Britain knows a lot about secession. Northern Ireland and Scotland remain a part of the Union. India knows about secession – 1947. And this past week, religious extremists representing a negligible number undertook violent criminal damage and assault at the Indian High Commission. Such extremists negate any case for seccession anymore than I proclaiming myself the new Emperor of the People’s Republic of Yorkshire on a 100% referendum turnout of me, and then violently attacking White Roses in an angry tantrum so I can claim asylum (my real goal).
Religious extremists, whether the seccessionists in India or the Taliban, the Iranian Mullahs or Abu Hamzah, lack ethical force.
Secession refers to the act of withdrawing from a political entity or organization, typically when a region or group seeks to establish its own sovereign state. The question of whether there is a duty not to secede is fundamentally an ethical one, which hinges on the principles of political legitimacy, social contract theory, and the rights and obligations of communities and individuals. To explore this question, we will examine the moral justifications for secession, the competing duties that might suggest an obligation not to secede, and the circumstances under which secession could be considered ethical or unethical.
Justifications for Secession
Self-determination: A primary argument for secession is the principle of self-determination, which posits that a people have the right to choose their own political destiny. This principle is enshrined in international law and has been invoked in numerous instances of secession, such as the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Protection of minority rights: Secession can be seen as a legitimate response to the systematic oppression or marginalization of a minority group within a state. In such cases, secession could be justified on the grounds of protecting the rights and welfare of that group.
Democratic consent: If a majority of citizens within a region express a desire to secede, proponents argue that the principle of democratic consent should take precedence over the unity of a state. In this view, the will of the people in the region seeking independence should be respected.
Arguments Against Secession and the Duty Not to Secede
Political stability: Secession can undermine political stability and lead to conflict, as seen in the cases of the former Yugoslavia and South Sudan. In this view, there is a duty not to secede in order to maintain peace and security for the people within the state.
Social contract: The social contract theory suggests that individuals have a moral obligation to abide by the agreements they have made within a society. This implies a duty not to secede, as doing so would violate the implicit contract between citizens and the state.
Territorial integrity: The principle of territorial integrity posits that the borders of a state should remain inviolable. In this view, there is a duty not to secede in order to preserve the territorial integrity of a state.
Economic interdependence: In an increasingly globalized world, the economic interdependence of regions within a state can create a duty not to secede, as doing so might cause significant economic harm to both the seceding region and the remaining state.
Balancing the Ethics of Secession
In order to determine whether there is a duty not to secede, one must weigh the moral justifications for secession against the competing duties that suggest an obligation not to secede. The ethical permissibility of secession is context-dependent and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
In some cases, the duty not to secede may be outweighed by the moral imperatives of self-determination, protection of minority rights, and democratic consent. In others, the potential harms to political stability, social contract, territorial integrity, and economic interdependence may create a compelling duty not to secede.
In India the answer is as clear as it is with Northern Ireland and the Falklands and indeed my claim on the People’s Republic of Yorkshire – political stability, territorial integrity, economic interdependence all weigh for unity, as does democratic consent, and the pre-existing protection of minority rights. Which is also why when Scotland tried to run their own independence referendum, the UK Supreme Court ruled it void.
