Skip to main content

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. The Right to Self-Determination and Unilateral Secession

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The decades following the adoption of the UN Charter were marked by the process of decolonization in which the right to self-determination was invoked, implying as an inherent presumption a demand for independence. Going beyond decolonization in contemporary international law, the question posed is that of the possibility of recognizing a right to secede that is consubstantial to putting self-determination into practice.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Cfr. Jaber (2011), p. 934.
 
2
Haverland (2000), p. 354.
 
3
Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 334. Haverland (2000), p. 354. Kohen (2006), p. 3.
 
4
Cfr. Kohen (2006), p. 3.
 
6
Kohen (2006), p. 3.
 
7
Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 105.
 
8
‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the UN Charter’ UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV), Annex, 24 October 1970, at ‘The Principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples’, para. 4.
Other international documents, such as the ‘Helsinki Final Act’ of 1975 and the ‘Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action’ of 1993, refer to Resolution 2625 (XXV) when contemplating the right to self-determination. Cfr. ‘Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act’, Helsinki, 1 August 1975, supra, Chap. 2, note 61. World Conference on Human Rights, ‘Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action’, 25 June 1993, supra, Chap. 2, note 63, p. 20.
 
9
Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 334.
 
10
Cfr. Crawford (2007), pp. 388–402. Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), p. 634.
 
11
Cfr. See supra, Sect. 2.​2.​2.
 
12
Cfr. Kapustin (2015), p. 106.
 
13
Cfr. Id., p. 105.
 
14
The comment of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission was that ‘Abkhazia was not allowed to secede from Georgia under international law, because the right to self-determination does not entail a right to secession’. Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, of 30 September 2009, Vol. II, 441, p. 147. http://​www.​mpil.​de/​files/​pdf4/​IIFFMCG_​Volume_​II1.​pdf.
Cfr. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 65. Tancredi (2014), p. 80.
 
15
Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 77. See also, by the same author Christakis (2014), p. 743. Jaber (2011), p. 934. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 64. Tomuschat (2006), p. 26.
 
16
Cfr. Tancredi (2014), p. 80.
See supra, Sect. 2.​2.​2.
 
17
Cfr. Buchheit (1978), p. 73. Cassese (1995), pp. 39–40. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 62.
 
18
Cfr. Tomuschat (2006), p. 26.
 
19
Cfr. Buchanan (1991), at ch. 3. Buchheit (1978), pp. 28–30. Heraclides (1991), p. 28. Burke-White (2014), p. 71. Wilson (2009), p. 474.
 
20
Cfr. Buchheit (1978), p. 14.
 
21
Cfr. Ibid.
 
22
Cfr. Higgins (1993), p. 35.
 
23
Cfr. Heraclides (1991), p. 28.
 
24
Cfr. Crawford (1998), p. 115.
 
25
Cfr. Id., pp. 93 and 115. Wildhaber (1995), pp. 53–54.
 
26
Cfr. Shany (2014), p. 237. Vidmar (2015), p. 370. Wilson (2015), p. 218.
 
27
Cfr. Crawford (1998), p. 114. Jaber (2011), p. 937. Vidmar (2015), p. 370.
 
28
Cfr. Crawford (1998), pp. 107 and 108. Shany (2014), p. 237. With regard to the cases of Kosovo, Chechnya, Republika Srpska and Katanga, among others, see Vashakmadze and Lippold (2010), pp. 634–636.
 
29
Cfr. Burke-White (2014), p. 71. Christakis (2014), p. 741. Marxsen (2014), p. 385. Ryngaert (2010), p. 491. Tancredi (2014), p. 80.
 
30
Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 99.
 
31
Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 743. Wilson (2015), p. 217.
 
32
Franck et al. (eds.) (2000), p. 335.
 
33
Cfr. Abi-Saab (2006), p. 474. Christakis (2011), p. 83. Hilpold (2008), p. 117. Lauwers and Smis (2000), p. 64. Muharremi (2010), p. 875. Vidmar (2012), p. 164.
A similar view emerges in Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, pp. 26–27, para. 56.
 
34
The Case of the S.S. ‘Lotus’, Judgment of 7 September 1927, Series A – No. 10, 33, p. 18. http://​www.​icj-cij.​org/​files/​permanent-court-of-international-justice/​serie_​A/​A_​10/​30_​Lotus_​Arret.​pdf.
The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will […] and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be presumed.
 
35
Cfr. Wilde (2011), p. 152.
 
36
Cfr. Jacobs (2011), p. 804. Sciso (2014), p. 1009.
 
37
Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 79. Ingravallo (2012), p. 228. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 77.
 
38
Cfr. Jacobs (2011), p. 804.
 
39
Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 100. Walter (2014), p. 24.
Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 79.
 
40
Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 81. Tancredi (2012), p. 85. See also, by the same author Tancredi (2011), p. 223.
 
41
Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 354. Oeter (2012), p. 114. Vidmar (2015), p. 367.
 
42
Peters (2011), p. 99.
 
43
Cfr. ‘Declaration of Judge Simma’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 480, para. 9. http://​www.​icj-cij.​org/​files/​case-related/​141/​141-20100722-ADV-01-03-BI.​pdf.
 
44
Abi-Saab (2006), p. 474.
Cfr. Corten (2011), p. 88. See also, by the same author Corten (2006), p. 232. Christakis (1999), p. 74. Crawford (2007), p. 374. Kohen (2006), p. 5. Oeter (2012), p. 112. Walter (2014), p. 24.
 
45
Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 79. Sciso (2014), p. 1009. Tancredi (2014), p. 68.
 
46
Shaw (2000), p. 136.
Cfr. Jia (2009), p. 39.
 
47
Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 81. Vidmar (2012), p. 177.
 
48
Cfr. Corten (2006), p. 254. Tancredi (2014), p. 94.
This argument was put forwards by Professor Concepción Escobar Hernández in her intervention on behalf of Spain: ‘Accordingly, from the legal point of view it is impossible to accept that international law can remain ‘neutral’ in respect of an act (the Unilateral Declaration of Independence) which has serious international consequences’, I.C.J. CR 2009/30, of 8 December 2009, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 15 April 2009, 63, p. 15, para. 55. http://​www.​icj-cij.​org/​files/​case-related/​141/​141-20091208-ORA-01-01-BI.​pdf.
 
49
‘Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of Serbia’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 15 April 2009, 371, p. 356, para. 1033. http://​www.​icj-cij.​org/​files/​case-related/​141/​15642.​pdf.
 
50
Art. 2(7) of the UN Charter.
 
51
Cfr. Oeter (2012), p. 114.
 
52
Cfr. Article 2(1), 2(4), and 1(1) of the UN Charter.
Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 99. Tancredi (2014), p. 94.
 
53
Cfr. Borgen (2009), p. 8. Christakis (2006), p. 155. Musgrave (2000), p. 192. Oeter (2015), p. 56.
 
54
Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 37.
 
55
Norman (2003), p. 203.
 
56
Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 81. Ryngaert (2010), p. 491.
 
57
Cfr. Ioannidis (2015), pp. 175–177. Jovanović (2009), p. 63. Sunstein (1991), pp. 633–670.
 
58
Professor Théodore Christakis emphasized the famous Texas versus White case argued before the United States Supreme Court of 1869 https://​www.​law.​cornell.​edu/​supremecourt/​text/​74/​700, and Reference re Secession of Quebec case de 1998 before the Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, supra, Chap. 2, note 71. Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 743, note 46.
 
59
Among those constitutions contemplating secession clauses is the ‘Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein’ of 5 October 1921 (Art. 4(2)) http://​www.​wipo.​int/​wipolex/​en/​text.​jsp?​file_​id=​234654, together with the ‘Constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis’ of 22 June 1983 (Art. 113(1) and 115 on secession of Nevis) http://​www.​wipo.​int/​wipolex/​en/​text.​jsp?​file_​id=​235246, the ‘Constitution of the Slovak Republic’ of 1 September 1992 (Art. 93(1)) http://​www.​wipo.​int/​wipolex/​en/​text.​jsp?​file_​id=​416332, the ‘Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’ of 8 December 1994 (Art. 39) http://​www.​wipo.​int/​wipolex/​en/​text.​jsp?​file_​id=​193667, and the provisions of the ‘Northern Ireland Act’ of 1998 (Art. 1) http://​www.​legislation.​gov.​uk/​ukpga/​1998/​47/​contents.
Article 39 of the 1994 Constitution of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia lays down the following:
Article 39 Rights of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples.
(1) Every Nation, Nationality and People in Ethiopia has an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.
[…]
(4) The right to self-determination, including secession, of every Nation, Nationality and People shall come into effect:
[…]
(5) A ‘Nation, Nationality or People’ for the purpose of this Constitution, is a group of people who have or share large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.
Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 743, note 46. Jovanović (2009), pp. 64–65. Oeter (2012), p. 113.
 
60
Cfr. Bothe (2010), p. 837. Oeter (2012), p. 112. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 79. ‘Written Statement of the Kingdom of Norway’, Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, (Request for an Advisory Opinion), of 16 April 2009, 27, p. 5, para. 10. http://​www.​icj-cij.​org/​files/​case-related/​141/​15650.​pdf.
 
61
Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 438, para. 84.
Cfr. Tancredi (2008), p. 55.
 
62
Cf. Vidmar (2011), p. 368.
 
63
Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 96. Tancredi (2008), p. 55. Vidmar (2011), p. 368.
 
64
Cfr. Röben (2010), p. 1082.
 
65
Cfr. Ibid.
 
66
Cfr. Ibid.
 
67
Cfr. Ibid.
 
68
Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 79. Wilson (2009), p. 459.
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention stated:
State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States.
‘Convention on Rights and Duties of States’ adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States. Signed at Montevideo, 26 December 1933. 165 LNTS (1936), No. 3802, 19–43. https://​treaties.​un.​org/​doc/​Publication/​UNTS/​LON/​Volume%20​165/​v165.​pdf.
Consideration is given to the ‘doctrine of the three elements’ laid down by Georg Jellinek at the end of the nineteenth century. See Jellinek (1905). See also Cohen (1961), pp. 1127–1171.
 
69
Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 438, para. 79.
 
70
Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia, ‘Opinion No. 1’, of 29 November 1992, at para. 1).a). 31:6 ILM (1992), 1488–1526, pp. 1494–1497.
Cfr. Tancredi (2012), p. 94.
 
71
Cfr. Ibid. Vidmar (2011), p. 370. Wilson (2009), p. 459.
 
72
Cfr. Crawford (2007), pp. 62–89.
 
73
Cfr. Christakis (2014), p. 747, quoting Lauterpacht (1947), p. 8. Nguyên et al. (2009), p. 585. Vidmar (2012), p. 159.
 
74
Cfr. Miaja de la Muela (1958), pp. 12–13.
Cfr. Chemillier-Gendreau (1975), p. 42. De Visscher (1958), pp. 601–609. Salvioli (1953), pp. 274–275. Touscoz (1964), p. 256. Tucker (1953), pp. 31–48.
 
75
Cfr. Tancredi (2012), p. 93.
 
76
Cfr. Salvioli (1953), p. 275. Wilson (2009), p. 459.
 
77
Cfr. Lauterpacht (1947), pp. 411–412. Menon (1990), pp. 247–273.
 
78
Cfr. Lauterpacht (1947), pp. 411–412.
 
79
Cfr. Kelsen (1964), p. 114.
 
80
Cfr. Miaja de la Muela (1958), p. 49.
 
81
Cfr. Id., p. 50.
 
82
Cfr. Salvioli (1933), pp. 51–54.
 
83
Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 332. Vidmar (2015), p. 374.
 
84
Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 335, note 28.
 
85
Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 169.
 
86
Cfr. Tancredi (2008), pp. 37–38.
 
87
Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 82. Tancredi (2008), p. 38.
 
88
Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 82; and, by the same author Christakis (2014), p. 749. Tancredi (2012), p. 87. Vidmar (2012), pp. 171–175. See also, by the same author Vidmar (2015), p. 375.
 
89
Cfr. Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.
Cfr. Christakis (2011), p. 82. Van den Driest (2015), p. 356. Yee (2010), p. 781.
 
90
Crawford (2007), pp. 107–157. Vidmar (2011), p. 371. Vidmar (2015), p. 375.
 
91
Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.
 
92
Cfr. Orakhelashvili (2011), p. 82. Tancredi (2012), p. 87. Vidmar (2012), p. 169; and, by the same author Vidmar (2015), p. 375.
 
93
Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 438, para. 83.
 
94
Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 169.
 
95
Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 105.
 
96
Cfr. Van den Driest (2015), p. 356.
 
97
Accordance with the International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, supra, Chap. 1, note 3, p. 437, para. 81.
 
98
Cfr. Vidmar (2012), p. 171.
 
99
Cfr. Peters (2011), p. 108. Vidmar (2012), p. 177.
 
100
Cfr. Kaikobad (2011), p. 64.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Abi-Saab, G. 2006. Conclusion. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 470–476. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Abi-Saab, G. 2006. Conclusion. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 470–476. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Borgen, C.J. 2009. The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago JIL 10: 1–33. Borgen, C.J. 2009. The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago JIL 10: 1–33.
Zurück zum Zitat Bothe, M. 2010. Kosovo – So What? The Holding of the International Court of Justice Is Not the Last Word on Kosovo’s Independence. German LJ 11: 837–840. Bothe, M. 2010. Kosovo – So What? The Holding of the International Court of Justice Is Not the Last Word on Kosovo’s Independence. German LJ 11: 837–840.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchanan, A.E. 1991. Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec. Boulder: Westview Press. Buchanan, A.E. 1991. Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec. Boulder: Westview Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchheit, L.C. 1978. Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press. Buchheit, L.C. 1978. Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Burke-White, W.W. 2014. Crimea and the International Legal Order. Survival 56: 65–80.CrossRef Burke-White, W.W. 2014. Crimea and the International Legal Order. Survival 56: 65–80.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cassese, A. 1995. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cassese, A. 1995. Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Chemillier-Gendreau, M. 1975. À propos de l’effectivité en droit international. RBDI 11: 38–46. Chemillier-Gendreau, M. 1975. À propos de l’effectivité en droit international. RBDI 11: 38–46.
Zurück zum Zitat Christakis, T. 1999. Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. Paris: La Documentation française. Christakis, T. 1999. Le droit à l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. Paris: La Documentation française.
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2006. L’état en tant que ‘fait primaire’: réflexions fur la portée du principe d’effectivité. In Secession: International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 138–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef ———. 2006. L’état en tant que ‘fait primaire’: réflexions fur la portée du principe d’effectivité. In Secession: International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 138–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2011. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say About Secession? LJIL 24: 73–86.CrossRef ———. 2011. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say About Secession? LJIL 24: 73–86.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2014. Les conflits de sécession en Crimée et dans l’Est de l’Ukraine et le droit international (The Conflicts of Secession in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and International Law). JDI 141: 733–764. ———. 2014. Les conflits de sécession en Crimée et dans l’Est de l’Ukraine et le droit international (The Conflicts of Secession in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and International Law). JDI 141: 733–764.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen, R. 1961. The Concept of Statehood in United Nations Practice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 109: 1127–1171.CrossRef Cohen, R. 1961. The Concept of Statehood in United Nations Practice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 109: 1127–1171.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Corten, O. 2006. Are There Gaps in the International Law of Secession? In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 231–254. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Corten, O. 2006. Are There Gaps in the International Law of Secession? In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M.G. Kohen, 231–254. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2011. Territorial Integrity Narrowly Interpreted: Reasserting the Classical Inter-State Paradigm of International Law. LJIL 24: 87–94.CrossRef ———. 2011. Territorial Integrity Narrowly Interpreted: Reasserting the Classical Inter-State Paradigm of International Law. LJIL 24: 87–94.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Crawford, J. 1998. State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession. BYIL 69: 85–117. Crawford, J. 1998. State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession. BYIL 69: 85–117.
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2007. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef ———. 2007. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat De Visscher, Ch. 1958. Observations sur l’effectivité en droit international public. RGDIP 62: 601–609. De Visscher, Ch. 1958. Observations sur l’effectivité en droit international public. RGDIP 62: 601–609.
Zurück zum Zitat Franck, T.M., R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M.N. Shaw, and C. Tomuschat. 2000. The Territorial Integrity of Québec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty – Experts Report. In Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, ed. A.F. Bayefski, 333–342. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Franck, T.M., R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M.N. Shaw, and C. Tomuschat. 2000. The Territorial Integrity of Québec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty – Experts Report. In Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, ed. A.F. Bayefski, 333–342. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Zurück zum Zitat Haverland, C. 2000. Secession. In Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R. Bernhardt, vol. IV, 354–359. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing. Haverland, C. 2000. Secession. In Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R. Bernhardt, vol. IV, 354–359. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
Zurück zum Zitat Heraclides, A. 1991. Self-Determination of Minorities in International Politics. London: Frank Cass. Heraclides, A. 1991. Self-Determination of Minorities in International Politics. London: Frank Cass.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins, R. 1993. Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession. In Peoples and Minorities in International Law, ed. C. Brolmann, R. Lefeber, and M. Zieck, 29–35. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Higgins, R. 1993. Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Secession. In Peoples and Minorities in International Law, ed. C. Brolmann, R. Lefeber, and M. Zieck, 29–35. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Zurück zum Zitat Hilpold, P. 2008. Die Sezession – zum Versuch der Verrechtlichung eines faktischen Phänomens. ZaöRV/HJIL 63: 117–141. Hilpold, P. 2008. Die Sezession – zum Versuch der Verrechtlichung eines faktischen Phänomens. ZaöRV/HJIL 63: 117–141.
Zurück zum Zitat Ingravallo, I. 2012. Kosovo After the ICJ Advisory Opinion: Towards a European Perspective? ICLR 14: 219–241. Ingravallo, I. 2012. Kosovo After the ICJ Advisory Opinion: Towards a European Perspective? ICLR 14: 219–241.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis, N.A. 2015. Constitutional Prohibition of Secession Under the Prism of International Law: The Cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Cyprus. Edimburgh Student Law Review 2: 169–180. Ioannidis, N.A. 2015. Constitutional Prohibition of Secession Under the Prism of International Law: The Cases of Kosovo, Crimea and Cyprus. Edimburgh Student Law Review 2: 169–180.
Zurück zum Zitat Jaber, T. 2011. A Case for Kosovo? Self-Determination and Secession in the 21st Century. IJHR 15: 926–947. Jaber, T. 2011. A Case for Kosovo? Self-Determination and Secession in the 21st Century. IJHR 15: 926–947.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobs, D. 2011. International Court of Justice. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. ICLQ 60: 799–810.CrossRef Jacobs, D. 2011. International Court of Justice. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. ICLQ 60: 799–810.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jellinek, G. 1905. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: O. Häring. Jellinek, G. 1905. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: O. Häring.
Zurück zum Zitat Jia, B.B. 2009. The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession? Chinese JIL 8: 27–46. Jia, B.B. 2009. The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession? Chinese JIL 8: 27–46.
Zurück zum Zitat Jovanović, M.A. 2009. Can Constitutions Be of Use in the Resolution of Secessionist Conflicts? JILIR 5: 59–87. Jovanović, M.A. 2009. Can Constitutions Be of Use in the Resolution of Secessionist Conflicts? JILIR 5: 59–87.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaikobad, K.H. 2011. Another Frozen Conflict: Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence and International Law. In Kosovo: A Precedent?: The Declaration of Independence, the Advisory Opinion and Implications for Statehood, Self-Determination and Minority Rights, ed. J. Summers, 55–85. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Kaikobad, K.H. 2011. Another Frozen Conflict: Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence and International Law. In Kosovo: A Precedent?: The Declaration of Independence, the Advisory Opinion and Implications for Statehood, Self-Determination and Minority Rights, ed. J. Summers, 55–85. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Zurück zum Zitat Kapustin, A. 2015. Crimea’s Self-Determination in the Light of Contemporary International Law. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 101–118. Kapustin, A. 2015. Crimea’s Self-Determination in the Light of Contemporary International Law. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 101–118.
Zurück zum Zitat Kelsen, H. 1964. The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems (4th Printing). London: Stevens & Sons Ltd. Kelsen, H. 1964. The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems (4th Printing). London: Stevens & Sons Ltd.
Zurück zum Zitat Kohen, M.G. 2006. Introduction. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 1–20. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Kohen, M.G. 2006. Introduction. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 1–20. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lauterpacht, H. 1947. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lauterpacht, H. 1947. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Lauwers, G., and S. Smis. 2000. New Dimensions of the Right to Self-Determination: A Study of the International Response to the Kosovo Crisis. N & EP 6: 43–70. Lauwers, G., and S. Smis. 2000. New Dimensions of the Right to Self-Determination: A Study of the International Response to the Kosovo Crisis. N & EP 6: 43–70.
Zurück zum Zitat Marxsen, C. 2014. The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective. ZaöRV/HJIL 74: 367–391. Marxsen, C. 2014. The Crimea Crisis – An International Law Perspective. ZaöRV/HJIL 74: 367–391.
Zurück zum Zitat Menon, P.K. 1990. The Problem of Recognition in International Law: Some Thoughts on Community Interest. Nordic JIL 59: 247–273. Menon, P.K. 1990. The Problem of Recognition in International Law: Some Thoughts on Community Interest. Nordic JIL 59: 247–273.
Zurück zum Zitat Miaja de la Muela, A. 1958. El principio de efectividad en Derecho internacional. Valladolid: Universidad. Miaja de la Muela, A. 1958. El principio de efectividad en Derecho internacional. Valladolid: Universidad.
Zurück zum Zitat Muharremi, R. 2010. A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. German LJ 11: 867–880. Muharremi, R. 2010. A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. German LJ 11: 867–880.
Zurück zum Zitat Musgrave, T.D. 2000. Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Musgrave, T.D. 2000. Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Nguyên, Quôc Dinh, et al. 2009. Droit international public. 8th ed. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence. Nguyên, Quôc Dinh, et al. 2009. Droit international public. 8th ed. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
Zurück zum Zitat Norman, W. 2003. Domesticating Secession. In Secession and Self-Determination, ed. S. Macedo and A. Buchanan, 193–237. New York; London: New York University Press. Norman, W. 2003. Domesticating Secession. In Secession and Self-Determination, ed. S. Macedo and A. Buchanan, 193–237. New York; London: New York University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Oeter, S. 2012. Secession, Territorial Integrity and the Role of the Security Council. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 109–138. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRef Oeter, S. 2012. Secession, Territorial Integrity and the Role of the Security Council. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 109–138. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2015. The Kosovo Case – An Unfortunate Precedent. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 51–74. ———. 2015. The Kosovo Case – An Unfortunate Precedent. ZaöRV/HJIL 75: 51–74.
Zurück zum Zitat Orakhelashvili, A. 2011. The International Courts Advisory Opinion on the UDI in Respect of Kosovo: Washing Away the Foam on the Tide of Time. Max Planck YUNL 15: 65–104. Orakhelashvili, A. 2011. The International Courts Advisory Opinion on the UDI in Respect of Kosovo: Washing Away the Foam on the Tide of Time. Max Planck YUNL 15: 65–104.
Zurück zum Zitat Peters, A. 2011. Does Kosovo Lie in the Lotus-Land of Freedom? LJIL 24: 95–108.CrossRef Peters, A. 2011. Does Kosovo Lie in the Lotus-Land of Freedom? LJIL 24: 95–108.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Röben, V. 2010. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo: Rules or Principles? GoJIL 2: 1063–1086. Röben, V. 2010. The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo: Rules or Principles? GoJIL 2: 1063–1086.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryngaert, C. 2010. The ICJs Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: A Mixed Opportunity?: International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. NILR 57: 481–494.CrossRef Ryngaert, C. 2010. The ICJs Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: A Mixed Opportunity?: International Court of Justice, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010. NILR 57: 481–494.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Salvioli, G. 1933. Les régles générales de la paix. Recueil des cours 46: 5–163. Salvioli, G. 1933. Les régles générales de la paix. Recueil des cours 46: 5–163.
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 1953. L’‘effettività’ in diritto internazionale. Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico 3: 271–280. ———. 1953. L’‘effettività’ in diritto internazionale. Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico 3: 271–280.
Zurück zum Zitat Sciso, E. 2014. La crisi ucraina e lintervento russo: profile di diritto internazionale. RDI 97: 992–1031. Sciso, E. 2014. La crisi ucraina e lintervento russo: profile di diritto internazionale. RDI 97: 992–1031.
Zurück zum Zitat Shany, Y. 2014. Does International Law Grant the People of Crimea and Donetsk a Right to Secede? Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 Events in Ukraine. Brown JWA 21: 233–244. Shany, Y. 2014. Does International Law Grant the People of Crimea and Donetsk a Right to Secede? Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 Events in Ukraine. Brown JWA 21: 233–244.
Zurück zum Zitat Shaw, M.N. 2000. Re: Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996’. In Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, ed. A.F. Bayefsky, 125–152. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Shaw, M.N. 2000. Re: Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996’. In Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, ed. A.F. Bayefsky, 125–152. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Zurück zum Zitat Sunstein, C.R. 1991. Constitutionalism and Secession. UCLR 58: 633–670.CrossRef Sunstein, C.R. 1991. Constitutionalism and Secession. UCLR 58: 633–670.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tancredi, A. 2008. Neither Authorized nor Prohibited? Secession and International Law after Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Italian YIL 18: 37–62. Tancredi, A. 2008. Neither Authorized nor Prohibited? Secession and International Law after Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Italian YIL 18: 37–62.
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2011. The ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion as an Exercise in Pre-Understanding. In Questions de droit international autour de l’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice sur le Kosovo, ed. M. Arcari and L. Balmond, 217–236. Milan: Giuffrè. ———. 2011. The ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion as an Exercise in Pre-Understanding. In Questions de droit international autour de l’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice sur le Kosovo, ed. M. Arcari and L. Balmond, 217–236. Milan: Giuffrè.
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2012. Some Remarks on the Relationship Between Secession and General International Law in the Light of the ICJs Kosovo Advisory Opinion. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 79–108. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRef ———. 2012. Some Remarks on the Relationship Between Secession and General International Law in the Light of the ICJs Kosovo Advisory Opinion. In Kosovo and International Law: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ed. P. Hilpold, 79–108. Leiden; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2014. Secession and the Use of Force. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 68–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. Secession and the Use of Force. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 68–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Tomuschat, C. 2006. Secession and Self-Determination. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 23–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Tomuschat, C. 2006. Secession and Self-Determination. In Secession. International Law Perspectives, ed. M. Kohen, 23–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Touscoz, J. 1964. Le principe d’effectivité dans l’ordre international. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence. Touscoz, J. 1964. Le principe d’effectivité dans l’ordre international. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence.
Zurück zum Zitat Tucker, R.W. 1953. The Principle of Effectiveness in International Law. In Law and Politics in the World Community: Essays on Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory and Related Problems in International Law, ed. G.A. Lipsky, 31–48. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Tucker, R.W. 1953. The Principle of Effectiveness in International Law. In Law and Politics in the World Community: Essays on Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory and Related Problems in International Law, ed. G.A. Lipsky, 31–48. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Van den Driest, S.F. 2015. Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law. NILR 62: 329–363.CrossRef Van den Driest, S.F. 2015. Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law. NILR 62: 329–363.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Vashakmadze, M., and M. Lippold. 2010. Nothing But a Road Towards Secession? The International Court of Justices Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. GoJIL 2: 619–647. Vashakmadze, M., and M. Lippold. 2010. Nothing But a Road Towards Secession? The International Court of Justices Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. GoJIL 2: 619–647.
Zurück zum Zitat Vidmar, J. 2011. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion Scrutinized. LJIL 24: 355–383.CrossRef Vidmar, J. 2011. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion Scrutinized. LJIL 24: 355–383.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2012. Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law. Oxford JLS 32: 153–177. ———. 2012. Conceptualizing Declarations of Independence in International Law. Oxford JLS 32: 153–177.
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2015. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People. German LJ 16: 365–383. ———. 2015. The Annexation of Crimea and the Boundaries of the Will of the People. German LJ 16: 365–383.
Zurück zum Zitat Walter, C. 2014. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion: What It Says and What It Does Not Say. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 13–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walter, C. 2014. The Kosovo Advisory Opinion: What It Says and What It Does Not Say. In Self-Determination and Secession in International Law, ed. C. Walter et al., 13–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilde, R. 2011. Self-Determination, Secession, and Dispute Settlement After the Kosovo Advisory Opinion. LJIL 24: 149–154.CrossRef Wilde, R. 2011. Self-Determination, Secession, and Dispute Settlement After the Kosovo Advisory Opinion. LJIL 24: 149–154.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wildhaber, L. 1995. Territorial Modifications and Breakups in Federal States. Canadian YIL 33: 41–74. Wildhaber, L. 1995. Territorial Modifications and Breakups in Federal States. Canadian YIL 33: 41–74.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson, G. 2009. Self-Determination, Recognition and the Problem of Kosovo. NILR 56: 455–481.CrossRef Wilson, G. 2009. Self-Determination, Recognition and the Problem of Kosovo. NILR 56: 455–481.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat ———. 2015. Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Müllerson and Tolstykh. Chinese JIL 14: 217–223. ———. 2015. Crimea: Some Observations on Secession and Intervention in Partial Response to Müllerson and Tolstykh. Chinese JIL 14: 217–223.
Zurück zum Zitat Yee, S. 2010. Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 4): The Kosovo Advisory Opinion. Chinese JIL 9: 763–782. Yee, S. 2010. Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 4): The Kosovo Advisory Opinion. Chinese JIL 9: 763–782.
Metadaten
Titel
The Right to Self-Determination and Unilateral Secession
verfasst von
Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa
Copyright-Jahr
2017
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72622-9_3