Date: 2019
Type: Contribution to book
A critique of the theory of democratic secession
Carlos CLOSA, Costanza MARGIOTTA and Giuseppe MARTINICO (eds), Between democracy and law : the amorality of secession, New York : Routledge, 2019, pp. 49-61
CLOSA, Carlos, A critique of the theory of democratic secession, in Carlos CLOSA, Costanza MARGIOTTA and Giuseppe MARTINICO (eds), Between democracy and law : the amorality of secession, New York : Routledge, 2019, pp. 49-61
- https://hdl.handle.net/1814/65448
Retrieved from Cadmus, EUI Research Repository
The scholarly consensus on theories of secession divides them into two broad categories (Buchanan, 2017), although authors label them differently. These labels serve the purpose of emphasizing specific characteristics of each approach. On the one hand, the so-called “ just case theory ” or remedial right only theory (Buchanan, 1991) argues that any legitimate right to secession must respond to an egregious injury or harm committed against the seceding entity for which secession is the remedy of last resort (see also Baubock, 2019). Although some have spoken about just case theory as acceptable secession under international law (Cassese, 1995:119– 120), the most widespread consensus is that international law does not permit or legitimates secession (Tancredi, 2001; Margiotta, 2006). I will not discuss just cause theories since I assume that such egregious violations might justify legitimate secessions
Cadmus permanent link: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/65448
ISBN: 9780367145804
Publisher: Routledge
Files associated with this item
Files | Size | Format | View |
---|---|---|---|
There are no files associated with this item. |