  The discussion in this entry thus far indicates that all three types of the most prominent theories (remedial rights only, plebiscitary, and ascriptivist) suffer a serious incompleteness: they do not situate their views on secession within the context of a comprehensive theory of territorial justice. A theory of territorial justice aims to do at least the following four things, all of which are relevant to theories of secession. First, it should provide a coherent account of valid moral claims to territory of various types, from claims to full sovereign jurisdiction, to claims to the more limited jurisdictional control needed for various forms of intrastate autonomy (modes of self-determination short of full independence), to claims to participation in various forms of joint jurisdiction. Second, and relatedly, it should offer a coherent explanation of which elements of control over territory can be justified. A theory of territory is not only a theory of the geographical domain of jurisdictional authority but also must the right to control resources within a territory, the right of defense against the taking of territory, the right to control over the movement of people and good across borders, and so on.