  Different versions of remedial right only theories specify different lists of the injustices that can ground the remedial right. Consider, for example, a remedial right only theory that includes among the grounds for the (unilateral) right to secede the following: (a) large-scale and persistent violations of basic human rights, (b) unjust taking of the territory of a legitimate state (where secession is simply the taking back of wrongly taken territory, as with the secession of the Baltic Republics from the Soviet Union in 1991), and (c) in certain cases, the state’s persisting violation of agreements to accord a minority group limited self-government within the state (Buchanan 2004) or perhaps even refusal to enter into negotiations aimed at agreement on an intrastate autonomy regime. A more austere remedial right only theory would recognize only (a), persistent, large-scale violations of basic human rights (in the most extreme case, genocide or other mass killings) as sufficient to justify unilateral   secession.[6] 