Document Type : Article
Authors
1 PhD. Student, Department of Public International Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2 Assistant Prof., Department of International Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
3 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
Abstract
Contrary to secession in the colonial domain, which is considered legitimate in contemporary international law, separation in the non-colonial sphere is a controversial issue and a dispute between governments and international lawyers. There is only a relative agreement that in case of severe human rights violations, it is possible for people living in a part of a country to enjoy from the "the right to remedial secession" And in this case, international law does not support its territorial sovereignty. Nevertheless, great powers have always played a key role in the implementation and application of this principle by movements claiming it. This article, with a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to examine the legal situation and the possibility of evaluating the right to self-determination in the context of contemporary international law on the one hand and examining its application in the light of great powers’ practices on the other hand. The findings of this article show that in the application and exercise of the right to self-determination, by taking into account the State’s tolerance and the situation of human rights, one can determine whether non-colonial independence, is suitable or the right to self-determination in the framework of "remedial secession" should be ensured.
Keywords
- Contemporary International Law
- Right to Self-Determination
- Territorial Integrity
- Human Rights
- Great Powers.
Main Subjects
English
- A) Books
- Cassese, A. (2008). The human dimension of international law: selected papers of Antonio Cassese, OUP Oxford University Press.
- Griffioen, C. (2010). Self-determination as a human right: the emergency exit of remedial secession. Science Shop of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht University.
- Joseph, S., & McBeth, A. eds (2010). Research handbook on international human rights law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Shaw, M. N. (2017). International law. Cambridge university press.
- Sterio, M. (2012). The Right to Self-Determination under International Law: “Selfistans,” Secession, and the Rule of the Great Powers. New York, Routledge.
- Wallace, R. MM (2002). International law. London, Sweet and Maxwell.
- Wippman, D., Jeffrey L. Dunoff, & Steven R. Ratner (2006). International Law: Norms, Actors, Process: A Problem-oriented Approach, Aspen Publishers.
- B) Articles
- Brown, B. S. (2005). Human rights, sovereignty, and the final status of Kosovo. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., (80), 235-272.
- Charney, J. I. (2001). Self-Determination: Chechnya, Kosovo, and East Timor. Vand. J. Transnatl. L., (34), 455-467.
- Epps, V. (2015). Secession, Stagnation and the State-centered version of International law. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, (21), 72-80.
- Hasani, E. (2005). Self-Determination under the Terms of the 2002 Union Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro: Tracing the Origins of Kosovo's Self-Determination. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., (80), 305-329.
- Kelly, M. J. (2005). Pulling at the Threads of Westphalia: Involuntary Sovereignty Waiver-Revolutionary International Legal Theory or Return to Rule by the Great Powers?. UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff, (10), 361-442.
- Mankoff, J. (2022). Russia’s war in Ukraine: Identity, history, and conflict. Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
- Murphy, Michael A. (2008). Representing indigenous self-determination. University of Toronto Law Journal, (58), 185-216.
- Perritt Jr, H. H. (2005). Final Status for Kosovo. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., (80), 3-27.
- Purnawanty, J. (2000). Various perspectives in understanding the East Timor crisis. Temp. Int'l & Comp. LJ, (14), 61-74.
- Reisman, W. M. (1999). Kosovo’s antinomies. American Journal of International Law, (93), 860-862.
- Scharf, M. P. (2002). Earned sovereignty: Juridical underpinnings. Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, 31(37)3-385.
- Sterio, M. (2010). On the right to external self-determination: Selfistans, secession, and the great powers' rule. Minn. J. Int'l L. (19), 137-176.
- Toal, G., & O'Loughlin, J. (2013). Inside South Ossetia: a survey of attitudes in a de facto state. Post-Soviet Affairs, (29), 136-172.
- Trebicka, V. (2007). Lessons from the Kosovo Status Talks: On Humanitarian Intervention and Self-Determination. YALE J. INT’L L., (32), 255-260.
- Williams, P. R. (2002). Earned sovereignty: the road to resolving the conflict over Kosovo's final status. Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, (31), 387-425.
- C) Reports
- Aaland Islands, Report of International Committee of Jurists, October 1920.
- Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, ICJ Rep A/64/881, 2010.
- An agenda for peace: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping: report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992, UN Doc A/47/277 S/24111, 17 June 1992.
- Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc A/RES/2625(XXV), 24 Oct. 1970.
- Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma in the Advisory Opinion Regarding the Independence of Kosovo ICJ Reports, 1996.
- Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), ICJ Rep, 1970.
- Reference Re Secession of Quebec, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998.
- Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 1994-31 July 1995, ICJ Rep A/50/4, 1995.
- Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc A/CONF.157/24, 25 June 1993.
- Western Sahara Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, ICJ Rep, 1975.
References in Persian:
- Articles
- Akhavan Kharrazian, M. (2007). Development of the Principle of the Right of Self-Determination within the UN context. International Law Review, (24), 95-142. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2007.17788 (In Persian).
- Habibi, H., & Navari, A. (2015). Evaluating the Existence of the Remedial Right to Secession as a Rule of Customary International Law. International Law Review, (31), 97-124. doi:10.22066/cilamag.2015.15772 (In Persian).
- Haddadi, M., & Karimi, S. (2016). Violating Human Rights and separatism: critical approach to theory remedial secession in international law. Public Law Studies Quarterly, (45), 715-736. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2016.56446 (In Persian).
- Nasiri Larimi, R. (2014). Confrontation the right to intervention by invitation, the Right to Self-determination of Human, Democracy, Civil War, Legitimacy. International Legal Research, (7), 99-135 (In Persian).
- Navazeni, B., & Farajzadeh, S. (2012). UN Security Council and the Problem of inconsistency between the Principles of Nations` Self-Determination Right and the Right of National Sovereinty: the Case of Kosovo. Research Letter of Political Science, (6), 213-236 (In Persian).
- Omidi, A. (2014). ICJ AO on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: Legal Analysis of Different Perspectives. Public Law Researsh, (15), 9-45 (In Persian).
- Veisi chameh, M., & Azizi, S. (2019(. Legitimacy and Remedial Secession Threshold in International Law. International Law Review, (36), 133-163. doi:10.22066/cilamag.2019.78316.1428 (In Persian).
- Zamani, S. G., & Navari, A. (2015). The Right to Remedial Secession in the light of National and Regional Judicial Decisions. Public Law Researsh, (16), 9-37 (In Persian).
)