Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/103438
Type of publication: research article
Type of publication (PDB): Straipsnis kitose duomenų bazėse / Article in other databases (S4)
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Levinskas, Rokas
Title: Whether there is a right to remedial secession under international law?
Other Title: Ar tarptautinėje teisėje turi būti suteikiama teisė į gynybinę secesiją?
Is part of: Teisės apžvalga [elektroninis išteklius] = Law review. Kaunas : Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 2019, nr. 2 (20)
Extent: p. 44-67
Date: 2019
Keywords: Tarptautinė teisė;Apsisprendimo teisė;Gynybinė secesija;Teritorinis vientisumas;Vienašalis atsiskyrimas;International law;Self-determination;Remedial secession;Territorial integrity;Unilateral secession
Abstract: Purpose of this article is to determine whether the right to remedial secession exists under the contemporary international law. This question is relevant because intense legal debates concerning an existence of this right has not come to conclusion. Moreover, it is important to answer this question because of a vast number of separatist movements worldwide that base their claim for independence on self-determination and the concept of remedial right to secede. In order to answer the question whether the right to remedial secession exists under the contemporary international law relevant judicial decisions, state practice and opinio juris were analysed. It was concluded that there is no remedial right to secede under the contemporary international law. First, it was determined that international community is reluctant to recognise unilateral attempts of secession. Therefore, consent of parent state is still considered to be an important factor for acceptance of new states. Secondly, there was no single instance of acceptance of entitlement to remedial secession in state practice. Also, there is a split in states opinio juris concerning an existence of remedial right to secede. Furthermore, there is no strong and united opinio juris supporting this notion. Accordingly, weak opinio juris and lack of practical implementation show that remedial secession cannot be considered as a part of the binding international law
Internet: https://www.vdu.lt/cris/bitstream/20.500.12259/103438/1/ISSN2029-4239_2020_N_2_20.PG_44-67.pdf
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/103438
https://doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.20.3
Affiliation(s): Teisės fakultetas
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Appears in Collections:Teisės apžvalga / Law Review 2019, nr. 2(20)
Universiteto mokslo publikacijos / University Research Publications

Files in This Item:
marc.xml6.27 kBXMLView/Open

MARC21 XML metadata

Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

111
checked on May 1, 2021

Download(s)

191
checked on May 1, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.