  Wellman, however, takes another approach. He argues that the continued sharing of resources from a newly created independent state with the remainder state need not be limited to instances in which the poorer region would be left unviable without the seceding region’s support. Thus, his view leaves room for the possibility that the people in the poorer region may still be entitled to some share of the resources that is greater than what they need for mere viability- however that may be construed. Here, Wellman makes a distinction between what he takes to be two separate questions: 1) what do the citizens of the richer region owe to the citizens of the remainder state as a matter of justice? And 2) are the citizens of the richer region entitled to self-determination? As he would argue: wealthy spouses divorce their less wealthy spouses all the time. We don’t think that this inequality prohibits them from divorcing; rather, it establishes the terms by which they may permissibly do so—and these terms more often than not require continued support of the less well-off spouse beyond what is minimally required for his subsistence (Wellman 2005: p. 142–3).