To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secession is the formal withdrawal of a group from a political entity. The process begins once a group proclaims an act of secession (such as a declaration of independence).[1] A secession attempt might be violent or peaceful, but the goal is the creation of a new state or entity independent of the group or territory from which it seceded.[2] Threats of secession can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.[3]

Notable examples of secession, and secession attempts, include:

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    3 523 961
    30 856
    10 743
    6 528
    20 465
  • The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18
  • Vienna Secession in 8 Minutes 🇦🇹 Klimt's Femmes Fatales and Passion for Gold 💃
  • Why is Texas Talking About Secession?
  • Nicoletti on the Constitutionality of Secession
  • Lee on Secession


CCUS18 Election 1860 Hi I’m John Green; this is Crash Course US History and today we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American history: What caused the Civil War? Just kidding it’s not a confusing question at all: Slavery caused the Civil War. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about, like, states rights and nationalism, economics-- Me from the Past, your senior year of high school you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about 182 years old, and you will say something to him in class about states rights. And Mr. Fleming will turn to you and he will say, “A state’s rights to what, sir?” And for the first time in your snotty little life, you will be well and truly speechless. intro The road to the Civil War leads to discussions of states slavery, and differing economic systems...specifically whether those economic systems should involve slavery, and the election of Abraham Lincoln, specifically how his election impacted slavery, but none of those things would have been issues without slavery. So let’s pick up with the most controversial section of the Compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law. Now, longtime Crash Course viewers will remember that there was already a Fugitive Slave Law written into the United States Constitution, so what made this one so controversial? Under this new law, any citizen was required to turn in anyone he or she knew to be a slave to authorities. And that made, like, every person in New England into a sheriff, and it also required them to enforce a law they found abhorrent. So, they had to be sheriffs and they didn’t even get little gold badges. Thought Bubble, can I have a gold badge? Oh. Awesome. Thank you. This law was also terrifying to people of color in the North, because even if you’d been, say, born free in Massachusetts, the courts could send you into slavery if even one person swore before a judge that you were a specific slave. And many people of color responded to the fugitive slave law by moving to Canada, which at the time was still technically an English colony, thereby further problematizing the whole idea that England was all about tyranny and the United States was all about freedom. But anyway the most important result of the fugitive slave law was that it convinced some Northerners that the government was in the hands of a sinister “slave power.” Sadly, slave power was not a heavy metal band or Britney Spears’s new single or even a secret cabal of powerful slaves, but rather a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of pro-slavery congressmen. That conspiracy theory is going to grow in importance, but before we get to that let us discuss Railroads. Underrated in Monopoly and underrated in the Civil War. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Railroads made shipping cheaper and more efficient and allowed people to move around the country quickly, and they had a huge backer (also a tiny backer) in the form of Illinois congressman Stephen Douglas, who wanted a transcontinental railroad because 1. he felt it would bind the union together at a time when it could use some binding, and 2. he figured it would go through Illinois, which would be good for his home state. But there was a problem: To build a railroad, the territory through which it ran needed to be organized, ideally as states, and if the railroad was going to run through Illinois, then the Kansas and Nebraska territories would need to become state-like, so Douglas pushed forward the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act formalized the idea of popular sovereignty, which basically meant that (white) residents of states could decide for themselves whether the state should allow slavery. Douglas felt this was a nice way of avoiding saying whether he favored slavery; instead, he could just be in favor of letting other people be in favor of it. Now you’ll remember that the previously bartered Missouri Compromise banned slavery in new states north of this here line. And since in theory Kansas or Nebraska could have slavery if people there decided they wanted it under the Kansas-Nebraska Act despite being north of that there line, this in practice repealed the Missouri Compromise. As a result, there was quite a lot of violence in Kansas, so much so that some people say the Civil War really started there in 1857. Also, the Kansas Nebraska Act led to the creation of a new political party: The Republicans. Yes, those Republicans. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, Douglas’s law helped to create a new coalition party dedicated to stopping the extension of slavery. It was made of former Free-Soilers, Northern anti-slavery Whigs and some Know- Nothings. It was also a completely sectional party, meaning that it drew supporters almost exclusively from the free states in the North and West, which, you’ll remember from like, two minutes ago, were tied together by common economic interests and the railroad. I’m telling you, don’t underestimate railroads. By the way, we are getting to you, Dred Scott. And now we return at last to “slave power.” For many northerners, the Kansas Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise was yet more evidence that Congress was controlled by a sinister “slave power” group doing the bidding of rich plantation owners, which, as conspiracy theories go, wasn’t the most far-fetched. In fact, by 1854, the North was far more populous than the South--it had almost double the South’s congressional representation--but in spite of this advantage, Congress had just passed a law extending the power of slave states, and potentially--because two new states meant four new senators--making the federal government even more pro-slavery. And to abolitionists, that didn’t really seem like democracy. The other reason that many northerners cared enough about Kansas and Nebraska to abandon their old party loyalties was that having them become slave states was seen as a threat to northerner’s economic self-interest. Remember the west was seen as a place where individuals--specifically white individuals--could become self-sufficient farmers. As Lincoln wrote: “The whole nation is interested that the best use be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. They cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery is planted within them. New Free States are places for poor people to go to and better their condition.” So, the real question was: Would these western territories have big slave-based plantations like happened in Mississippi? Or small family farms full of frolicking free white people, like happened in Thomas Jefferson’s imagination? So the new Republican party ran its first presidential candidate in 1856 and did remarkably well. John C. Fremont from California picked up 39% of the vote, all of it from the North and West, and lost to the Democrat James Buchanan, who had the virtue of having spent much of the previous decade in Europe and thus not having a position on slavery. I mean, let me take this opportunity to remind you that James Buchanan’s nickname was The Old Public Functionary. Meanwhile, Kansas was trying to become a state by holding elections in 1854 and 1855. I say trying because these elections were so fraudulent that they would be funny except that everything stops being funny like 12 years before the Civil War and doesn’t get really funny again until Charlie Chaplin. Ah, Charlie Chaplin, thank you for being in the public domain and giving us a much-needed break from a nation divided against itself, discovering that it cannot stand. Right so part of the Kansas problem was that hundreds of so called border ruffians flocked to Kansas from pro-slavery Missouri to cast ballots in Kansas elections, which led to people coming in from free states and setting up their own rival governments. Fighting eventually broke out and more than 200 people were killed. In fact, in 1856, pro-slavery forces laid siege to anti-slavery Lawrence, Kansas with cannons. One particularly violent incident involved the murder of an entire family by an anti-slavery zealot from New York named John Brown. He got away with that murder but hold on a minute, we’ll get to him. Anyway, in the end Kansas passed two constitutions because, you know, that’s a good way to get started as a government. The pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was the first that went to the U.S. Congress and it was supported by Stephen Douglas as an example of popular sovereignty at work, except that the man who oversaw the voting in Kansas called it a “vile fraud.” Congress delayed Kansas’ entry into the Union (because Congress’s primary business is delay) until another, more fair referendum took place. And after that vote, Kansas eventually did join the U.S. as a free state in 1861, by which time it was frankly too late. Alright so while all this craziness was going on in Kansas and Congress, the Supreme Court was busy rendering the worst decision in its history. Oh, hi there, Dred Scott. Dred Scott had been a slave whose master had taken him to live in Illinois and Wisconsin, both of which barred slavery. So, Scott sued, arguing that if slavery was illegal in Illinois, then living in Illinois made him definitionally not a slave. The case took years to find its way to the Supreme Court and eventually, in 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, from Maryland, handed down his decision. The Court held that Scott was still a slave, but went even further, attempting to settle the slavery issue once and for all. Taney ruled that black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” So...that is an actual quote from an actual decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Wow. I mean, Taney’s ruling basically said that all black people anywhere in the United States could be considered property, and that the court was in the business of protecting that property. This meant a slave owner could take his slaves from Mississippi to Massachusetts and they would still be slaves. Which meant that technically, there was no such thing as a free state. At least that’s how people in the north, especially Republicans saw it. The Dred Scott decision helped convince even more people that the entire government, Congress, President Buchanan, and now the Supreme Court, were in the hands of the dreaded “Slave Power.” Oh, we’re going to do the Mystery Document now? Stan, I am so confident about today’s Mystery Document that I am going to write down my guess right now and I’m going to put it in this envelope and then when I’m right I want a prize. All I ever get is punishment, I want prizes. Okay. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I already did that. And then I get rewarded for being right. Alright total confidence. Let’s just read this thing. And then I get my reward. “I look forward to the days when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South, when the black man … shall assert his freedom and wage a war of extermination against his master; when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South, and blot out the last vestige of slavery. And though I may not mock at their calamity, nor laugh when their fear cometh, yet I will hail it as the dawn of a political millennium.” [1] I was right! Right here. Guessed in advance. John Brown. What? STAN! Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings? Seriously, Stan? AH! Whatever. I’m gonna talk about John Brown anyway. In 1859, John Brown led a disastrous raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, hoping to capture guns and then give them to slaves who would rise up and use those guns against their masters. But, Brown was an awful military commander, and not a terribly clear thinker in general, and the raid was an abject failure. Many of the party were killed and he was captured. He stood trial and was sentenced to death. Thus he became a martyr to the abolitionist cause, which is probably what he wanted anyway. On the morning of his hanging, he wrote, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” Well, he was right about that, but in general, any statement that begins “I-comma-my-name” meh. And, so the stage was set for one of the most important Presidential elections in American history. Dun dun dun dun dun dahhhhh. In 1860, the Republican Party chose as its candidate Abraham Lincoln, whose hair and upper forehead you can see here. He’d proved his eloquence, if not his electability, in a series of debates with Stephen Douglas when the two were running for the Senate in 1858. Lincoln lost that election, but the debates made him famous, and he could appeal to immigrant voters, because he wasn’t associated with the Know Nothings. The Democrats, on the other hand, were--to use a historian term--a hot mess. The Northern wing of the party favored Stephen Douglas, but he was unacceptable to voters in the deep South. So Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, making the Democrats, the last remaining truly national party, no longer truly a national party. A third party, the Constitutional Union Party, dedicated to preserving the Constitution “as it is” i.e. including slavery, nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Abraham Lincoln received 0 votes in nine American states, but he won 40% of the overall popular vote, including majorities in many of the most populous states, thereby winning the electoral college. So, anytime a guy becomes President who literally did not appear on your ballot, there is likely to be a problem. And indeed, Lincoln’s election led to a number of Southern states seceding from the Union. Lincoln himself hated slavery, but he repeatedly said that he would leave it alone in the states where it existed. But the demographics of Lincoln’s election showed Southerners and Northerners alike that slave power--to whatever extent it had existed--was over. By the time he took office on March 1, 1861, seven states had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. And the stage was set for the fighting to begin, which it did, when Southern troops fired upon the Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor on April 12, 1861. So, that’s when the Civil War started, but it became inevitable earlier--maybe in 1857, or maybe in 1850, or maybe in 1776. Or maybe in 1619, when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia. Cuz here’s the thing: In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney said that black Americans had quote “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” But this was demonstrably false. Black men had voted in elections and held property, including even slaves. They’d appeared in court on their own behalf. They had rights. They’d expressed those rights when given the opportunity. And the failure of the United States to understand that the rights of black Americans were as inalienable as those of white Americans is ultimately what made the Civil War inevitable. So next week, it’s off to war we go. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Usually every week there’s a libertage with a caption, but there wasn’t one this week because of stupid Chief Justice Roger Taney. However, please suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course US History and as we say in my hometown of nerdfighteria, don’t forget to be awesome. election 1860 - ________________ [1] Quoted in Goldfield p. 119

Secession theory

There is no consensus on the definition of political secession despite many political theories on the subject.[2]

According to the 2017 book Secession and Security, by political scientist Ahsan Butt, states respond violently to secessionist movements if the potential state poses a greater threat than the would-be secessionist movement.[4] States perceive a future war with a potential new state as likely if the ethnic group driving the secessionist struggle has deep identity division with the central state, and if the regional neighborhood is violent and unstable.[4]

Explanations for the 20th century increase in secessionism

According to political scientist Bridget L. Coggins, the academic literature contains four potential explanations for the drastic increase in secessions during the 20th century:[5]

  • Ethnonational mobilization, where ethnic minorities have been increasingly mobilized to pursue states of their own.
  • Institutional empowerment, where the growing inability of empires and ethnic federations to maintain colonies and member states increases the likelihood of success.
  • Relative strength, where increasingly powerful secessionist movements are more likely to achieve statehood.
  • Negotiated consent, where home states and the international community increasingly consent to secessionist demands.

Other scholars have linked secession to resource discoveries and extraction.[6] David B. Carter, H. E. Goemans, and Ryan Griffiths find that border changes among states tend to conform to the borders of previous administrative units.[7][8][9]

Several scholars argue that changes in the international system have made it easier for small states to survive and prosper.[10][11][12][13][14] Tanisha Fazal and Ryan Griffiths link increased numbers of secessions to an international system that is more favorable for new states. For example, new states can obtain assistance from international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the United Nations.[11] Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore argue that greater levels of free trade and peace have reduced the benefits of being part of a larger state, thus motivating nations within larger states to seek secession.[12]

Woodrow Wilson's proclamations on self-determination in 1918 created a surge in secessionist demands.[11]

Philosophy of secession

The political philosophy of the rights and moral justification for secession began to develop as recently as the 1980s.[15] American philosopher Allen Buchanan offered the first systematic account of the subject in the 1990s and contributed to the normative classification of the literature on secession. In his 1991 book Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Buchanan outlined limited rights to secession under certain circumstances, mostly related to oppression by people of other ethnic or racial groups, and especially those previously conquered by other people.[16] In his collection of essays from secession scholars, Secession, State, and Liberty,[17] professor David Gordon challenges Buchanan, making a case that the moral status of the seceding state is unrelated to the issue of secession itself.[18]

Justifications for secession

Some theories of secession emphasize a general right of secession for any reason ("Choice Theory") while others emphasize that secession should be considered only to rectify grave injustices ("Just Cause Theory").[19] Some theories do both. A list of justifications may be presented supporting the right to secede, as described by Allen Buchanan, Robert McGee, Anthony Birch,[20] Jane Jacobs,[21] Frances Kendall and Leon Louw,[22] Leopold Kohr,[23] Kirkpatrick Sale,[24] Donald W. Livingston[25] and various authors in David Gordon's "Secession, State and Liberty", includes:

  • United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
  • Former President Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William H. Crawford, Secretary of War under President James Madison, on June 20, 1816: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."[26]
  • Economic enfranchisement of an economically oppressed class that is regionally concentrated within the scope of a larger national territory.
  • The right to liberty, freedom of association and private property
  • Recognition of the will of the majority to secede, in keeping with consent as an important democratic principle
  • Increased ease for states to join with others in an experimental union
  • Dissolution of such a union when goals for which it was constituted are not achieved
  • Self-defense when larger group presents lethal threat to minority or the government cannot adequately defend an area
  • Self-determination of peoples
  • Preservation of culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group
  • Furtherance of diversity by allowing diverse cultures to keep their identity
  • Rectification of past injustices, especially past conquest by a larger power
  • Escape from "discriminatory redistribution", i.e. tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs, and similar policies that distribute resources away to another area, especially in an undemocratic fashion
  • Enhanced efficiency when the state or empire becomes too large to administer efficiently
  • Preservation of "liberal purity" (or "conservative purity") by allowing less (or more) liberal regions to secede
  • Provision of superior constitutional systems which allow flexibility of secession
  • Minimizing the size of political entities and the human scale through right to secession

Political scientist Aleksander Pavkovic describes five justifications for a general right of secession within liberal political theory:[27]

  • Anarcho-Capitalism: individual liberty to form political associations and private property rights together justify right to secede and to create a "viable political order" with like-minded individuals.
  • Democratic Secessionism: the right of secession, as a variant of the right of self-determination, is vested in a "territorial community" which wishes to secede from "their existing political community"; the group wishing to secede then proceeds to delimit "its" territory by the majority.
  • Communitarian Secessionism: any group with a particular "participation-enhancing" identity, concentrated in a particular territory, which desires to improve its members' political participation has a prima facie right to secede.
  • Cultural Secessionism: any group which was previously in a minority has a right to protect and develop its own culture and distinct national identity through seceding into an independent state.
  • The Secessionism of Threatened Cultures: if a minority culture is threatened within a state that has a majority culture, the minority needs a right to form a state of its own which would protect its culture.

Arguments against secession

Allen Buchanan, who supports secession under limited circumstances, lists arguments that might be used against secession:[28]

  • "Protecting legitimate expectations" of those who now occupy territory claimed by secessionists, even in cases where that land was stolen
  • "Self defense" if losing part of the state would make it difficult to defend the rest of it
  • "Protecting majority rule" and the principle that minorities must abide by them
  • "Minimization of strategic bargaining" by making it difficult to secede, such as by imposing an exit tax
  • "Soft paternalism" because secession will be bad for secessionists or others
  • "Threat of anarchy" because smaller and smaller entities may choose to secede until there is chaos, although this is not the true meaning of the political and philosophical concept
  • "Preventing wrongful taking" such as the state's previous investment in infrastructure
  • "Distributive justice" arguments posit that that wealthier areas cannot secede from poorer ones

Types of secession

Hashim Thaçi (left) and then-US Vice President Joe Biden with the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo

Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state:[3][27][29]

  • Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units)
  • Colonial wars of independence from an imperial state although this is decolonisation rather than secession.
  • Recursive secession, such as India decolonising from the British Empire, then Pakistan seceding from India, or Georgia seceding from the Soviet Union, then South Ossetia seceding from Georgia.
  • National secession (seceding entirely from the national state) versus local secession (seceding from one entity of the national state into another entity of the same state)
  • Central or enclave secession (seceding entity is completely surrounded by the original state) versus peripheral secession (along a border of the original state)
  • Secession by contiguous units versus secession by non-contiguous units (exclaves)
  • Separation or partition (although an entity secedes, the rest of the state retains its structure) versus dissolution (all political entities dissolve their ties and create several new states)
  • Irredentism where secession is sought in order to annex the territory to another state because of common ethnicity or prior historical links
  • Minority secession (a minority of the population or territory secedes) versus majority secession (a majority of the population or territory secedes)
  • Secession of better-off regions versus secession of worse-off regions
  • The threat of secession is sometimes used as a strategy to gain greater autonomy within the original state

Rights to secession

Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. However, there are several existing models of self-determination through greater autonomy and through secession.[30]

In liberal constitutional democracies the principle of majority rule has dictated whether a minority can secede. In the United States Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that secession might be possible through amending the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court in Texas v. White held secession could occur "through revolution, or through consent of the States".[31][32] The British Parliament in 1933 held that Western Australia could secede from the Commonwealth of Australia only upon vote of a majority of the country as a whole; the previous two-thirds majority vote for secession via referendum in Western Australia was insufficient.[33]

The Chinese Communist Party followed the Soviet Union in including the right of secession in its 1931 constitution in order to entice ethnic nationalities and Tibet into joining. However, the Party eliminated the right to secession in later years, and had anti-secession clause written into the Constitution before and after the founding the People's Republic of China. The 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma contained an express state right to secede from the union under a number of procedural conditions. It was eliminated in the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (officially the "Union of Myanmar"). Burma still allows "local autonomy under central leadership".[30]

As of 1996, the constitutions of Austria, Ethiopia, France, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have express or implied rights to secession. Switzerland allows for the secession from current and the creation of new cantons. In the case of proposed Quebec separation from Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 ruled that only both a clear majority of the province and a constitutional amendment confirmed by all participants in the Canadian federation could allow secession.[30]

The 2003 draft of the European Union Constitution allowed for the voluntary withdrawal of member states from the union, although the representatives of the member-state which wanted to leave could not participate in the withdrawal discussions of the European Council or of the Council of Ministers.[30] There was much discussion about such self-determination by minorities[34] before the final document underwent the unsuccessful ratification process in 2005. In 2007 the Treaty on European Union included Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, establishing the right to withdraw from the EU.

As a result of the successful constitutional referendum held in 2003, every municipality in the Principality of Liechtenstein has the right to secede from the Principality by a vote of a majority of the citizens residing in that municipality.[35]

Indigenous peoples have a range of different forms of indigenous sovereignty and have the right of self-determination, but under current understanding of international law they have a mere "remedial" right to secession in extreme cases of abuse of their rights, because independence and sovereign statehood is a territorial and diplomatic claim and not one of self-determination and self-government, respectively, generally leaving rights to secession to the internal legislation of sovereign states.

Secession movements

National secessionist movements advocate for the claim that a population within a state is a nation that has the right to form its own nation-state.[36] Movements that work towards political secession may describe themselves as being autonomy, separatist, independence, self-determination, partition, devolution, decentralization, sovereignty, self-governance or decolonization movements instead of, or in addition to, being secession movements.


During the 19th century, the single British colony in eastern mainland Australia, New South Wales (NSW) was progressively divided up by the British government as new settlements were formed and spread. Victoria (Vic) in 1851 and Queensland (Qld) in 1859.

However, settlers agitated to divide the colonies throughout the later part of the century; particularly in central Queensland (centered in Rockhampton) in the 1860s and 1890s, and in North Queensland (with Bowen as a potential colonial capital) in the 1870s. Other secession (or territorial separation) movements arose and these advocated the secession of New England in northern central New South Wales, Deniliquin in the Riverina district also in NSW, and Mount Gambier in the eastern part of South Australia.

Western Australia

Secession movements have surfaced several times in Western Australia (WA), where a 1933 referendum for secession from the Federation of Australia passed with a two-thirds majority. The referendum had to be ratified by the British Parliament, which declined to act, on the grounds that it would contravene the Australian Constitution.

The Principality of Hutt River claimed to have seceded from Australia in 1970, although its status was not recognised by Australia or any other country.


After being liberated by the Red Army and the U.S. Army, Austria seceded from Nazi Germany on April 27, 1945. This took place after seven years under Nazi rule, which began with the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938. The secession only took place once Nazi Germany had been defeated by the Allies.


The Banga Sena (Bangabhumi) is a separatist[37] Hindu organisation, which supports the making of a Bangabhumi/separate homeland for Bengali Hindus in the People's Republic of Bangladesh.[38] The group is led by Kalidas Baidya.[37]

The Shanti Bahini (Bengali: শান্তি বাহিনী, "Peace Force") is the name of the military wing of the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti - the United People's Party of the Chittagong Hill Tracts aims are to create an indigenous Buddhist orientated Chacomas state within SE Bangladesh.

Belgium and the Netherlands

On August 25, 1830, during the reign of William I, the nationalistic opera La muette de Portici was performed in Brussels. Soon after, the Belgian Revolt occurred, which resulted in the Belgian secession from the Kingdom of the Netherlands.


In 1825, soon after the Empire of Brazil managed to defeat the Cortes-Gerais and the Portuguese Empire in an Independence War, the Platinean nationalists in Cisplatina declared independence and joined the United Provinces, which led to a stagnated war between both, as they were both weakened, lacking manpower and politically fragile. The peace treaty accepted Uruguay's independence, reasserted the rule of both nations over their land and some important points like free navigation in the Silver River.

Three rather disorganized secessionist rebellions happened in Grão-Pará, Bahia, and Maranhão, where the people were unhappy with the Empire (these provinces were Portuguese bastions in the Independence War). The Malê Revolt, in Bahia, was an Islamic slave revolt. These three rebellions were bloodily crushed by the Empire of Brazil.

The Pernambuco was one of the most nativist of all Brazilian regions. Over a series of five revolts (1645–1654, 1710, 1817, 1824, 1848), the province ousted the Dutch West India Company and tried to secede from the Portuguese and Brazilian Empires. In each attempt, the rebels were crushed, the leaders shot and their territory divided. Nevertheless, they kept revolting until Pernambuco's territory was a little fraction of what it was before.

In the Ragamuffin War, the Province of Rio Grande do Sul was undergoing a (at that time common) liberal vs conservative "cold" war. After Emperor Pedro II of Brazil favoured the conservatives, the liberals took the Capital and declared an independent Republic, fighting their way to the Province of Santa Catarina and declaring the Juliana Republic. Eventually they were slowly forced back, and made a reunification peace with the Empire. This was not considered a secessionist war, even if it could have resulted in an independent republic if the Empire had been defeated. After the Empire agreed to aid Santa Catarina's economy by taxing Argentina's products (like dry meat), the rebels reunited with the Empire and joined its military ranks.

In modern times, the South Region of Brazil has been the centre of a secessionist movement led by an organization called The South is My Country since the 1990s. Reasons cited for Southern Brazil's secession movement are taxation, due to it being one of the wealthiest regions in the country; political disputes with the northernmost states of Brazil; 2016 scandal revolving around the Workers' Party's involvement in a kickback scheme with state-owned oil company Petrobras;[39] and the impeachment of then-President Dilma Rousseff. Additionally, there is an ethnic divide as the South Region is predominately European, populated primarily by Germans, Italians, Portuguese and other European groups. In contrast, the rest of Brazil is a multicultural melting pot. The South Region in 2016 voted in an unofficial referendum called "Plebisul" in which 95% of voters supported secession and the creation of an independent South Region.

There is also a push for secession movement in the state of São Paulo, which seeks to become a country independent from the rest of Brazil.


In October 2017, Ambazonia declared its independence from Cameroon. Less than a month beforehand, tensions had escalated into open warfare between separatists and the Cameroon Armed Forces. The conflict, known as the "Anglophone Crisis", is deeply rooted in the October 1, 1961 incomplete decolonization of the former British Southern Cameroons (UNGA Resolution 1608). On January 1, 1960, French Cameroon was granted independence from France as the Republic of Cameroon and was admitted into the United Nations. The more advanced democratic and self-ruling people of British Cameroon were instead limited to two choices. Through a UN plebiscite, they were directed to either join the federation of Nigeria or the independent Republic of Cameroon as a federation of two equal states. While the Northern Cameroons voted to join Nigeria, the Southern Cameroons voted to integrate into the Republic of Cameroon, but they did so without a formal Treaty of Union on record at the UN. In 1972, Cameroon used its majority population to abolish the federation and implement a system which resulted in the occupation of the former South Cameroons territory by French-speaking Cameroon administrators. In 1984, Cameroon heightened tensions by returning to its name at independence, "Republic of Cameroun", which did not include the territory of the former British Southern Cameroons or Ambazonia. For more than fifty years the English-speaking people of the Former British Southern Cameroons made multiple attempts both nationally and internationally to get the Cameroon government to address these issues and possibly return to the previously agreed federation at independence. In 2016, after all these attempts failed, Cameroon engaged in a military crackdown, including cutting the internet in the English-speaking regions. In response, the people of Southern Cameroon declared on October 1, 2017, the restoration of their UN state of Southern Cameroons, which they called the "Federal Republic of Ambazonia".


Throughout Canada's history, there has been tension between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Under the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Province of Quebec (including parts of what are today Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador) was divided in two: Lower Canada (which retained French law and institutions and is now part of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador) and Upper Canada (a new colony intended to accommodate the many new English-speaking settlers, including the United Empire Loyalists, and now part of Ontario). The intent was to provide each group with its own colony. In 1841, the two Canadas were merged into the Province of Canada. The union proved contentious, however, resulting in a legislative deadlock between English and French legislators. The difficulties of the union, among other factors, led in 1867 to the formation of the Canadian Confederation, a federal system that united the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (later joined by other British colonies in North America). The federal framework did not eliminate all tensions, however, leading to the Quebec sovereignty movement in the latter half of the 20th century.

Other occasional secessionist movements have included anti-Confederation movements in the 19th century Atlantic Canada (see Anti-Confederation Party), the North-West Rebellion of 1885, and various small separatist movements in Alberta particularly (see Alberta separatism) and Western Canada generally (see, for example, Western Canada Concept).

Central America

After the 1823 collapse of the First Mexican Empire, the former Captaincy-General of Guatemala was organized into a new Federal Republic of Central America. In 1838, Nicaragua seceded. The Federal Republic was formally dissolved in 1840, all but one of the states having seceded amidst general disorder.


Taiwan has long sought sovereignty from mainland China. It maintains its own currency and military, despite no longer being recognized internationally. The Anti-Secession Law, passed in 2005, formalized the long-standing policy of the People's Republic of China to use military means against Taiwan independence in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible.

Western regions of Xinjiang (East Turkistan) and Tibet are the focus of secessionist calls by the Tibetan independence movement and East Turkestan Independence Movement. The East Turkistan Government in Exile does not view East Turkistan as a part of China but rather an occupied country, so it does not view independence from China as "secession" but rather "decolonization".

The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has a secessionist movement in the city that the Chinese Communist Party has placed on the national security agenda in 2017 which is called the Hong Kong independence movement.


In 1960, the State of Katanga declared independence from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. United Nations troops crushed it in Operation Grand Slam.


Northern Cyprus

In 1974, Greek irredentists launched a coup d'état in Cyprus, in an attempt to annex the island with Greece. Almost immediately, the Turkish Army invaded northern Cyprus to protect the interests of the ethnic Turkish minority, who in the following year formed the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus and in 1983 declared independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey.

East Timor

September 1999 demonstration for independence from Indonesia

The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (also known as East Timor) has been described as having "seceded" from Indonesia.[40][41][42] After Portuguese sovereignty was terminated in 1975, East Timor was occupied by Indonesia. However, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice refused to recognize this incorporation. Therefore, the resulting civil war and eventual 2002 East Timorese vote for complete separation are better described as an independence movement.[43]


Following the May 1991 victory of Eritrean People's Liberation Front forces against the communist Derg regime during the Eritrean War of Independence, Eritrea (formerly known as "Medri Bahri") gained de facto independence from Ethiopia. Following the United Nations observation 1993 Eritrean independence referendum, Eritrea gained de jure independence.

European Union

Before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009, no provision in the treaties or law of the European Union outlined the ability of a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, after the failure to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, that provision was then included in the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. This formalised the procedure by stating that a member state may notify the European Council that it wishes to withdraw, upon which withdrawal negotiations begin; if no other agreement is reached, the treaty ceases to apply to the withdrawing state two years after such notification.[44]

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in a non-binding referendum, and finally left the European Union on January 31, 2020.[45] This is informally known as Brexit.


Finland successfully and peacefully seceded from the newly-formed and unstable Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1917. The latter was led by Lenin, who had sought refuge in Finland during the Russian Revolution. Unsuccessful attempts at greater autonomy or peaceful secession had already been made during the preceding Russian Empire but had been denied by the Russian emperor. However, with the country still at war and under great pressure, Lenin allowed Finland to secede. Its peripheral location made it difficult to defend and less strategically important than Russia's other territories, so he conceded sovereignty to the Finns rather than try to defend it.[46]


France was one of the European Great Powers with populous foreign empires. Like the others – the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and formerly Germany and the Ottoman Empire – its populous states abroad have all seceded, in most cases been granted independence. These secessionist movements generally took place at similar stages by continent. See decolonization of the Ottoman Empire, Americas, Asia and Africa. As to France's contiguous state, these have few present representatives at the national level, see:

Gran Colombia

Map showing the shrinking territory of Gran Colombia from 1824 to 1890 (red line). Panama separated from Colombia in 1903.

After a decade of tumultuous federalism, Ecuador and Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia in 1830, leaving the similarly tumultuous United States of Colombia (now the Republic of Colombia), which also lost Panama in 1903.


Pakistan seceded from the British-Indian Empire in what is known as the Partition. Today, the Constitution of India does not allow Indian states to secede from the Union.

The Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir hosts some paramilitary nationalists who advocate for a Muslim state, in opposition to the Indian establishment. They are mostly in the Valley of Kashmir since 1989, where the Indian Army sometimes patrols, having bases along the nearby international border. They are supported by Pakistan, which has allegedly funded many terrorist, separatist outfits with the goal of destabilizing India, according to the Indian Research and Analysis Wing, though the country denies any direct involvement. The Kashmir insurgency reached at its peak influence in the 1990s.

Other secessionist movements in Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Punjab (known as the Khalistan movement), Mizoram and Tripura, Tamil Nadu . The violent Naxalite–Maoist insurgency operates in eastern rural India is rarely considered secessionist as its goal is to overthrow the government of India. The Communist Party of India (Maoist)'s commanders idealise a Communist republic to be made up swathes of India.


Active secession movements include: Iranian Azeri, Assyrian independence movement, Bakhtiary lurs movement in 1876, Iranian Kurdistan; Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Khūzestān Province Balochistan and independence movement for free separated Balochistan, (Arab nationalist); Al-Ahwaz Arab People's Democratic Popular Front, Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz (See Politics of Khūzestān Province: Arab politics and separatism), and Balochistan People's Party (BPP) supporting Baloch Separatism.[47]


The Movement for the Independence of Sicily (Movimento Indipendentista Siciliano, MIS) has its roots in the Sicilian Independence Movement of the late 1940s; it was active for around 60 years. Today, the MIS no longer exists, though many other parties have emerged. One is Nation Sicily (Sicilia Nazione), which still believes in the idea that Sicily, due to its deeply personal and ancient history, should be a sovereign country. Moreover, a common ideology shared by all the Sicilian independentist movements is to fight against Cosa Nostra and all the other Mafia organizations, which have a very deep influence over Sicily's public and private institutions. The Sicilian branch of the Five Star Movement, which polls show is Sicily's most popular party, has also publicly expressed the intention to start working for a possible secession from Italy if the central government would not collaborate in shifting the nation's administrative organization from a unitary country to a federal state.

In Southern Italy, several movements have expressed a will to secede from Italy. This newborn ideology is called neo-Bourbonism, because the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was under the control of the House of Bourbon. The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was created in 1816 after the Congress of Vienna, and it comprised both Sicily and continental Southern Italy. The Kingdom came to an end in 1861, being annexed to the newborn Kingdom of Italy. However, the patriotic feelings shared among the southern Italian population is more ancient, starting in 1130 with the Kingdom of Sicily, which was composed by both the island and south Italy. According to the neo-Bourbonic movements the Italian regions which should secede are Sicily, Calabria, Basilicata, Apulia, Molise, Campania, Abruzzo, and Latio's provinces of Rieti, Latina and Frosinone. The major movements and parties which believe in this ideology are Unione Mediterranea, Mo! and Briganti.

Lega Nord has been seeking the independence of the region known to separatists as Padania, which includes lands along the Po Valley in northern Italy. Some organizations separately work for the independence of Venetia or Veneto and the secession or reunification of South Tyrol with Austria. Lega Nord governing Lombardy has expressed a will to turn the region into a sovereign country. Also, the island of Sardinia is home to a notable nationalist movement.


The ethnic Ryukyuan (a branch of modern Okinawan) people had their own state historically (Ryukyu Kingdom). Although some Okinawan people have sought independence from Japan since they were annexed by Japan in 1879, and especially after 1972 when the islands were transferred from U.S. rule to Japan, their activism and movement have been consistently supported by single digit[48] of Okinawan people.[49]


When racial and partisan strife erupted, Singapore was expelled from the Malaysian federation in 1965.


The Territorial evolution of Mexico after independence, noting losses to the US (red, white and orange) and the secession of Central America (purple)


The United Provinces of the Netherlands, commonly referred to historiographically as the Dutch Republic, was a federal republic formally established from the formal creation of a federal state in 1581 by several Dutch provinces seceded from Spain.

New Zealand

Secession movements have surfaced several times in the South Island of New Zealand. A Premier of New Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was amongst the first people to make this call, which was voted on by the Parliament of New Zealand as early as 1865. The desire for South Island independence was one of the main factors in moving the capital of New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington in the same year.

The NZ South Island Party, with a pro-South agenda, fielded only five candidates (4.20% of electoral seats) candidates in the 1999 General Election but achieved only 0.14% (2622 votes) of the general vote. The reality today is that although South Islanders have a strong identity rooted in their geographic region, secession does not carry any real constituency; the party was not able to field any candidates in the 2008 election, as they had less than 500 paying members, a requirement by the New Zealand Electoral commission. The party is treated more as a "joke" party than any real political force.


A girl during the Nigerian Civil War of the late 1960s. Pictures of the famine caused by Nigerian blockade garnered sympathy for the Biafrans worldwide.

Between 1967 and 1970, the Eastern Region seceded from Nigeria and established the Republic of Biafra, which led to a war that ended with the state returning to Nigeria.[50] In 1999, at the beginning of a new democratic regime, other secessionist movements emerged, including the Indigenous People of Biafra led by Nnamdi Kanu formed as a Political wing of the Republic of Biafra.[51]

Norway and Sweden

Sweden, having left the Kalmar Union with Denmark–Norway in the 16th century, entered into a loose personal union with Norway in 1814. Following a constitutional crisis, on June 7, 1905, the Norwegian Storting declared that King Oscar II had failed to fulfil his constitutional duties. He was therefore removed as King of Norway. Because the union depended on the two countries sharing a king, it was dissolved. After negotiations, Sweden agreed to mutual independence on October 26 and on April 14.


After the Awami League won the 1970 national elections, negotiations to form a new government floundered, resulting in the Bangladesh Liberation War by which East Pakistan seceded, becoming Bangladesh. The Balochistan Liberation Army (also Baloch Liberation Army or Boluchistan Liberation Army) (BLA) is a Baloch nationalist militant secessionist organization. The stated goals of the organization include the establishment of an independent state of Balochistan free of Pakistani, Iranian and Afghan Federations. The name Baloch Liberation Army first became public in the summer of 2000, after the organization claimed credit for a series of bomb attacks in markets and removal of railways lines.[52]

Papua New Guinea

The island of Bougainville has made several efforts to secede from Papua New Guinea.


Somaliland is an autonomous region,[53] which is part of the Federal Republic of Somalia.[54][55] Those who call the area the Republic of Somaliland consider it to be the successor state of the former British Somaliland protectorate. Having established its own local government in Somalia in 1991, the region's self-declared independence remains unrecognized by any country or international organization.[56][57]

South Africa

In 1910, following the British Empire's defeat of the Afrikaners in the Boer Wars, four self-governing colonies in the south of Africa were merged into the Union of South Africa. The four regions were the Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Natal and Transvaal. Three other territories, High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Basutoland (now Lesotho) and Swaziland (now Eswatini) later became independent states in the 1960s. Following the election of the Nationalist government in 1948, some English-speaking whites in Natal advocated either secession or a loose federation.[58] There were also calls for secession, with Natal and the eastern part of the Cape Province breaking away[59] following the referendum in 1960 on establishing a republic. In 1993, prior to South Africa's first elections under universal suffrage and the end of apartheid, some Zulu leaders in KwaZulu-Natal[60] again considered secession as did some politicians in the Cape Province.[61]

In 2008, a political movement calling for the return to independence of the Cape resurged in the shape of the political organisation, the Cape Party. The Cape Party contested their first elections on 22 April 2009.[62] They finished the Western Cape provincial elections in 2019 with 9,331 votes, or 0.45% of votes, gaining no seats[63]

The idea gained popularity in the early half of the 2020s, with polling suggesting that 58% of Western Cape Voters want a referendum on independence in July 2021.[64]

South Sudan

A referendum took place in Southern Sudan from 9 to 15 January 2011, on whether the region should remain a part of Sudan or become independent. The referendum was one of the consequences of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M).[65]

On 7 February 2011, the referendum commission published the final results, with 98.83% voting in favour of independence. While the ballots were suspended in 10 of the 79 counties for exceeding 100% of the voter turnout, the number of votes was still well over the requirement of 60% turnout, and the majority vote for secession is not in question.[66]

A simultaneous referendum was supposed to be held in Abyei on whether to join Southern Sudan but it has been postponed because of conflict over demarcation and residency rights. In October 2013, a symbolic referendum was held in which 99.9% of voters in Abyei voted to join Southern Sudan. However, this resolution was non-binding.[67] As of February 2024, an official referendum still has not taken place. Abyei currently holds "special administrative status".[68]

The predetermined date for the creation of an independent state was 9 July 2011.

Soviet Union

Changes in national boundaries in Eurasia in the decades following the end of the Cold War

The Constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed all SSRs the right to secede from the Union. In 1990, after free elections, the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic declared independence and other republics soon followed. Despite the Soviet central government's refusal to recognize the independence of the republics, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.


A republican mural in Belfast showing solidarity with the Basque nationalism

Present-day Spain (known officially as "the Kingdom of Spain") was assembled as a central state in the French model between the 18th and 19th centuries from various component kingdoms with varying languages, cultures and legislations. Spain has several secessionist movements, the most notable ones being in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia.

Sri Lanka

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, operated a de facto independent state for Tamils called Tamil Eelam in eastern and northern Sri Lanka until 2009.


In 1847, seven disaffected Catholic cantons formed a separate alliance because of moves to change the cantons of Switzerland from a confederation to a more centralized government federation. This effort was crushed in the Sonderbund War and a new Swiss Federal Constitution was created.[69]


Donetsk status referendum organized by pro-Russian separatists. A line to enter a polling place, 11 May 2014.

In 2014 after the start of Russian intervention in Ukraine, several groups of people declared the independence of several Ukrainian regions:

United Kingdom

A mural in Belfast depicting the Easter Rising of 1916

The Republic of Ireland withdrew from the United Kingdom after Ireland proclaimed independence in 1916 and, as the Irish Free State, gained independence in 1922. The United Kingdom has a number of secession movements:

United States

Discussions and threats of secession often surfaced in American politics during the first half of the 19th century, and secession was declared by the Confederate States of America in the South during the American Civil War. However, in 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that unilateral secession was not permitted, saying that the union between a state (Texas in the case before the bar) "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."[32][31]


North Yemen and South Yemen merged in 1990; tensions led to a 1994 southern secession which was crushed in a civil war.[74]


A destroyed T-34-85 tank in Karlovac, Croatian War of Independence, 1992

On June 25, 1991, Croatia and Slovenia seceded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia also declared independence, after which the federation broke up, causing the separation of the remaining two countries Serbia and Montenegro. Several wars ensued between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and seceding entities and among other ethnic groups in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later, Kosovo. Montenegro peacefully separated from its union with Serbia in 2006.

Kosovo unilaterally declared de facto independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008, and was recognized by several dozen countries, but officially remains under United Nations administration.

See also





  1. ^ Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2013). The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 3. ISBN 9780754677024.
  2. ^ a b Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2007). Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. p. 6. ISBN 9780754671633.
  3. ^ a b Allen Buchanan, "Secession", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007.
  4. ^ a b Butt, Ahsan I. (2017-11-15). Secession and Security: Explaining State Strategy against Separatists. Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 9781501713941.
  5. ^ Coggins, Bridget (2011). "Friends in High Places: International Politics and the Emergence of States from Secessionism". International Organization. 65 (3): 433–467. doi:10.1017/S0020818311000105. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 145424331.
  6. ^ Gehring, Kai; Schneider, Stephan A. (2020). "Regional resources and democratic secessionism". Journal of Public Economics. 181: 104073. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104073. hdl:10419/185534. ISSN 0047-2727.
  7. ^ Carter, David B.; Goemans, H. E. (2011). "The Making of the Territorial Order: New Borders and the Emergence of Interstate Conflict". International Organization. 65 (2): 275–309. doi:10.1017/S0020818311000051. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 23016813. S2CID 54863822.
  8. ^ Griffiths, Ryan D. (2015). "Between Dissolution and Blood: How Administrative Lines and Categories Shape Secessionist Outcomes". International Organization. 69 (3): 731–751. doi:10.1017/S0020818315000077. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 154530138.
  9. ^ Abramson, Scott F.; Carter, David B. (2016). "The Historical Origins of Territorial Disputes". American Political Science Review. 110 (4): 675–698. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000381. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 152201006.
  10. ^ Thorhallsson, Baldur; Steinsson, Sverrir (2017-05-24), "Small State Foreign Policy", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.484, ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7, retrieved 2020-05-02
  11. ^ a b c Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (2014). "Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79–106. doi:10.1111/misr.12099. ISSN 1521-9488.
  12. ^ a b Alesina, Alberto (7 November 2003). The Size of Nations. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262012041. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
  13. ^ Thorhallsson, Baldur (2018), "The small state in international relations", "The Small State in International Relations" from Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland's External Affairs (Routledge, 2019), Routledge, pp. 13–23, doi:10.4324/9780429463167-2, ISBN 978-0-429-46316-7, S2CID 240133027, retrieved 2020-05-02
  14. ^ Lake, David A.; O’mahony, Angela (2004). "The Incredible Shrinking State". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 48 (5): 699–722. doi:10.1177/0022002704267766. ISSN 0022-0027. S2CID 8619491.
  15. ^ Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2008). On the Way to Statehood: Secession and Globalisation. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 133. ISBN 9780754673798.
  16. ^ Allen Buchanan, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, West View Press, 1991.
  17. ^ Gordon, David (February 28, 2002). Secession, State, and Liberty. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765809435.
  18. ^ Gordon, David (December 5, 2012). "Is Secession a Right?". Mises Institute.
  19. ^ Allen Buchanan, How can We Construct a Political Theory of Secession?, paper presented October 5, 2006 to the International Studies Association.
  20. ^ Anthony H. Birch, "Another Liberal Theory of Secession". Political Studies 32, 1984, 596–602.
  21. ^ Jane Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Vintage, 1985.
  22. ^ Frances Kendall and Leon Louw, After Apartheid: The Solution for South Africa, Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1987. One of several popular books they wrote about canton-based constitutional alternatives that include an explicit right to secession.
  23. ^ Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations, Routledge & K. Paul, 1957
  24. ^ Human Scale, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1980.
  25. ^ Livingston, Donald (1998). The Secession Tradition in America. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. pp. 17–49. ISBN 1-56000-362-6.
  26. ^ "Full text of "The writings of Thomas Jefferson;"". Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  27. ^ a b Aleksandar Pavkovic, Secession, Majority Rule and Equal Rights: a Few Questions, Macquarie University Law Journal, 2003.
  28. ^ Allen Buchanan, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Chapter 3, pp. 87–123.
  29. ^ Steven Yates, "When Is Political Divorce Justified" in David Gordon, 1998.
  30. ^ a b c d Andrei Kreptul, The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100.
  31. ^ a b Aleksandar Pavković, Peter Radan, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession, p. 222, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
  32. ^ a b Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection.
  33. ^ Pavkovic, Aleksandar; Radan, Peter (2003). "In Pursuit of Sovereignty and Self-determination: Peoples, States and Secession in the International Order". Macquarie Law Journal. 3: 1.
  34. ^ Xenophon Contiades, Sixth Scholarly Panel: Cultural Identity in the New Europe, 1st Global Conference on Federalism and the Union of European Democracies, March 2004. Archived January 5, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  35. ^ "The Reform of the Constitution in 2003". Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  36. ^ Roeder, Philip G. (2018). National Secession: Persuasion and Violence in Independence Campaigns. Cornell University Press. pp. 23–25. ISBN 978-1-5017-2598-2. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt21h4x5m.
  37. ^ a b Seema Guha (2004-01-07). "Dhaka seeks proof, Delhi readies maps". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on February 3, 2013. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
  38. ^ "400 Banga Sena activists held at Bangla border". 2003-02-18. Archived from the original on 2008-09-04. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
  39. ^ Spagnuolo, Sergio (September 15, 2016). "Brazil's Lula charged as 'top boss' of Petrobras graft scheme". Reuters. Retrieved February 14, 2024.
  40. ^ Santosh C. Saha, Perspectives on contemporary ethnic conflict, p. 63, Lexington Books, 2006 ISBN 0-7391-1085-3.
  41. ^ Paul D. Elliot, The East Timor Dispute, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1978).
  42. ^ James J. Fox, Dionísio Babo Soares, Out of the ashes: destruction and reconstruction of East Timor, p. 175, ANU E Press, 2003, ISBN 0-9751229-1-6
  43. ^ Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and national minorities, p. xiii, Oxford University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-19-829898-6
  44. ^ Poptcheva, Eva-Maria (February 2016). "Article 50 TEU: Withdrawal of a Member State from the EU" (PDF).
  45. ^ Payne, Adam. "Business Insider". Business Insider. Retrieved December 20, 2019.
  46. ^ Douds, Lara (2017-01-13). "'The dictatorship of the democracy'? The Council of People's Commissars as Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary coalition government, December 1917-March 1918". Historical Research. 90 (247): 32–56. doi:10.1111/1468-2281.12170. ISSN 0950-3471.
  47. ^ "UNPO: West Balochistan". Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  48. ^ "Opinion Polls among Residents of the Okinawa Prefecture (Japanese)". Asahi Shinbun Digital. Asahi Shinbun. 12 May 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  49. ^ Molasky, Michael S., 1956– (8 March 2001). The American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa: Literature and Memory. ISBN 978-0-203-98168-9. OCLC 1048580450.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  50. ^ Daly, Samuel Fury Childs (2020-08-07). A History of the Republic of Biafra. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108887748. ISBN 978-1-108-88774-8. S2CID 225266768.
  51. ^ Moses, A. Dirk; Heerten, Lasse, eds. (6 July 2017). Postcolonial conflict and the question of genocide: the Nigeria-Biafra War, 1967–1970. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-85866-3. OCLC 993762001.
  52. ^ "Balochistan Liberation Army | Mapping Militant Organizations". Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  53. ^ No Winner Seen in Somalia's Battle With Chaos New York Times, June 2, 2009
  54. ^ The Transitional Federal Charter of the Somali Republic Archived 2009-03-25 at the Wayback Machine: "The Somali Republic shall have the following boundaries. (a) North; Gulf of Aden. (b) North West; Djibouti. (c) West; Ethiopia. (d) South south-west; Kenya. (e) East; Indian Ocean."
  55. ^ "The World Factbook". Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  56. ^ Lacey, Marc (June 5, 2006). "The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia". The New York Times.
  57. ^ "UN in Action: Reforming Somaliland's Judiciary" (PDF).
  58. ^ SOUTH AFRICA: Cry of Secession TIME, Monday, May 11, 1953
  59. ^ Secession Talked by Some Anti-Republicans, Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, 11 October 1960
  60. ^ Launching Democracy in South Africa: The First Open Election, April 1994, R. W. Johnson, Lawrence Schlemmer, Yale University Press, 1996
  61. ^ Party Wants the Cape to Secede", Business Day, December 24, 1993.
  62. ^ Cape Party Website, Monday, May 11, 1953
  63. ^ "Results Dashboard". Retrieved 2019-05-11.
  64. ^ Charles, Marvin. "Cape Independence: Lobby group says recent survey 'places intense pressure' on DA to hold referendum". News24. Retrieved 2021-08-31.
  65. ^ "Referendum in Southern Sudan. UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan". Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  66. ^ "South Sudan referendum: 99% vote for independence". BBC News. 2011-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  67. ^ Gridneff, Ilya (October 31, 2013). "Thousands in contested Abyei vote to join South Sudan, risking tensions". Reuters. Retrieved February 14, 2024.
  68. ^ "Abyei Arbitration (Government of Sudan/Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army)". International Law Reports. 144: 348–699. 2011. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511675812.004. ISSN 0309-0671. S2CID 232254340.
  69. ^ A Brief Survey of Swiss History, Switzerland Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
  70. ^ "Federalization supporters in Luhansk proclaim people's republic". TASS: World. Retrieved 12 August 2015.
  71. ^ "Ukraine crisis: Pro-Russia activists take Luhansk offices". BBC News. 29 April 2014. Retrieved 18 January 2015.
  72. ^ "Luhansk regional council backs referendum on region's status". 5 May 2014. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
  73. ^ Smout, Alistair; MacLellan, Kylie; Holton, Kate (September 19, 2014). "Scotland stays in UK, but Britain faces change". Reuters – Special Report. Retrieved September 19, 2014.
  74. ^ Hiro, Dilip (2019-03-01), "Saudi-Iranian Détente", Cold War in the Islamic World, Oxford University Press, pp. 141–162, doi:10.1093/oso/9780190944650.003.0009, ISBN 978-0-19-094465-0

Further reading

  • Buchanan, Allen, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law, Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Buchanan, Allen, Secession: The Morality Of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter To Lithuania And Quebec, Westview Press, 1991.
  • Coppieters, Bruno; Richard Sakwa, Richard (eds.), Contextualizing Secession: Normative Studies in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2003
  • Kohen, Marcelo G. (ed.), Secession: International Law Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  • Kohr, Leopold, The Breakdown of Nations, Routledge & K. Paul, 1957.
  • Lehning, Percy, Theories of Secession, Routledge, 1998.
  • López Martín, Ana Gemma and Perea Unceta, José Antonio, Statehood and Secession: Lessons from Spain and Catalonia, Routledge, 2021
  • Norman, Wayne, Negotiating Nationalism: Nation-Building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multinational State, Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Roeder, Philip G. 2018. National secession: persuasion and violence in independence campaigns. Cornell University Press.
  • Sorens, Jason, Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2012.
  • Sorens, Jason (2008). "Secessionism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Sessionism. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 455–56. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n277. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
  • Spencer, Metta, Separatism: Democracy and Disintegration, Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.
  • Weller, Marc, Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution (Kindle Edition), Taylor & Francis, 2007.
  • Wellman, Christopher Heath, A Theory of Secession, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  • Secession And International Law: Conflict Avoidance – regional Appraisals, United Nations Publications, 2006.

External links

This page was last edited on 6 June 2024, at 05:35
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.