جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "unilateral secession" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

This article analyzes the crisis of secession in the Catalan region of Spsin in terms of  the right to self-determination in international law. The focus of this paper is on the application of this rule to non-colonial situations. While applying the right to self-determination in colonial situation is well-established and the people of these lands can create their own government under this rule, serious doubts have been raised about the right of self-determination outside the colonial situations. There is no consensus about the right to remedial secession under international law. This article tries to examine the customary law and the most important international instruments dealing with the right to self-determination, in particular the right of Catalan ethnic minority in Spain to form a new state. It is concluded that the Catalan authorities’ reliance on this right for declaring independence faces serious legal difficulties.

This paper examines the legitimacy of the unilateral separation of the Crimea from Ukraine in accordance with public international law, with respect to the right to self-determination and the right to remadial secession. It is examined in detail that, beyond decolonization, the right to self-determination does not include a general right to external self-determination. In non-colonial situations, there are two theories of unilateral secession and remedial secession. By examining the Crimea case in the light of each the cases, we conclude that unilateral secession is generally permitted under international law, but the unilateral secession of Crimea from Ukraine is an exception and prohibited under international law. Because it is the result os Russian military intervention in the peninsula and a sort of widespread violation of international law. On the other hand, by examining the practices of gevernments and judicial and semi-judicial bodies, we find that remedial secession is not yet a part of customary international law and the doctrine is also cntroversial. Assuming Crimea cannot be cinsidered a viable secession due to the diversity of the peninsula population and lack of “people” and lack of evidence of human rights violations or organized discriminatory behavior by Ukrainian authorities.

There is no on uniform and consistent practice in the international community on the secession of Crimea from Ukraine and it`s integration into Russia. Although the number of dissenting countries are greater and the state attitudes are contradictory in comparison to former positions. The western states and the U. S. A are of the opinion that – in their written statements in Accordance with the international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo case- the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between the states. Therefore non-state groups have no obligation to respect this rule. Russia، on the other hand، is of the opinion that one of the essential elements of the principle of territorial integrity is to provide guarantee against dismemberment of the state`s territory. In the opinion of Russia، unilateral secession is allowed only on the Remedial Secession Theory. Russia is of the view that there must be certain condition، such as outright armed attack by the parent state، threatening the very existences of the people in question، and all efforts should be taken to consideration in order to settle the tension between the parent state and the ethnic community concerned whiting the framework of exciting states. This situation dose not exist in Crimea in the time of holding referendum. Different positions of states in this case including the debated in the General Assembly have shown that there is still contradictory state practice. Therefore، it seems that there is no well-established rule in this matter in the international law.

What happened in recent decades in collapse of several states and birth of new ones, raised serious questions about the legal aspects of the problem. Does international community actually endorse the unilateral secession to create new states? What could be the real impacts of recent cases like Kosovo and Ossetia on the future of international legal order? The present article tries to find these answers, far from the political or ideological views, in current international views. In fact, the analysis of recent practices demonstrates the real support of International law to the territorial integrity of the States, as the proper base of our international community.