008), p. 581.

  53. 53.

    A/CONF.157/23, June 25, 1993, paragraph 2.

  54. 54.

    Of the same consideration is Judge Pinto de Albuquerque (para. 41 and 50), who in his dissenting opinion in this case adds as an argument the independence of Timor Leste (para. 39), which in our consideration is a characteristic example of decolonization.

  55. 55.

    Arangio-Ruiz (1972), pp. 561–572.

  56. 56.

    Positions of the United States and the United Kingdom, in UN Doc. A/AC.125/ Mr.92, pp. 21 and 141–143.

  57. 57.

    Palmisano (1997), pp. 212–213.

  58. 58.

    Kenya’s intervention. UN Doc./A/AC.125/Mr.69, p. 21.

  59. 59.

    Koskenniemi (1994), p. 249.

  60. 60.

    Cassese (1995), pp. 117–118.

  61. 61.

    López Martín and Perea Unceta (2018), pp. 165–166.

  62. 62.

    Castellino (2014), pp. 27–44.

  63. 63.

    Hannum (1993), p. 2, maintains that the clause contained in Resolution 2625 was made as a measure of pressure against apartheid.

  64. 64.

    White (1981), p. 160 ff.

  65. 65.

    Palmisano (1997) and Urbina (2001), p. 224.

  66. 66.

    Among others, Rosenstock (1971), p. 715; Kamenu (1974), p. 361; Nayar (1975), p. 343; Suzuki (1976), p. 807; Carey (1977), p. 56; Buchheit (1978), p. 72, 94 and 222; Nanda (1981), pp. 275–278; Franck (1993), pp. 13–14; Tomuschat (2006), p. 7; Theodorakis (1999); Crawford (2006), p. 19; Dugard and Raic (2006); Ryngaert and Griffioen (2009); Soroeta Liceras (2013), p. 21; Martínez Jiménez (2015); Anderson (2016), pp. 1253–1254; Umozurike (1972), p. 199; Tancredi (2001), p. 689; Sornarajah (1981), p. 49; Roch (2002), pp. 33–100; Pomerance (1982), p. 39; Pons Rafols (2015), p. 149, 215 and 308; Pavkovic and Radan (2007), pp. 232–239; Özden and Golay (2010); Murswiek (1993), p. 26–27; Mariño Menéndez (1996), pp. 89–90; McCorquodale (1994), p. 857 ff.; Díaz Barrado (1999), pp. 139–140; Gjidara (1991), p. 365 ff.; Islam (1991), pp. 456–460; Kohen (2002), p. 494; Kooijmans (1996), p. 212 ff.; Buchanan (1991); and Christakis (1999), p. 192.

  67. 67.

    Rousseau (1976), pp. 56–57; Guilhaudis (1976), p. 180; Seara Vázquez (1991), p. 90; Ruiz Fabri (1992), pp. 153–178; Eastwood (1992), p. 299 ff.; Andrés Sáenz de Santamaría (1997), p. 160 ff.; Eudes (2006), pp. 631–646; Carrillo Salcedo (2012), pp. 20–22; Xanthaki (2007); Vidmar (2015), p. 370; López Martín (2018), pp. 75–122; and Fernández de Casadevante Romani (2018). Also Critescu A (1981), El derecho a la libre determinación. desarrollo histórico y actual sobre la base de los instrumentos de las Naciones Unidas. UN Doc. E/CN.4/sub.2/404/rev.1, p. 36.

  68. 68.

    Critescu (1981), p. 39.

  69. 69.

    Shaw (1997), pp. 478–507.

  70. 70.

    Gutiérrez Espada and Bermejo García (2014), pp. 93–94.

  71. 71.

    See Perea Unceta (2011), pp. 101–118.

  72. 72.

    Written statement of Poland of April 14, 2009, para. 6.5.

  73. 73.

    Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), pp. 646–647.

  74. 74.

    Falk (2011), pp. 57–58.

  75. 75.

    Christakis (2011), pp. 73–86; Arp (2010), pp. 847–866; and Burri (2010), pp. 881–890.

  76. 76.

    Roben (2010), p. 1071.

  77. 77.

    Van Den Driest (2015), pp. 329–363; Crawford (2006), pp. 390–402; and López Martín (2018), p. 100 ff.

  78. 78.

    Van Den Driest (2013), p. 314.

  79. 79.

    Oeter (2012), p. 63.

  80. 80.

    Van Den Driest (2013), pp. 310–311.

  81. 81.

    Roben (2010), p. 1075 and 1078.

  82. 82.

    Written submission from the Republic of Cyprus, dated April 3, 2009, para. 143.

References

  • Abi-Saab G (1991) La souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles. In: Bedjoaui M (ed) Droit international: bilan et perspectives, vol 2. Pedone, Paris, pp 639–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson G (2016) A post-millennial inquiry into the United Nations law of self-determination: a right to unilateral non-colonial secession. Vanderbilt J Transl Law 49:1183–1254

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1972) The normative role of the general assembly of the United Nations and the declaration of principles of friendly relations. Recueil de Cours 137(3):418

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1979) La Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre Relaciones Amistosas y el Sistema de Fuentes de Derecho Internacional. Sijthoff, Alphen-on-the-Rhine

    Google Scholar 

  • Arp B (2010) The ICJ advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo and the international protection of minorities. German Law J 11:847–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermejo García R (2015) La vuelta de Crimea a la madre-patria. Algunas reflexiones a la luz del Derecho Internacional. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt MJ (1987) Guide to the ‘travaux préparatoires’ of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2008) Principios de Derecho Internacional Público. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A (1991) Secession: the morality of political divorce from Fort Sumpter to Lithuania and Quebec. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchheit LC (1978) Secession. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri T (2010) The Kosovo opinion and secession: the sounds of silence and missing links. German Law J 11:881–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey T (1977) Self-determination in the post-colonial era: the case of Québec. ASILS Int Law J 55

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrillo Salcedo JA (2012) Sobre el pretendido derecho a decidir en Derecho internacional contemporáneo. El Cronista del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho 33:20–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1995) Self-determination of peoples: a legal Reppraisal. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J (2008) Territorial integrity and the right to self-determination: an examination of the conceptual tools. Brooklyn J Int Law 33(2):503–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellino J (2014) International law and self-determination: peoples, indigenous peoples, and minorities. In: Walter C, Von Ungern-Sternberg A et al (eds) Self-determination and secession in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 27–44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (1999) Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. La Documentation Française, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2011) The ICJ advisory opinion on Kosovo: has international law something to say about secession? Leiden J Int Law 24:73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2006) The creation of states in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz Barrado C (1999) La protección de las minorías en el seno del Consejo de Europa. Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho Universidad de Extremadura 17:125–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J, Raic D (2006) The role of recognition in the law and practice of secession. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession. International law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 94–137

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Falk R (2011) The Kosovo advisory opinion: conflict resolution and precedent. Am J Int Law 105(1):50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (2018) El derecho de autodeterminación: una lectura desde España. RECorDIP 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1993) Post-modern tribalism and the right to secession. In: Brölmann C et al (eds) Peoples and minorities in international law. Nijhoff, Dordrech, pp 3–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjidara M (1991) Cadres juridiques été règles applicables aux poblèmes européens de minorités. Annuaire Français de Droit International 37(1):349–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez Espada C, Bermejo García R (2014) El derecho de libre determinación de los pueblos no coloniales a la luz del Derecho internacional. In: Solozábal JJ (ed) La autodeterminación a debate. Edit. Iglesias, Madrid, pp 93–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum H (1993) Rethinking self-determination. Virginia J Int Law 34:1–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Heraclides A (1991) The self-determination of minorities in international politics. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1994) Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey JP (1984) Human rights and the United Nations. A great adventure. Transnational Publ, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam MR (1991) Secession crisis in Papua New Guinea: the proclaimed republic of Bougainville in international law. Univ Hawaii Law Rev 13:453

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamenu OS (1974) Secession and the right of self-determination: an OAU dilemma. J Mod Afr Stud 12:355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG (2002) La creátion d’etats en droit International contemporain. Cursos Euromediterráneos Bancaja de Derecho Internacional 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooijmans PH (1996) Tolerance, sovereignty and self-determination. Neth Int Law Rev 43:211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (1994) National self-determination today: problems of legal theory and practice. Int Comp Law Q 43(2):241–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lara Martínez M (2005) Naciones, Estados y nacionalismos en Europa desde 1915 a 1945

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers G, Smis S (2000) New dimensions of the right to self-determination: a study of the international response to the Kosovo crisis. Nationalism Ethnic Polit 6(2):43–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López Martín AG (2018) Creación de Estados en el Derecho internacional contemporáneo en casos de secesión: efectividad/legalidad. Anuario Hispano-Luso-Americano de Derecho Internacional 23:75–122

    Google Scholar 

  • López Martín AG, Perea Unceta JA (2018) Creación de Estados, secesión y reconocimiento. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariño Menéndez F (1996) Naciones Unidas y el derecho de autodeterminación. In: Mariño Menéndez F (ed) Balance y perspectivas de las Naciones Unidas en el cincuentenario de su creación. Universidad Carlos III, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Jiménez A (2015) El derecho de autodeterminación de los pueblos en el siglo XXI. Aranzadi, Pamplona

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale R (1994) Self-determination: a human rights approach. Int Comp Law Q 43(4):857–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murswiek D (1993) The issue of a right of secession reconsidered. In: Tomuschat C (ed) Modern law of self-determination. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 21–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave T (2000) Self-determination and National minorities. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanda VP (1981) Self-determination under international law: validity of claims to secede. Case Western J Int Law 13:257

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayar MGK (1975) Self-determination beyond the colonial context: Biafra in retrospect. Texas Int Law J 10:321

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter S (2012) Secession, territorial integrity and the role of the security council. In: Hilpold P (ed) Kosovo and international law: the ICJ advisory opinion of 22 July 2010. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 109–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Özden M, Golay C (2010) El derecho de los pueblos a la autodeterminación y a la soberanía permanente sobre sus recursos naturales desde la perspectiva de los derechos humanos. CETIM, Genève

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmisano G (1997) Nazioni Unite e autodeterminazione interna. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavkovic A, Radan P (2007) Creating new states. Theory and practice of secession. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentassuglia G (2002) Minorities in international law. an introductory study. Conseil of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Perea Unceta JA (2011) Las cuestiones sobre Kosovo que no quiso responder el Tribunal de La Haya. Anuario Jurídico y Económico Escurialense 44:101–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerance M (1982) Self-determination in law and practice: the new Doctrine of the United Nations. The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Pons Rafols X (2015) Cataluña: Derecho a decidir y Derecho internacional. Reus, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Redslob R (1931) Le principe des nationalités. Recueils des Courses de l'Académie de Droit International 37(3):1–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigo Sureda A (1973) The evolution of the right of self-determination. Sijthoff, Leyden

    Google Scholar 

  • Roben V (2010) The ICJ advisory opinion on the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo: rules or principles. Goettingen J Int Law 2(3):1063–1086

    Google Scholar 

  • Roch F (2002) Réflexions sur l’évolution de la positivité du droit des peuples à disposer d’euxmêmes en dehors des situations de décolonisation. Revue québécoise de droit international 15(1):33–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock R (1971) The declaration of principles of international law concerning friendly relations: a survey. Am J Int Law 65(5):713–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell RB (1958) A history of the United Nations. Brookings Institution, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C, Griffioen C (2009) The relevance of the right to self-determination in the Kosovo matter: in partial response to the agora papers. Chinese J Int Law 8(3):573–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver N (1997) Sovereignty over natural resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (1997) Peoples, territorialism and boundaries. Eur J Int Law 8:478–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah M (1981) Internal colonialism and humanitarian intervention. Georgia J Int Comp Law 11:45

    Google Scholar 

  • Soroeta Liceras J (2013) La opinión consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia sobre Kosovo de 22 de julio de 2010. Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki E (1976) Self-determination and world public order: community response to territorial separation. Virginia J Int Law 16:779

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi A (2001) La secesione nel diritto internacionale. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodorakis T (1999) Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. La Documentation Française, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Secesión y autodeterminación. In: Kohen MG (ed) Secession: international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 23–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Torrecuadrada S (2001) Los pueblos indígenas en el orden internacional. Dyckinson, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Umozurike UO (1972) Self-determination in international law. Archdon Books, Hamden

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbina JJ (2001) Las Naciones Unidas y su contribución al desarrollo del principio de autodeterminación. Dereito 10(1):197–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Driest SF (2013) Remedial secession: a right to external self-determination as a remedy to serious injustices. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Driest SF (2015) Crimea’s separation from Ukraine: an analysis of the right to self-determination and (remedial) secession. Neth Int Law Rev 62:329–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vashakmadze M, Lippold M (2010) Nothing but a road towards secession – the international court of Justice’s advisory opinion on accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo. Goettingen J Int Law 2(2):619–648

    Google Scholar 

  • White RCA (1981) Self-determination: time for a Reassesment? Neth Int Law Rev 28(2):147–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xanthaki A (2007) Indigenous rights and United Nations standards. Self-determination, culture and land. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Study carried out as a part of the Research Project DER2016-76312: Legal consequences of the secession of territorial entities from a State, with particular reference to the human rights implications. Lessons for Spain, financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, as part of the National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2013–2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public International Law, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain

    José Antonio Perea Unceta

Authors
  1. José Antonio Perea Unceta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Antonio Perea Unceta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Perea Unceta, J.A. (2022). The Absence of Any Basis for Secession in the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples and in the Serious Violations of Human Rights. In: Fernández de Casadevante Romani, C. (eds) Legal Implications of Territorial Secession in Spain . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04609-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04609-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04608-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04609-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation