In the last twenty years secession has become a major topic of debate among normative theorists. The debate has revolved around the fundamental question of who is entitled to break away from an existing state. Two rival responses have been put forward. The first view, known as the Primary Right theory, is that there should be a general right to secession rooted in the will of a territorial majority. The second view, known as the Remedial Right Only theory, is that there should be no more than a last-resort right to secession that would arise only in cases of grave and persisting injustice. This paper assesses the debate’s international dimension. It contends that both positions need to be re-evaluated since each rests on the ideal theory approach which eschews the necessary consideration of normative dimensions of actual international practice concerning secession.
