Author
Abstract
The constitutions of the majority of the existing states reflect a negative attitude towards secession: from the establishment of a number of constitutional principles (the unity of the nation, the integrity of the state, etc.), which are interpreted by the bodies of constitutional control as directly or indirectly hindering the implementation of secession, to its direct prohibition. Only a small group of constitutions contain provisions allowing secession. Along with this, in the international legal field, wherein the states operate and declare the recognition of the principles thereof, there is a principle of recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. Within the framework of national law the secession, which was a precondition for the existence of the significant number of the contemporary states and, as such, served as the basis for the proclamation and approval of their independence, is considered at the official level as an important and significant event. It is celebrated as official holidays, anniversaries of independence, also states may support customs and traditions that are associated with the secession. The article shows that this “double standards†, applied by a significant part of modern states to past and future secessions is caused by, on the one hand, state obvious interest to preserve integrity, and, on the other hand, the traditions rooted in the past. The doctrine that justifies the strictly negative state attitude towards secession is not ideal, contradictory, based on the currently transforming concepts and theories; thus counter-arguments were developed based on fundamental constitutional theories and research. The diversity and inconsistency of the doctrine forces the contemporary state to either seek a balance between conflicting theories and approaches, or to adhere to one of them — usually not the most actual one. The necessary combination, synchronization of international legal and constitutional legal attitudes towards the regulation of secession can be ensured, first of all, if such regulation is based on the principle of the priority of human rights. At the same time, in contrast to the principle of the sovereign right to dispose of their territories by the states based on the model of property rights, which has feudal roots (which is also being modernized and transformed in the context of globalization), the humanitarian approach to ensure the right of people to self-determination is designed to guarantee the possibility of a free and rational choice of the form of their state existence by regional and local communities.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ccs:journl:y:2021:id:716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Кривопалов Ð Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐµÐ¹ Ð Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐµÐµÐ²Ð¸Ñ‡ (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.