Toward a republican theory of secession

Like most theories of democracy, democratic republicanism has usually taken for granted who the demos is. However, precisely one frequent sources political conflicts in contemporary history is determination its boundaries, particularly –though not only– secession conflicts. This article aims to answer a related question: what kind right secede from modern state,1 if any, can be acknowledged republican viewpoint? By answering this question, I hope make contribution both literature (in which barely been analyzed) and also normative on very rarely used as framework). The core tenet theory developed here recognition non-unilateral2 any secessionist community within state, coupled symmetrically with non-unilateral territorial unity that host state. rationale behind deny sides power impose their will without having consider interests opinions other side; is, arbitrary power, terms synonymous domination. As we see, turn minimizes chances permanent majorities powerful minorities achieving center-periphery does discuss general phenomenon, but focuses where secessionists state (and unionists it) are peaceful3 democratic. analytical choice minimize might call noise, i.e., issues distract our attention ones initially intended discuss. Modern democracies, however imperfect they may be, closest polities ideals exist world. Thus, when neither nor potentially seceding territory attempting move away model non-democratic direction, appears normatively “naked” democratic-republican terms. am trying find out whether legitimated undemocratic states, states suppressing an attempt. presents over eight sections: (1) review current secession, pointing why useful framework overcome weaknesses; (2) overview main tenets republicanism, explaining how) must analyze type factional conflicts; (3) presentation my based non-unilateralism; (4) outline non-unilateralist (5) three problematic scenarios theory, role unilateral mechanisms play order tackle them; (6) exploration strengths weaknesses two possible institutional translations (constitutionalization internationalization); (7) discussion some foreseeable criticisms theory; (8) summary conclusions. For purposes article, movement group people seek broader people, namely target group. When clear majority group, qualifies community. While every single member secessionist, true communities. And seeks establish through democratically acceptable means, it Unilateral often regarded “the principal focus interest theorists secession” (Pavkovic & Radan, 2007, 200–201). Theories (TRS) classified into different categories depending deem entitled (unilateral) secession: territorially concentrated groups, plebiscitarianism (Beran, 1984; Copp, 1998; Lefkowitz, 2008; Philpott, Wellman, 2005); culturally encompassing ascriptivism (Margalit Raz, 1990; Miller, 1997); or groups unjustly intolerably harmed by (although necessarily only) basic human rights, remedialism (Birch, Brilmayer, 1991; Buchanan, 1991, 2007; Christiano, 2006; Patten, 2002). first TRS conceive primary right, priori, no need justify decision; only differ regarding definition people(s) right. Primary criticized being open door to: secessio ad infinitum, unending recursive secessions, leading anarchy, blackmail threat, risk giving privileged (e.g., wealthy ones) threaten whole polity. In addition, further for: weak operationalization: difficult give empirically operational ascriptive features share considered “culturally group”; threat exclusion poses: those live do features, come seen second-class citizens, eventually excluded decision even citizenship altogether.4 Due these weaknesses, many scholars espouse version remedialism, regards last resort face certain persistent injustices. What injustices matter discussion, remedialists generally agree injustices, such massive violations rights. remedial have unfairly biased toward status quo,5 since assume legitimacy boundaries put burden proof secessionists. result historical episodes wars) far reflecting values rest upon. Remedialism suggests objection: long reasonably just, irrelevant. world falling between terribly oppressed privileged, blackmailing ones, there intermediate cases minorities,6 controversies nation-building language regulations, structure economic institutions).7 It seems unfair simply endure condition because war lost distant past, instance. all way dangerously either think reason common weakness choose priori winner conflicts, disputed unless X. Remedialists means justice-based view legitimacy: unjustified, therefore illegitimate. Plebiscitarian theories, hand, (or exclusively) justice. examine weakness, shall briefly explore point. important distinguish justice legitimacy. Justice about question should done institutions law; content legal decisions be,” while serve approximate ideal justice, how it” (Martí, 2017, 731). includes “who” legitimacy, look at concrete point “whos”: would like see ruling (because justice) rule. instance, Rawlsian and, therefore, tend support social-democratic governments; same time, regard government Nozickian libertarian agenda legitimate, won legitimate free fair multi-party elections). understand “who legitimately secede?” aspect rule?” question. seen, direct connection “whos” rule justly rule, reason, ruled separate themselves unjust problem establishing makes highly deal with. We ideas practical implications (especially stake). precisely, reasons governments laws, so someone arbitrate differences. But end, us, person more just best views then going round circles tackling problem. communities procedures enable them manner recognized laws somehow unjust. words: manage (including involving conflicting way. Therefore, plebiscitarian claims. problem, however, emphasize “how.” opinion, “how” constitutive derivative. elections country X) settles hold executive X), enjoy great internal external legitimizations, making easier resorting “might right” logic. When, conversely, decide “who,” indeed nemesis freedom was case wars succession monarchies. nowadays, reasons, rather than deciding foremost sets needs could placed now underway literature: finding holder several authors delineating processes managed Sanjaume-Calvet, 2019); close Bossacoma Busquets, 2020). argue provide valuable tools developing theory. reconstruction tradition Pettit (1997), building historiographic work Skinner (1998); arguably mainstream literature. According reconstruction, republicanism: stands non-domination; understands domination individual X Y, exercised Y Y's (Pettit, 1997, 35); argues that, promote freedom, private controlled dispersed state; prevent itself becoming dominator, organized constitutional republic,8 own powers kept check civic virtue mutually dependent. republicans, opposed oligarchic endeavor include 95–96). exclusion, defined here, concerns republicanism. Considered way, encompasses canonical Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Madison Wollstonecraft, name few; thought, focused well 2012, 18–19), realm domestic politics international relations (Onuf, 1998). Concerning value, topic thought importance danger) comes designing non-dominating (therefore, legitimate) institutions. To contending faction gain absolute arbitrary) others. dispersion public needed guard against potential abuses officers, takeover. Republican applied concern balance (Deudney, 2008). Republicanism, concerned able factions win become formed another (secessionism), doing (unionism). Even affinity Miller (2008) Weinstock Nadeau (2004), concepts principles works (Miller, 1997; Weinstock, 2000, 2001). occasionally worked view, somewhat exploratory (McGarry Moore, 2011), secondary issue nationalism (Ovejero, 2006, 81), law (Sellers, 158–66), self-determination (Klabbers, 2006). Other scholars, Caminal (2007) Young (2005), examined relationship self-determination, multinational federalism, secession. Only Catala (2017) outlined ethical–political duties concerning non-domination, particular area (distributive justice). much yet formulating TRS. already noted, conflict understood sort conflict. ultimate expression central peripheral minority, along lines disagreements conceived economy (i.e., organization), distribution power) identity.9 regard, imply four threats under authority polity altogether. darkest points theories: objective traits, traits process secession; fact, citizens new part people.” second minorities: capable will, minority happened wealth) position blackmail10 polity,11 (thus, exercising Y). affects TRS, especially permissive unilaterally will. These led Ovejero (2006, 81) Sellers 25) embrace remedialism. ill-prepared handle third majorities: stating bear proof, gives high ground majorities, arbitrarily degree autonomy, recognition, promotion grant minorities. requires little explanation, confused “tough luck” attitude proffered to, say, loser election. protect members, designed require track people. Since unanimity rarity thus quo), typically defends plus counter-majoritarian checks. goal checks terms) minorities, allow intervene debates persuade themselves. healthy expect sometimes minority. If, progressive, disappointed conservative vote, pleased progressive victory vice versa, conservative). easily changeable nature counter-majority least force citizens. economy, territory, identity, hardly ever change; thus, easy govern members individually equipped full linguistic decide, sheer demographic numbers strictly procedures, remove teaching indigenous education. mean it, it. terms, dominating stance, stance power. There remedialist strategies posed defense reasonable degrees intrastate autonomy (Buchanan, 401–24); inclusion, catalog “just causes” insufficient self-government, discriminatory redistribution, and/or failure (Bauböck, 2000; 2002; Seymour, 2007). actually overcomes majorities. saying accept settlements understanding “reasonable settlement” subject Moreover, context-dependent discussed case-by-case basis. each case, side So merely bounce around overcome. seems, (pro-secessionist pro-unionist) bias tends (either minorities). things worse, due sides, none likely accepted side, fourth goals: instability, inappropriate handling all) triggering critique elsewhere (Perez-Lozano, 2021b). threats, devote next section lean mechanisms, completely discarding ones. logic aimed allowing pursue respective goals; while, forcing take account, tantamount other's account. Quebec Secession Reference (Supreme Court Canada, 1998), received Canadian unilateralist positions conflict: denied constitution had duty negotiate Quebecer good faith, Quebecers answered “yes” reference welcomed secessionists, delighted reaction latter was, quite telling. asking counterfactual included Ottawa's obligation “Yes” victory? Initially, appear impossible, exactly true: before issued Reference, federalists repeatedly asserted did want retain Canada Quebecers, (Sauvegau et al., 108). then, difference make? Why gladly reluctant 105–107)? dominated another—for example, go extreme slave interfered choices. happen master kindly non-interfering disposition. Or cunning fawning enough get whatever like. (1997, 22) forbidding goals taking account minimized directions 2021a). And, provided framework, interpreted break presenting player international; cost pointed (272–273). Republicanism develop kinds schemes obtain results. channel deep interested parties genuine protected result, legitimize imposing costs onto anyone tempted unilaterally. stability hand hand. job done, grounded similar Reference. section, pillars: right12 community, dealing oppressive,13 unilateralist, failed oppressive, pillars form basically reflect elements drawn up Reference: inclusive) referendum among community; victory, negotiation faith offers (non-unilateral) defend unity. epistemic values: (if is) create both: mandate regional representatives faith. Of course, raises negotiation, whole; 6. now, reach look, following: (a) question?; (b) inclusive?; (c) majority?; (d) “negotiation faith” look? referendum, firstly, clear. This, theoretical challenge: observers, uncontroversial 2014 Scottish clear, 1980 not.14 Secondly, inclusive, sure talking inclusiveness vote vote; clearness “how many” determine dimensions: (which victory) (who referendum). dimension, let define secede, held. should, precondition: broad consensus throughout territory. 5; us exists consensus. decided obvious exclusion. creation inclusive requires,