II. Two Types of Normative Theories of Secession• Theories of secession hinge on the remedial right to secede and some include the primary right (which is meant the general right to secede that is not casespecific)• Remedial Rights Only Theories (best suited for majority secession and ideological differences)• Assert that groups only have a right to secede if they have suffered certain injustices for which secession is a last resort.• These theories differ on what injustices suffice• Allows for there to be special rights to secede if:• The state grants a right to secede• The constitution of a state grants the right to secede• The agreement a state was created out of previously independent political units included the implicit or explicit assumption that secession at a laterpoint was permissible• There is no general right to secede from a just state• A group thus as the right to secede under these two conditions:• The physical survival of its members is threatened by state action such as in genocides• Its previously sovereign territory was taken unjustly by the state• It is also argued that there are just terms of secession• Must be credible guarantees that new state will not violate human rights• Primary Rights Theories (best suited for justification of minority secession and cultural differences)• Asserts that certain groups can have a general right to secede in the absence of injustice and do not limit secession to a reaction from injustices• These theories differ on the conditions that groups must satisfy to have a right to secede in the absence of injustice• Two main Primary Rights Theories:Ascriptive Group Theories (best for a segregated state, unicultural state)• Includes Nationalist Principle according to which every nation or people is entitled its own state• Ascriptive characteristics are those characteristics a group shares that go beyond politics and refer more towards the common culture, history,language, ethnicity of a people that that group may have formed.• It is first and foremost the nonpolitical characteristics of groups that ground them to independent political association• The reason it matters is that people’s sense of identities are tied to their relation to a larger groupAssociative Group Theories (best for an integrated, multinational state with a diverse cultural identity)• Confers the right to secede on the ability for a group to muster up a majority in favor of independence• Does not require ascriptive characteristics, but are rather founded in voluntary political choice from members of a group who decide to form their ownstate• simplest version is the pure plebiscite theory which states that any group that can constitute a majority within a portion of a state has a right to secede• According to Harry Beran any group is justified in seceding if they:1. constitute a substantial majority within the region in question2. Will be able to marshall the resources necessary for a viable independent state• Since Beran's ideas for political obligation are based on tacit consent, then individuals must also have the right to secede giving their tacit consentto be governed over to a new entity• Christopher Wellman theorizes that our right to secede is based on our right to political self-determination and three conditions:1. Group constitutes a majority in the region2. The state it forms will be able to carry out the proper function of a state3. Its severing from the state will not impair that states capabilities to function as well• People have a right to secede from even a 'just' state• 'Just' in this sense is for the universally uncontroversial conditions being that a state is focused on upholding justice and security and does not violatehuman rights or act discriminatorily towards a certain minority group• The universally uncontroversial definition• The main difference between the right to secede and the right to revolution is that the right to secede only accrues by a portion of the citizenry as opposed tooverthrowing a whole government as in the right to revolutionIV. Comparing The Two Types of Theories• In the real world it is often the minority that chooses to secede creates a state in which another group is now the minority and the persecuted becomes thepersecutors.• In most cases not all members of the seceding group live within that territory and thus they may face even more discrimination and be even more of a minorityin the state that the others left behind• The Remedial Rights Theory has more credibility for minimal realism in that it is more likely to be adopted by international law, because it does not threatenexisting states who are making the laws• What state would advocate a policy that threatens its solidarity• In some regards states have a morally legitimate interest in maintaining their territorial integrity• The single most fundamental principle of international law is the principle of the territorial integrity of existing states which is why the Remedial RightsTheory is best suited for international law• The interests for existing states to preserve their territorial integrity are based on two important goals:1. The protection of individuals' physical security, the preservation of their rights, and the stability of their expectations.• All of these securities depend on effective enforcement of legal order which requires effective jurisdiction of a recognized domain. In order to be trulyeffective the boundaries that define jurisdiction and the identified political authority must persist over time.2. An incentive structure that provides a reasonable structure for people to invest themselves in participating in the government in a cooperative manner• Where exit is too easy, there is little incentive for voice• There are other ways for a minority to exit the reach of political authority such as through emigration• This option is not that feasible in the regards that emigration is costly and would often involve a minority moving from a state in which they are a minority toanother state in which they are a minority• In a democratic state it may even be possible for a minority to use the threat of exit to push for it's causes although any state that takes territorial integrity veryseriously may also respond to the threat in a serious way (like the U.S. civil war)• The Morally Progressive Interpretation of the Principle of Territorial Integrity• The