[Aardwolf]

Inspired by some talk in this thread, but perhaps more appropriate in its own thread than in that one...

"Self-determination good", says me and the UN.

However, as far as I know, no country has procedures for secession. Except maybe the UK? At least, they've recently been better about allowing their colonies to become independent without having to fight a war about it first, and it almost seems like they're on track to let Scotland have its independence.



In most countries, if a piece of that country wants to secede, it will not go well for them. If they are violent, they will be fought, and they will be killed or arrested and charged with treason. If they are nonviolent... perhaps the same. At best, they would be arrested for tax evasion the next time tax day rolled around.

The very idea of self determination is that a people's right to decide what country they belong to trumps a country's right to say "no, you belong to me" (although perhaps not to the extent that a country cannot say "you do not belong to me"?). Since the UN says "self determination good", what would it take for them to say "no, you don't get to arrest those peaceful secessionists; they are a sovereign country now"? Censure, sanctions, or actual intervention.



Can a town secede from its country? Can a person secede from their country? Can they take their land with them? In the example of the Falkland Islands, self determination would dictate that the islands belong to the UK, not just their inhabitants. Why should this apply to a group of islands, and not to a town or an individual?

Obviously the UN as it is now is not ready to let 10000 sovereign citizens meet and have the same representation as the ambassadors of nation states. It would effectively be anarchy, although not in the sense the word is typically used; anarchy is not incompatible with ethical behavior and common law; the difference is in how it is enforced.



I expect a lot of reactionary "no" answers, and so I pose this closing question: what would it take to make it work?

[headdie]

Self determination is a tricky subject.

All countries have a mechanism for secession in that government can make what ever decision it pleases, some are just more open to the idea than others and some have more experience than others.

for example you cite the Scottish, and by association the Irish independence movements, neither of these have gone through any formalised process, we are literally making it up as we go along, with London stalling every which way it can and the local assemblies for those regions orbiting like rockets with different people fighting for the controls, when the independents are in charge they lobby for the next bit of independence they want and when the pro UK guys are in charge they hold off public opinion where they can.

Armed secession/revolution/civil war is often the sexy option because it tends to be driven by the young hotheads who are easily charmed with visions of glory and it also might be the only way in less open states.  Also armed conflict offers the potential to "win" within a generation or even a few years, as the processes in the UK shows, Political and diplomatic change takes decades, even generations to realise and even in the UK's situation, it was the awful effects of the Irish conflict that made peaceful solutions possible in that we *really* want to avoid that happening again.

[666maslo666]

I do believe that if clear majority wants to secede on some continuous area of sufficient size, they should be allowed to do so.

[swashmebuckle]

Unless they're seceding to maintain slavery or something. Then you gotta fight or you're a bum.

[Flipside]

The problem is with Scotland is that, whatever the vote ends up being, they are going to face a country almost equally divided for/against Independence. There is going to be a lot of fence-mending to do with whoever 'loses'.

[Phantom Hoover]

Unless they're seceding to maintain slavery or something. Then you gotta fight or you're a bum.

Well that was, for obvious reasons, not actually something voted for by a clear majority of the population.

[swashmebuckle]

Well no, but even if everyone who would have been eligible to vote today had voted and a clear majority had voted to secede, they still would've been voting to maintain slavery so you still can't accept that outcome.

[Bobboau]

so what you are describing would be slaves voting to remain slaves. which if they did that would be self determination

[swashmebuckle]

Or the pro-slavery (non-slave) faction in the region could have a clear majority on its own.

[Phantom Hoover]

I think the theory there is that self-determination doesn't go nearly far enough to supersede international human rights.

[Aardwolf]

My take from a lot of what's been said here is that a 50.01% majority is not enough.

Still, I (as the OP) am more interested in what it would take for international recognition.

[headdie]

It would take UN recognition as I believe that is the standard by which most nations judge your status, though exactly who that is depends on the politics of the situation but UN recognition as an independent state or sovereign nation means that a good chunk of the world will recognise you and you will have a legal standing and framework to take diplomatic steps to ensure your independence, and will give your state's allies diplomatic precedence to formally assist you in maintaining your boarders

[Black Wolf]

Long term, we need fewer countries, not more - consolidated decision making, not balkanization. Degrees of self determination within the framework of a larger nation are much more palatable to me than splitting off down ethnic, cultural or linguistic lines. And that goes double for when such a split is undertaken violently - you can pretend to be representing the will of the people all you want, but ultimately the guys with the guns (and the willingness to use them) always have the louder voices.

Obviously, the individual situations have to be considered - if one part of a nation is being actively oppressed by another, then maybe secession is the only way out. Or if you have a remnant nation that was formed for outdated geopolitical reasons (ala the Central Asian states deliberately designed by the Soviets to be unstable), you might have a case to renegotiate borders. So I don't want to claim an absolute position. But more often than not, I think secession needs to be an absolute last resort, and generally it's something to be opposed.

[Aardwolf]

@headdie: then I repeat the question but with "UN" instead of "international" (my mistake really )