This research shows, first, the futility of the notion of remedial secession as it currently stands and, second, the detrimental effects the vagueness around secession and self-determination has for peace and stability. Remedial secession constitutes neither a legally binding codified international law nor is it confirmed by state practice; nevertheless it provides separatist leaders with an allegedly valid justification to pursue independent statehood via secession. This paper analyses the contents of unilateral declarations of independence (UDIs) signed after 1970, when the right to statehood as a form of exercise of self-determination was included in the UN Declaration on Friendly Relations, and juxtaposes it with the outcome of these separatist attempts, i.e., whether they engaged into armed conflict and whether they achieved UN membership. The findings show that only a small number of cases achieved uncontested statehood, but none of them on remedial grounds. The majority of separatist cases, though, engaged into an armed conflict leading in the majority of cases to long-term destabilisation. This could have been averted in the presence of a clear prohibition of secession or alternatively in the presence of solid rules on when and how it can be exercised.
