Dr. Mostapha Al-Masry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.65271/PCJW7587
Abstract
It is suggested that secession may be the last resort for ending the oppression of people. This doctrine is often referred to as remedial secession. The article examines the theory and practice of remedial secession and notes that its theoretical foundations are rather weak. It concludes that secession is never an entitlement, not even in a situation of severe oppression. Yet it may well be that international recognition is more likely to be granted when oppressed peoples try to create their own state. Thus, although not an entitlement, remedial secession may be given effect through recognition. In the United Nations Charter era, the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and the secession of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces from Ukraine are sometimes invoked as instances that uphold the remedial secession doctrine. The article analyses these situations and concludes that none of them proves that state practice accepts remedial secession as a legal entitlement. Therefore, the remedial secession doctrine not only has weak theoretical foundations, but also no support in state practice.
Keywords: Remedial Secession, Self-determination, Territorial Integrity, Kosovo, Donetsk and Lugansk, International Recognition, Oppression.