  Remedial right only theories, as their designation suggests, hold that secession is justified as a remedy of last resort against injustices perpetrated against the aspiring secessionist group by the state. Remedial right theorists assume that a sufficiently just state has legitimate jurisdiction over the people within its territory. This legitimacy confers on the state permission to rule over its all citizens—including those members of aspiring secessionist groups. Matters can change only if the state violates the conditions of its legitimacy, which requires that the state commit injustices that are sufficiently weighty so as to undermine the state’s claim to legitimate rule. Various remedial right only views have different views as to what types of injustices are of sufficient weightiness to ground the right to secede. The most prominent view of this sort, advanced by Allen Buchanan, identifies three particular kinds of injustices for which secession can be a remedy: 1) genocide or other large-scale violations of basic human rights; 2) unjust annexation; and 3) the persistent violation of intrastate autonomy agreements (Buchanan 2003: p. 351). Recently, Buchanan has also considered the possibility of another condition: failure to enter into negotiations with the possible outcome of an intrastate autonomy regime in the case of any group that has a reasonable claim to such autonomy (Buchanan, personal communication, August 2021).