Unfortunately, the argument that unilateral secession is never justified is deeply flawed, and has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. I will content myself with briefly explaining the weakness of this argument, before moving on to consideration of the two more legitimate and defensible theories. The major flaw of the theory that secession is never legitimate is that it relies on a definition of legitimacy which only considers the legal dimension of legitimacy, and which completely neglects to consider the moral dimension. So, while the theory that unilateral secession is never legitimately permissible may technically be correct along the legal dimension (contemporary nation-states generally do not permit subnational regions to legally
…show more content…
Consider a hypothetical secession movement within the United States, in which the state of Mississippi desires to unilaterally withdraw from the political union, but the remaining 49 states universally desire to preserve national unity. Mississippi's secession attempts, in this scenario, would be a case of minority secession. Assume, however, that circumstances change, such that Mississippi now strongly desires to preserve national unity, but the remaining 49 states universally desire to expel Mississippi from the union. It would seem that this expulsion is unrelated to the concept of secession, unless one considers reframing the expulsion such that, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "instead of being called 'driving the one out,' it should be called 'the seceding of the others from the one.'" In this respect, the attempt of the remaining 49 states to drive Mississippi from the union would be a case of majority secession. Under the non-remedial theory of secession, if one considers secession to be universally permissible, it would logically follow that majority secession (expulsion) would also be considered universally legitimate and permissible, as there is effectively no significant distinction between minority and majority secession. I contend that …show more content…
This analogy is not uniquely employed by proponents of the non-remedial theory of secession, even scholars who are decidedly opposed to the non-remedial theory of secession, such as Allen Buchanan, frequently reference the analogy. In discussing what circumstances might serve to justify political secession, for example, Buchanan writes that "Here an analogy with divorce may illuminate. Why should one assume that the only justification for divorce is that one's spouse has wronged one, violated one's right, treated one unjustly? There may be other, quite respectable reasons for wanting to end the union: It is not satisfying the needs or aspirations for which it was undertaken, one or both parties have changed in fundamental ways, and so on." Since this divorce analogy is frequently employed both by proponents of the non-remedial theory of secession and by proponents of the remedial theory of secession, my criticism of the analogy will serve as a critique of both theories. Essentially, I will argue that comparing political relations to marital relations is problematic, and that it would be more appropriate to compare political relations to commercial contracts. My criticism of the marital analogy stems from the
Consider a hypothetical secession movement within the United States, in which the state of Mississippi desires to unilaterally withdraw from the political union, but the remaining 49 states universally desire to preserve national unity. Mississippi's secession attempts, in this scenario, would be a case of minority secession. Assume, however, that circumstances change, such that Mississippi now strongly desires to preserve national unity, but the remaining 49 states universally desire to expel Mississippi from the union. It would seem that this expulsion is unrelated to the concept of secession, unless one considers reframing the expulsion such that, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "instead of being called 'driving the one out,' it should be called 'the seceding of the others from the one.'" In this respect, the attempt of the remaining 49 states to drive Mississippi from the union would be a case of majority secession. Under the non-remedial theory of secession, if one considers secession to be universally permissible, it would logically follow that majority secession (expulsion) would also be considered universally legitimate and permissible, as there is effectively no significant distinction between minority and majority secession. I contend that …show more content…
This analogy is not uniquely employed by proponents of the non-remedial theory of secession, even scholars who are decidedly opposed to the non-remedial theory of secession, such as Allen Buchanan, frequently reference the analogy. In discussing what circumstances might serve to justify political secession, for example, Buchanan writes that "Here an analogy with divorce may illuminate. Why should one assume that the only justification for divorce is that one's spouse has wronged one, violated one's right, treated one unjustly? There may be other, quite respectable reasons for wanting to end the union: It is not satisfying the needs or aspirations for which it was undertaken, one or both parties have changed in fundamental ways, and so on." Since this divorce analogy is frequently employed both by proponents of the non-remedial theory of secession and by proponents of the remedial theory of secession, my criticism of the analogy will serve as a critique of both theories. Essentially, I will argue that comparing political relations to marital relations is problematic, and that it would be more appropriate to compare political relations to commercial contracts. My criticism of the marital analogy stems from the