ON THEORY OF REMEDIAL SECESSION IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

Introduction. Secession as a way of realization of the right of peoples to self-determination is disputed in contemporary international law, which distinguishes several secession theories. Of particular interest is the theory of remedial secession, which is based on the right to secede from a state under certain circumstances. It is argued that application of the theory of remedial secession is justified in cases of systematic, gross and massive violations of human rights, which endangers the existence of a national minority or a people, as well as when the policy of genocide, apartheid or ethnic cleansing is carried out.

Materials and methods.  The material for the study is the works of western and Russian scholars in the field of the theory of international law, as well as the current international legal practice of implementation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. At the same time attention has been paid to works in which the problems and theories of secession are highlighted. The methodological basis of the research includes scientific methods of cognition (dialectics, analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, comparative legal and historical methods).

Research results. As the foundations for applying the theory of the remedial secession, it is necessary to consider not only the genocide (which is the basis for the recognition of independence of Kosovo), but also the commission of large-scale war crimes, the policy of forced assimilation, the forced erasing of nation-al identity by the titular nation, whose goal is, as a rule, refusal in internal self-determination (as it was and is the case in Ukraine). The new state should be created exclusively on the basis of requirements of jus cogens norms of international law, and in some cases (Western Sahara), the rules governing the process of decolonization.

Discussion and conclusions.  In this article, the author draws attention to the fact that the correlation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and the principle of the territorial integrity of states should be considered today within the framework of the theory of the remedial secession. Secession is one of the ways of realization of the right of peoples to selfdetermination in contemporary international law. Secession from a state and the creation of an independent state must always be considered as an extreme measure and implemented only in exceptional cases.

1. Ben Saul [et al.]. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. 1360 p.

2. Buchanan A. Democracy and Secession. – National SelfDetermination and Secession. Ed. by Moore M. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. P. 14–33.

3. Buchanan А. Secession: the Legitimacy of Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1978. 288 p.

4. Buchanan А. Setsessiya. Pravo na otdelenie, prava cheloveka i territorial’naya tselostnost’ gosudarstva [Secession. The right to secession, human rights and the territorial integrity of the state]. Moscow: Rudomino Publ. 2011. 240 p. (In Russ.)

5. Cassese A. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995. 375 p.

6. Del Mar K. The myth of remedial secession. – Statehood and self-determination: Reconciling tradition and modernity in international law. Ed. by. D. French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. P. 79–108.

7. Dietrich F. The status of Kosovo – reflections on the legitimacy of secession. – Ethics and Global Politics. 2010. No. 3 (2). P. 123–142.

8. Dugard J., Raic D. The role of recognition in the law and practice of secession. – Secession, International Law Perspectives. Ed. by M.G. Kohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. P. 94–137.

9. Kingsbury S. Claims by non-state groups in international law. – Cornell International Law Journal. 1992. Vol. 25. Issue 3. P. 481–513.

10. Kirgis F.L. The degrees of self-determination in the United Nations era. – American Journal of International Law. 1994. Vol. 88. Issue 304. P. 304–310.

11. Kohen M.G. Secession: International Law Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015. 548 p.

12. Mccorquordale R. Self-determination: a Human Rights Approach. – International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1994. Vol. 43. Issue 4. P. 857–885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/43.4.857

13. Molchakov N.Yu. 2017a. Kontury teorii regionalistkogo gosudarstva: evropeiskii opyt [Contours of the Theory of a Regionalized State: European experience]. – Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2017a. No. 9 (112). P. 67–71. (In Russ.)

14. Molchakov N.Yu. Regionalistkie gosudarstva v Evrope: k voprosu o novoi forme territorial’no-politicheskogo ustroistva [ Regionalized States in Europe: on the elaboration of a new of territorial constitution]. – Aktual’nye problemy sovremennogo sravnitel’nogo, zarubezhnogo i rossiiskogo konstitutsionnogo prava: sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Pod red. I.A. Rakitskoi [Actual Problems of Comparative, Foreign and Russian Constitutional Law. Ed. by I.A. Rakitskaya]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet Publ. 2017b. P. 82–113. (In Russ.)

15. Naryshkin S.E. Otvety Predsedatelya Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Federal’nogo Sobraniya Rossiiskoi Federatsii S.E. Naryshkina na voprosy glavnogo redaktora Moskovskogo zhurnala mezhdunarodnogo prava [Answers of the Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation S.E. Naryshkin to the Questions of the Editor-in-chief of the Moscow Journal of International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2015. No. 1 (97). P. 5–10. (In Russ.)

16. National Self-Determination and Secession. Ed. by Moore M. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. 296 p.

17. Novak M. UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Commentary. 2nd ed. Kehl am Rhein, Germany; Arlington, VA: N.P. Engel Publishers. 2005. 1277 p.

18. Okafor O. Entitlement, Process, and Legitimacy in Emergent International Law of Secession. – International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 2002. No. 9. P. 41–70.

19. Pushkina D., Fedorova A. Nevynosimaya legkost’ mezhdunarodnogo prava? [Intolerable ease of international law?]. – Neprikosnovennyi zapas. Debaty o politike i kul’ture. 2011. No. 5 (79). P. 16–20. (In Russ.)

20. Raic D. Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination. Leiden: Kluwer Law International. 2002. 495 p.

21. Self-Determination and Secession in International Law. Ed. by C. Walter, A. von Ungern-Sternberg, K. Abushov. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. 334 p.

22. Statehood and Self-determination. Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law. Ed. by D. French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. 586 p.

23. Summers J. Peoples and International Law: How Nationalism and Self-determination Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. 2014. 630 p.

24. Tolstykh V. Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia. – Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht. 2015. No. 1. P. 119–140.

25. Tomuschat C. Secession and self-determination. – Secession, International Law Perspectives. Ed. by M.G. Kohen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. P. 23–45.

26. Umozurike O. Self-determination in International Law. Hamden: Archon Books. 1972. 324 p.

27. Vidmar J. Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice. Portland: Hart Publishing. 2013. 281 p.

28. Vidmar J. International Legal Responses to Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence. – Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 2009. Vol. 42. P. 808–817.