Secession: The Natural Law to All People

New England in 1803 had a fear of splitting again from 1807 to 1809, again in the British War of 1812 and the Mexican - American War. New England held a separatist conference called Hartford Treaty in 1815. 2 From 1830 to 1860, the northern abolishists strongly promoted the separation of the northern part. The American anti-slavery association passed the following resolution: "The division of the US government has been determined to be the responsibility of all abolitionists ..." and "The abolitionists in this country make it The main purpose of this excitement is to dissolve the American League. "5 These separatism movements have not been questioned as myself.

This time for the first time that these people 's rights were invoked in the practice of political relations, the authors of this document can not claim that separation is a universal and unconditional right of all people. The right of separation must be supported by evidence explaining the serious breach of the "Dedicated Rights and Law" of the Netherlands promised by the King of Spain and the Spanish government and therefore these reasons are separated from people's rights It is a reason.

International law accepts the principle of self-determination, but it does not include the right to split. International law allows only division in the context of external self-determination, that is, it can be claimed that people are colonized or suppressed (like Kosovo). Furthermore, if a separatist attempts to pass another basic principle that violates international law, such as prohibition of use of force (as in the case of North Cyprus), international law prohibits the division of state. In the case of other attempts to divide, stakeholders such as Quebec and Scotland that international law is neutral to withdrawal are not suppressed - it does not support the separation of rights and the withdrawal of the country. On the contrary, the controversy of separatists is left to the political negotiations between the field of domestic law and the home country and the substance of separatists.

In his view, Julian Ku used a very circular discussion. First of all, he believes that there is no "right to divide under international law". Split really did not happen actually - right - but self-determination rights do not create right to split. Oh. As you ask this question, it is clear that the decision to detach (or "free from right" if you want) is an integral part of self-determination. In any parent country, if a child country chooses to do so, can a child country who knows it prevent interfering with internationally recognized clear self-determination powers?