  In the context of this view, the existence of a politically viable and motivated internal separatist group calls into question the state’s claim to territory on which said group exists because a) its political viability proves that the state does not, in fact, need control over that territory and population to maintain the requisite degree of functionality (per the viability proviso); and b) the majority of the people in that region prefers another political arrangement by which they can satisfy the functionality requirements on their own. Given the fact that the original state does not need the contested territory to create a politically secure and decently well-functioning environment for its own citizens, the state’s claim to the disputed territory is not justified on the functionalist view (Altman and Wellman 2009: 47). The specific scenarios in which this plays out will depend on how we construe political viability, but the overarching argument from functionality remains the same: if the disputed territory is not necessary for the proper functioning of the state, then the state’s claim to that territory and those who live on it is (at the very least) vulnerable to being overridden by the self-determination claims of the aspiring secessionists.