Secession is what? The right of secession

Secession is an attempt to declare or declare a state of independence. Such a right can be included in the Constitution, but in most cases it presupposes forceful actions that often lead to civil war or acute conflicts. As a rule, neighboring countries are drawn into the proceedings.

The essence of the right to secession

One of the most striking examples of secession is the separation of the republics of the former USSR. Secession is also the breakup of the British and other empires. The development of the federal system in countries that have recognized independence means that national states are divided into ethnic and territorial groups that have unequal rights. In this situation, as a rule, and there is secession. This is the branch of Biafra and Nigeria, Bangladesh from Pakistan.

Secession implies withdrawal from the state or a part of it. It is worth noting that at the present time, no constitution in the world supports this right, but in reality this happens. For example, the breakup of Yugoslavia, separation from Ethiopia Eritrea and so on. Secession in Russia for individual subjects of the Constitution is not supported, while separate republics have the right to exit, but it contradicts the main state document.

National self-determination

Secession is the right of the people to national self-determination. This possibility of secession from the multinational union was recognized in the Soviet theory of self-determination, as a result of which the right to secession of the republics of the USSR became one of the principles of the Constitution under art. 17 of the USSR and art. 14 of the Ukrainian SSR. The ideologists of Russian Bolshevism together with Lenin on the eve of the revolution of 1917 in their program formulated the principle of self-determination, while this issue was decided by the party. The main reason for the inclusion in the Constitution of the RSFSR and the USSR of the right of secession was the voluntary nature of relations in the Soviet state and the desire of the Communist Party to make Soviet Russia open to the accession of other socialist countries. In dialectics, secession is only a theory.

The Doctrine of Brezhnev

The possibility of free access was featured in many political documents of the Soviet government: in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, the union treaty of 30.12.1922, the declaration on the formation of the USSR. The Constitutional Decree asserted that all the republics that are part of the USSR possess the right of secession . This same decision was repeated in the Constitution of 1936, but with the clarification that separation is possible only with the consent of all the Union republics.

The Doctrine of Stalin

In the 1936 Constitution, Stalin issued his own doctrine that the right of secession is the possibility of secession only for certain union republics that meet the following conditions: the greater part of the population of the nationality that creates the republic, the marginal position and at least one million of the population. Stalin believed that the right to self-determination should be included in the constitution, although no republic wanted to leave the USSR. It should be noted that autonomous regions and republics do not have the right to secession. The procedure for implementing the separation of the state by Soviet constitutional law was not defined.

Variability of secession rights

The right of secession is a very controversial issue, and the possible annexation of the Crimea has sparked discussions on the separation of the minority from the metropolises. It all began more than a hundred years ago, when a dispute arose between US President Wilson and his Secretary of State Lansing. After World War I, in 1919, Wilson stated that nations have the right to self-determination, and ignoring this right is very risky for statesmen. But, according to Lansing, self-determination is dangerous for peace and stability, and this is confirmed by practice.

What is happening now? US President Obama believes that the Crimea does not have the right to hold a referendum on separation from Ukraine, since it contradicts the Ukrainian Constitution. And he was immediately accused of double standards, reminding of Montenegro, Kosovo and Southern Sudan. But are these analogies applicable to the Crimean case? Bassets believes that no, because the US has not annexed Kosovo, and the referendum in Scotland for secession from Britain was not held as a result of a military action, like the occupation of Crimea by Russia. But still the doctrine of President Wilson at the moment is not popular.

Bassets notes that he agrees that the US is the country of Wilson's and Washington's presidents, and the American colonies were severely separated from Britain, but it is also the country of President Lincoln, who used weapons to prevent the secession of the slave states of the South. Therefore, the US response to secession is not based on history, but on the fact that most of the world powers support pragmatism and stability.