I defend the cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession, according to which a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice. I argue that the theory is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism, which is independently attractive, and because, unlike other theories of secession, it allows us to give the answers we want to give in cases like secession of the rich or secession that would make things worse for (...) minorities. I defend the view against the objections that it allows for colonialism and annexation, that it is not a distinct theory, and that it is impractical. (shrink)

Nagorno-Karabakh y la responsabilidad de proteger Los términos del acuerdo de alto el fuego en Nagorno-Karabaj firmado el 9 de noviembre de 2020, tras la ofensiva azerí del 27 de septiembre de 2020, son una cínica confirmación de la victoria de Vladimir Putin y también, en parte, del presidente turco Recep Tayyip Erdogan, cuyo papel clave en este conflicto unilateral es ahora un hecho reconocido. Este acuerdo plantea más preguntas que respuestas. Tres cuestiones relacionadas con la responsabilidad de proteger, que (...) incumbe a la comunidad internacional, son acuciantes: el estatuto jurídico de Nagorno-Karabaj, cuya aclaración es necesaria para la estabilidad de la región; el enjuiciamiento de los responsables de los crímenes de guerra cometidos durante los 44 días de combates; el destino exacto de los refugiados y de las poblaciones locales, y también de los tesoros culturales armenios que ahora están bajo control azerí, así como las modalidades de la coexistencia posterior al conflicto con respecto a los derechos humanos. La resolución de estas tres cuestiones constituye un reto importante frente a tres Estados autoritarios: Azerbaiyán, respaldado por Turquía, bajo la supervisión de Rusia. (shrink)

Secession is again a hot political topic. Consider the recent events in Catalonia. In an illegal referendum in October 2017, amid large-scale demonstrations and violent interventions by the Spanish...

This article grounds the morality of secession on two forms of collective self-determination: one manifests the communal goods of secessionists and the other the value of shared political institutions. Secession is morally valuable when the two are incompatible such that the claimant confronts persistent alienation. For remedial rights theories, only ‘strict violations’ permit secession. For primary rights theories, ‘broad violations’ grant secession as a last resort, and so this thesis, ‘collective self-determination as nonalienation’, should be accepted regardless. First, as the (...) two collective forms of self-determination develop two forms of territorial rights, it supplements cogent accounts of territorial justification for, and claims to, secession. Second, as persistent alienation can have both strict and broad interpretations, it also provides moral grounds shared by remedial and primary rights theories if they concede the value of collective self-determination. The strict sense refers to persistent coercion that violates personal autonomy and nullifies state legitimacy. The broad interpretation denotes long-term political frustration caused by unreasonable prevention of greater collective autonomy that even legitimate states may achieve. Third, to verify whether this amounts to long-term political frustration and to address persistent alienation, secession should be regarded as a last resort, despite its support from the primary rights account. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, Volume 53, Issue 3, Page 421-440, Fall 2022.

Republican theorists have paid little attention to the normative problems of secession conflicts. So far, there is no such thing as a democratic republican theory of right of secession ; nor any comprehensive analysis of current TRS has ever been undertaken from a democratic republican point of view. This article tries to fill this second gap as a first step in order to fill that first one. In doing so, it shows how secession conflicts pose threats for two core democratic (...) republican values: freedom and inclusion. The threats are, concretely, those of exclusion, blackmailing minorities, arbitrary permanent majorities, and instability. The article also shows how, due to their respective pro-unionist or pro-secessionist biases, no current TRS seems to be able to handle those threats; and briefly outlines how a democratic republican TRS, based on a non-unilateralist logic, could be developed. (shrink)

Este artículo utiliza la perspectiva de la democracia deliberativa para evaluar la teoría de la minoría permanente como posible motivo de secesión. Según esta teoría, los catalanes constituyen minorías permanentes que, en ningún caso, podrían obtener las mayorías parlamentarias que les permitan separarse. Históricamente, esta circunstancia habría propiciado las condiciones para un abuso permanente. Hoy en día, impediría el éxito de los procesos de secesión, lo que no dejaría otra alternativa que eludir los medios democráticos. El artículo concluye que este (...) argumento resulta incompatible con los ideales de la democracia deliberativa. En el mejor de los casos, la teoría colapsa en la tesis de la secesión como reparación: si los intereses de la minoría han sido adecuadamente considerados en un proceso deliberativo, las decisiones de la mayoría están justificadas y por lo tanto no generan un derecho de secesión; si esos intereses han sido ignorados, las decisiones no cumplen con los estándares deliberativos y acaban en el clásico derecho a la secesión de la teoría de la reparación. (shrink)

Politics is about managing conflict, about how we should live together. Many traditions of thought and political thinkers have nonetheless taken this shared space of conflict, this we the people, as a given. The people is considered as a necessary precondition for politics. What happens when a part of this we disagrees with that? When, for some, this shared community is not taken as a given and claim their right to secede and build their own independent political community. Such claims (...) bear on the fundamental questions: who is the “ demos ”? who are the people entitled to self-government?’. (shrink)