Secession is an attempt to declare or declare independence of a state. Such a right may be included in the Constitution, but in most cases it involves forceful actions, which often lead to civil war or acute conflicts. As a rule, neighboring states are drawn into the proceedings.
The essence of the right to secession
One and the most striking example of secession is the separation of the republics of the former USSR. Also, secession is the collapse of the British and other empires. The development of a federal system in countries that have recognized independence means that nation-states are divided into ethnic and territorial groups that have unequal rights. In such a situation, as a rule, secession takes place. This is a separation of Biafra and Nigeria, Bangladesh from Pakistan.
Secession implies secession from the state or its part. It is worth noting that at present, no constitution in the world supports this right, but in reality this happens. For example, the collapse of Yugoslavia, separation from Ethiopia, Eritrea, and so on. Secession in Russia for individual subjects of the Constitution is not supported, while individual republics have the right to exit, but it contradicts the main state document.
National self-determination
Secession is the right of a people to national self-determination. This possibility of secession from a 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 in accordance with Art. 17 USSR and Art. 14 USSR. The ideologists of Russian Bolshevism, together with Lenin, on the eve of the 1917 revolution, formulated the principle of self-determination in their program, and this was decided by the party. The main reason for the inclusion of the right to secession in the Constitution of the RSFSR and the USSR was the voluntary nature of relations in the Soviet state and the desire of the Communist Party to make Soviet Russia open for accession by other socialist countries. In dialectics, secession is only a theory.
The Brezhnev Doctrine
The possibility of a free exit was featured in many political documents of the Soviet government: in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, an allied agreement of 12/30/1922, a declaration on the formation of the USSR. A constitutional decree stated that all republics that were part of the USSR had the right to secession . The same decision was repeated in the Constitution of 1936, but with the clarification that separation is possible only with the consent of all union republics.
Doctrine of Stalin
In the Constitution of 1936, Stalin came up with his own doctrine, stating that secession right is the possibility of secession only for some union republics that meet the following conditions: the majority of the population of the nationality that creates the republic, outskirts and at least one million people. Stalin believed that the right to self-determination should be included in the constitution, although not a single republic wanted to leave the USSR. It is worth noting that autonomous regions and republics do not have the right to secession. The procedure for the separation of the state by Soviet constitutional law was not defined.
Inconsistency of secession law
The right of secession is a rather controversial issue, and the possible annexation of Crimea has sparked debate on the separation of the minority from the metropolis. It all began over 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 declared 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 Crimea does not have the right to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine, as this is contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution. And he was immediately accused of double standards, recalling Montenegro, Kosovo and South Sudan. But are these analogies applicable to the Crimean case? Bassets believes not, because the United States did not annex Kosovo, and the referendum in Scotland for secession from the UK was not held as a result of a military action, like the occupation of Crimea by Russia. But still, the doctrine of President Wilson is currently not popular.
Bassets notes that he agrees that the United States is the country of presidents Wilson and Washington, and the American colonies were separated by force from Great 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 reaction to secession is not based on history, but on the fact that most of the world powers support pragmatism and stability.