Our language classes are completely flexible. They are held in small-group settings or one-on-one. You will be given a short test first to determine your starting level. Our teachers are experienced, patient and ready to meet your needs and expectations. The classes can meet in person or online. Certificates are issued upon request.
Our teaching methods are meant to prepare our students to interact with the language of their choosing in any possible way. You will learn how to read, write, speak and understand the language in meaningful real-life situations. You will be immersed in the language you are studying from the moment the class begins. We use a visual approach to help you understand different concepts, including grammar.
Do you need to learn the language specific to your work environment? Look no further. Our specialized language classes provide you with the necessary structures and vocabulary to be able to communicate and develop your business.
The classes are held in small-group settings or one-on-one. Our teachers are savy, patient and ready to meet your needs and expectations. The classes can meet in person or online. Certificates are issued upon request.
Do you have limited English language skills and need to pass the US Citizenship test? We can help! Our US Citizenship classes are held in small-group settings or one-on-one. Our teachers are savy, patient and ready to meet your needs and expectations. The classes can meet in person or online.
We offer translation and interpreting (including on-site) to and from various languages. Contact us for more information.
Are you planning to come to the USA or have recently arrived and have questions about where to live, how to buy or lease a car, what kind of job or school is right for you, how much money you may need, and so on? Ask us, we will be happy to help or send you in the right direction.
We have flexible schedules (mornings, evenings or weekends) and competitive prices. Just let us know what we can do for you!


I have a query on an invoice. Who should I contact?
I have placed an order with you and want to know when the delivery and installation will take place.
How can I find out when our next service visit is?
You should call a member of your dedicated branch team and they will be able to resolve your query. Click here for branch locations. Or you can call our Divisional Head Office at 1-888-368-8060 and someone will be able to assist you.
Call us 1-888-368-8060 and speak to a member our team. Please have your account and contract number at hand. In the near future we will be launching a new website for our customers where they can view service history as well as when the next visits are due.
What products and services does Ambius provide?
We are a small organization interested in indoor plants. Does Ambius only look after large companies?
I would like to meet with one of the Ambius team to discuss interior landscaping for my organization. Who do I speak to?
I'm interested in Replica Flowers. What is the pricing and how can I buy?
Why don't you have any prices on your website?
What kind of service would Ambius deliver?
As well as supplying and maintaining interior plants, we also offer holiday decorations, decorative wall art, replica plants, blooming displays, as well as ambient scenting, which our clients use for odor remediation and scent marketing. Take a look at our online catalog of products to get some inspiration.
We are a small organization interested in indoor plants. Does Ambius only work with large companies?
Not at all. We have a very varied client list that ranges from small offices to large hotels and shopping centers. We can provide and maintain anything from a single planted desk bowl right up to huge palm trees. Our design consultants will discuss what is right for you and your space.
Ambius is global organization, but we service locally. We not only offer design solutions to enhance the business environment but the service we offer is second to none. Our team will ensure that your space is always looking vibrant. During the holidays we will install and collect your decorations smoothly so you don't have to worry about it. During the rest of the year we will ensure your plants are always looking lively, your flowers brighten your reception desk and your ambient scenting welcomes people into your building.
We work on approximately 13-17 visits per year or as when required to ensure our promise is fulfilled.


text:
A Introduction
B The Legitimacy of Secession
C The Legality of Secession
D Secession in Practice
E After Secession
F Outlook
Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri
Foreign relations law — Secession — Sovereignty
1 Secessionist tendencies are a phenomenon that most State[s], if not all, are faced with at some point. And most States, though not all, try to prevent such attempts from succeeding. The objection by the State turns separation, if it occurs, into secession. The unilateral withdrawal from a State of a constituent part, with its territory and its population, constitutes secession stricto sensu. As a consequence of secession, the existing State splits in two: the State continues to exist, but a new State comes into existence concurrently (New States and International Law). In other words, what was formerly a constituent part of a State becomes independent—at least from a legal, though not necessarily a factual perspective. Rather than create a new State, the separating part of a State may choose to join an existing State. Such a case also amounts to secession.
2 Secessions in this sense of the term are a rare occurrence. James Crawford has pointed out that since 1945 there has not been a single separation of a constituent part from a State to which the latter has not, sooner or later, given its consent: 'In fact no new State formed since 1945 outside the colonial context has been admitted to the United Nations over the opposition of the predecessor State' (Crawford 415) (see also Decolonization; History of International Law, since World War II). Crawford's statement shows that the role of the existing State's consent in the context of secession is difficult to capture. One could also understand the term secession as encompassing a situation in which a constituent part separates from a State and the existing State gives its consent at a later stage. According to this understanding, the elements of secession are normally fulfilled at an earlier point in time. The notion then becomes broader, but also hazier, due to the time criterion—unless one couples the term secession, somewhat artificially, with a specific point in time, such as the occasion on which independence is unilaterally declared. However, the stricter notion of secession—the one based on the absence of consent of the pre-existing State—faces similar uncertainty, for when could one tenably claim that a separation is definitely unilateral and complete, that consent is definitely withheld? The stricter notion of secession could only deal with this uncertainty in a credible way if it either: (i) admitted that secession was progressive rather than a one-time, clear-cut event, which would mean that a secession turns into either a separation or a dismemberment (Dismemberment of States) once it has been approved by the pre-existing State; or (ii) accepted that, as a notion, it was hollow, in that it can never be said to have occurred with absolute certainty; in other words, that it is a negative term the elements of which are impossible to fulfil, and the spectre of which only serves to stigmatize attacks on the integrity of States.
3 Take Kosovo as an example: does the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, following the declaration of independence proclaimed by Kosovo on 17 February 2008, now constitute secession because Serbia does not recognize Kosovo's independence? Or is it too early for this to be the case? Or is it secession until Serbia agrees—if it ever does—and is it then to be regarded as a withdrawal covered by consent, or a separation? (See also Yugoslavia, Dissolution of).
4 In light of these uncertainties, it might be possible to widen the term secession even further. One could also regard secession as every action that leads to a part of a State being separated off, regardless of whether or not this happens with the consent of the existing State. Based on such a definition, secession is then a frequent occurrence. However, such a wide understanding of the notion of secession conflicts with the general understanding of the term and with one's intuition. Secession seems to be a unilateral process, one that often has negative connotations and that needs to be distinguished from an agreed withdrawal or a dismemberment of a State.
5 Such are the difficulties with the notion of secession. They are important to note, because there is so far no authoritative definition of the notion of secession. They also serve to show that different authors, when writing about secessions, may understand the term in different ways. Notwithstanding this, it is at least possible to situate the phenomenon of secession in general: it is of importance in various areas of international law, such as State sovereignty, territorial integrity (Territorial Integrity and Political Independence), self-determination, minority rights (Minorities, International Protection), and State succession (State Succession in Treaties; State Succession in Other Matters than Treaties).
6 Two thoughts underlie the present review. First, secession, more than other areas of international law, seems to be an amalgamation of legitimacy and legality. To avoid confusion, a special effort is made to keep the two concepts apart. Second, as the role and the limits of international law in situations involving secessions seem to be unclear, the review, in its structure and content, makes an attempt at clarification in this regard. Apart from these two efforts, much of the main body of the text is devoted to a review of international practice, by which secession is largely governed.
B. The Legitimacy of Secession
7 In any case where secession is becoming a threat, there is a strong inclination to blend normative arguments with legal reasoning. Because legitimacy and legality should generally be distinguished, the following look at the most common reasons put forward to justify the legitimacy of a secession may prove helpful, while bearing in mind, however, that secessionist claims are always embedded in their specific context and that the reasons why such claims are made can only be generalized to a limited extent.
8 An overall distinction can be made between reasons that seemingly justify secession and others that militate against it. Among the strongest arguments in favour of secession is oppression. Systematic oppression of one part of the society of a State can give rise to a secession campaign that is widely felt to be legitimate. The oppression may range from the denial of participatory rights, to serious and systematic discrimination and other violations of human rights of the members of one part of the population. The regime that commits these violations and which oppresses a part of the population it governs thus appears to be illegitimate. Pro-secession legitimacy can be accentuated further by considerations that are unrelated to oppression, such as the geographic isolation of a territory, the ethnic differentness or the size of the population of a territory (Ethnicity), and, most basically, the will of this population as proclaimed in a plebiscite or a referendum. The latter arguments were all discussed in the Åland Islands dispute (The Aaland Islands Question [Report presented to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs 16 April 1921]; see paras 17, 25 below). Of course, they may also serve, mutatis mutandis, in other cases to contest the legitimacy of a secessionist movement, when there is no oppression, no ethnic difference, etc.
9 The main reason why secessions are regarded as illegitimate is stability. Stability is considered to be one of the foundations of international co-operation and law:
The essential requirement of stability in order to survive, to develop and gradually to consolidate their independence in all fields, has induced African States judiciously to consent to the respecting of colonial frontiers, and to take account of it in the interpretation of the principle of self-determination of peoples. (emphasis added) (Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) [1986] ICJ Rep 554, para. 25)
10 Of course, a secession, taken in isolation, primarily threatens the stability of one State—that from which a part secedes. This is the intra-State aspect of the stability argument. Here, the argument is fed by the characteristics of the specific State, such as the size of the State and its weight in the international arena, access to the State's natural resources, various ties—historical, ethnic, etc—between the different parts of the population, and also by considerations of power. But there is also an inter-State aspect to the stability argument. It is based on the reasoning that a runaway reaction might be the result, ie that once a single secession has been allowed to happen, it could well start a rampant backlash in other, third States, which in principle have nothing to do with the first incident. One secession would then lead to a surge of secessionist claims in these third States that could not easily be brought under control. This, the argument goes, would gravely inhibit international co-operation and even threaten the international order as a whole.
11 There is, of course, some truth in this argument. However, the argument could also be seen the other way around. If secession is illegitimate because it causes instability, the opposite could probably be said too: secession causes instability, because it is considered to be illegitimate. The stigma attributed to secessions would, in this perspective, be a cause, and not a consequence of the instabilities following secession. If the stigma were removed, in other words, if secessions were not considered as illegitimate per se, they would possibly not cause instability. Consequently, one could also imagine taking a less conservative approach. Secessions would, in a more dynamic understanding, be handled more freely and, for instance, accepted, if the desire to secede was expressed by the population of a territory in a free and clear way. This would not be totally unprecedented, as can be seen in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that the federal State of Canada and its constituent entities, based on the constitution, would be obliged to negotiate secession in good faith (bona fide), if the population of Quebec, having been asked the unequivocal question, expressed its wish to secede by a clear majority (Reference re Secession of Quebec Supreme Court of Canada [20 August 1998] (1998); see the citation of the paragraphs and the discussion below para. 34). However, this is not an approach that finds much support in academia. On the contrary, it is widely rejected, typically with reasoning that is based on the stability argument. Tomuschat, for instance, expects that 'such merry jurisprudence would unavoidably pave the way to chaos and anarchy' (Tomuschat [2006] 24 [note that Tomuschat does not explicitly refer to Reference re Secession of Quebec when making this statement]). Nevertheless, one can probably accept that the concepts of (il)legitimacy and (in)stability are more intimately connected than it might seem at first glance.
12 There is, however, an additional, more compelling argument against the legitimacy of secessions. It is based on a functional perspective of conflict resolution. The conflicts that underlie secessionist tendencies are often strongly influenced by ethnic or national components, especially so in the Balkans. According to Koskenniemi, what then occurs is the '"onion problem" of nationalism' (Koskenniemi 260). The problem stems from the fact that there is always some degree of intertwinement—both territorial and personal—between ethnic groups and nations, and that there is no clear separation line between them. Even though secession results in the creation of a new ethnic or national entity, this new entity, much like the former State, is not ethnically or nationally uniform. It seems that no matter how many smaller entities are created, the ethnic conflict will continue to exist in the ever-smaller entities. Secession does not solve the underlying conflict, be it ethnic or national. Rather, it pushes the conflict one level lower, thus drawing it out and sometimes, in reversing the minority–majority balance, even aggravating the resentments that fuel the conflict. As a means of conflict prevention and resolution, secession is therefore inappropriate and rather clumsy. Hence, the weight of the ethnic or national reason for secession—and with it, it seems, the pro-secession argument as a whole—is very limited. In no case should it be taken as more than just one element to be considered when weighing and balancing the options in a conflict.
C. The Legality of Secession
13 In an ideal legal order, legitimacy and legality are always the same. With secession, however, such a general congruency is unlikely from the outset, because views differ on what is legitimate and what is not. Furthermore, it can be suspected that international law adheres to the States' perspective of legitimacy, for it is mainly States and not peoples, which make international law. Unsurprisingly, international law, as will be seen below, does indeed deal with secession in a way that emphasizes the stability of existing States. Nevertheless, the oppression argument has found its way into positive international law.
14 In brief, the international legal situation seems to be that secession in the strict sense of the term is not explicitly forbidden. It is not illegal. But it runs counter to the principle of territorial integrity and the latter ultimately prevails. International law provides no unambiguous basis for a right to secession.
15 In detail, the principle of self-determination enshrined in Art. 1 (2) United Nations Charter as one of the purposes of the UN—'[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace'—could be considered as a legal basis for a right to secession. The right to self-determination, looked at in isolation, certainly means that a people has a right to its own State, for the people that truly determines itself may also choose a State as the appropriate vessel for its fate. However, such an unrestricted reading of the principle of self-determination does not find much support. Rather, the principle is to be balanced with the territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing States. Hence, the Friendly Relations Declaration (1970), after having elaborated in detail on the principle of self-determination, limits it:
nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour. (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res 2625 [XXV] [24 October 1970] Principle V).
16 The clause was probably intended as a monument to the territorial integrity of States. But one cannot help but notice its fallacy: it essentially holds that the principle of self-determination does not enable any assault on the sovereignty of a State ('nothing in the foregoing paragraph'), provided that the principle of self-determination is complied with ('conducting themselves in compliance'). In other words, when the principle of self-determination is not complied with, it may allow the dismemberment of a State, which may well be the opposite of what the drafters of the clause originally intended. In spite of this equivocality, the most common reading of self-determination, typically advocated by proponents of States, upholds the territorial integrity of States and thus restricts the principle of self-determination to an internal dimension. Construed in this way, the principle of self-determination perhaps entitles a people to minority rights and structures enabling autonomy or similar arrangements, such as those in federal States, but does not give them a right to secession.
17 However, a more progressive interpretation of the clause in the Friendly Relations Declaration is possible, one which puts more emphasis on the second part of the paragraph. According to this reading, external self-determination—ie the right to secession—is usually dormant, but may be activated in exceptional circumstances. Such an exception would notably apply when internal self-determination is violated. In this understanding, the right to secession is a conditional right, with the violation of the principle of (internal) self-determination being the condition. As a consequence, the right is endowed with a punitive character in the sense of 'if you misuse your power, you lose it'. The idea of forfeiture is obviously prominent in this approach. Such reasoning is, however, on the fringes of legal analysis and is strongly inspired by legitimacy considerations. Indeed, there is little support for it in positive law. The formula in the Friendly Relations Declaration—'possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour'—is in fact the only positive legal basis. Note that the formula was repeated on the occasion of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights (1993) in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action ([25 June 1993] UN Doc A/CONF.157/23, Sec. 1, para. 2) and again in the Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations ([24 October 1995] UNGA Res 50/6 GAOR 50th Session Supp 49, 13, para. 1). It is based on the idea of representation and, in an e contrario argument, can be understood as asserting that if a government does not represent the whole population without discrimination, the part of the population that is not represented may be entitled to a right to secession. A lack of appropriate representation as a violation of internal self-determination is thus understood to be a catalyst for the right to secession. Apart from this positive—though indirect—manifestation, other reasons for the activation of the right to secession can be found, if free associative reasoning is applied. As early as 1921, the Commission of Rapporteurs in the Åland islands dispute found that it is possible to reach a different conclusion, ie to recommend the separation of the Åland islands from Finland to the benefit of the Åland islanders, 'when a State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees' (The Aaland Islands Question 28). The Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Secession of Quebec identified three potential circumstances in which external self-determination may be considered: decolonization, the case of alien 'subjugation, domination or exploitation' (para. 133, based on the passage of the Friendly Relations Declaration, ie 'and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle [of self-determination], as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter' Principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples), and 'when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally' but then only 'as a last resort' (para. 134). The last circumstance was not given clear consideration by the Court, however. Moreover, when human rights are seriously and persistently violated—when the oppression of a people is extreme, for example—this is widely perceived in academia as activating the right to secession, although only as an ultima ratio (for instance Tomuschat [2006] 35 [with further references]).
18 As to such a right to secession, three comments are in order. First, it is important to stress that the impact of such a right to secession would be limited ab initio. Situations in which secession is at stake are highly politicized, and a whole plethora of political arguments are used to support or undermine secessionist claims. In such a setting, a right to secession, while certainly bolstering the position of that part of the State that wishes to secede, would be only one argument among many and its concrete application would be subject to fierce debate. Therefore, a higher, impartial implementing authority would be at least as important as the right itself.
19 Second, apart from the tenuousness of the legal basis, the right to secession in the sense of a 'remedial secession' (Buchheit 222) raises other serious concerns. A remedial right to secession based on external self-determination would have to tackle all the difficulties of the right to self-determination, such as the questions of what is 'a people', who belongs to 'a people', and how the will of 'a people' is determined (see Self-Determination). Then there are the concerns that are very familiar from the debate on humanitarian intervention: serious issues relating to threshold levels would have to be addressed if one needed to fix the level of oppression—the seriousness of human rights violations, the degree of the lack of participation, etc—that would entitle a people to secession. The ultima ratio qualification of the right to secession—as a last resort—would not clarify things very much, for the ultimacy of a measure could always be disputed. It probably only indicates that, in general, the threshold would have to be high. The duration of the oppression needed in order to activate the right would pose additional challenges. In particular, it would be necessary to answer the intricate question as to whether the right to secede would continue to exist, once the oppression had ended.
20 Third, there is another fundamental argument which militates strongly against a right to secession. It is clear that secessionist claims are born out of difficult, multi-faceted circumstances. In such circumstances, it seems that various options would be available to address the underlying issues and, in most cases, secession would only be one of these options. Here, a right to secession seems to be a crude device—a black and white instrument applied to an area dominated by shades of grey. The right would confirm a bias in favour of one solution, namely secession, in a situation where many options should be available on an equal footing. This argument is clearly not against the legitimacy of action in face of oppression, but the crux is that there must be different means of addressing situations in which secessionist claims arise. To limit the options a priori to secession, even if only as an ultima ratio, seems to be an unbalanced approach that does not take the complexity of such situations into account. It sends out the wrong signals to the parties involved. And it includes a threat: the loss of a part of sovereignty in the event that basic international obligations, such as human rights etc, are not complied with. One would expect that there are more subtle ways of ensuring compliance than via a threat to break down territorial integrity—note the similar argument discussed in Reference re Secession of Quebec (para. 91).
21 The Supreme Court of Canada showed a way to address these concerns in the first, lesser-known part of its opinion in Reference re Secession of Quebec. Here, it held that Quebec's—and probably any other Canadian province's—clear will to secede from Canada would entail an obligation to negotiate the separation bona fide, based on Canadian constitutional law. The Constitution would not prescribe the outcome of these negotiations (see para. 17 above). Clearly, this approach is tailored to the case of peaceful relations between the State and the part wanting to secede (Peaceful Change). Yet, it is equally clear that, even in case of oppression, it is very difficult to reach a solution without negotiations. One can conclude from this that it might be an option to shape international law following Canada's example. For those who are unable to adhere to such a solution because the possible sacrifice of State unity is too costly, it might still be acceptable to condition the remedial right to secession in the way proposed in UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari's plan for Kosovo, (UN Special Envoy for the Future Status Process for Kosovo, 'Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement'; see paras 37–38 below). However, it seems that such an approach fails to properly justify the direction it gives: why is the right to secession conditional while the preservation of territorial integrity is not?
D. Secession in Practice
22 The tendency to secession is extraordinarily frequent, if declarations of independence, plebiscites, and other, less outspoken efforts can be taken as yardsticks. An account of only the most prominent cases associated with secession is given below (for a more extended review of cases involving secession see Crawford 374–448; Crawford discusses other cases which are relevant for the concept of secession and which are not mentioned here: Senegal, Singapore, Czech Republic, and Slovakia [Czechoslovakia, Dissolution of] Tibet, Kashmir, East Punjab, the Karen and Shan States, North Cyprus, Tamil Elam, South Sudan, Somaliland, Bougainville, Kurdistan, Republika Srpska, Chechnya, Anjouan, Gaugauzia, Nagorny-Karabach, and Yemen). Only the aspects of each case which are most relevant to the legal approach to secession are stressed here.
23 In 1970, UN Secretary-General U Thant famously stated:
So, as far as the question of secession of a particular section of a Member State is concerned, the United Nations' attitude is unequivocal. As an international organization, the United Nations has never accepted and does not accept and I do not believe it will ever accept the principle of secession of a part of its Member State. ('Press Conference held in Dakar, Senegal' [4 January 1970] 36)
24 The dictum is a symbol, not only of the attitude of the United Nations, but also of the attitudes of its Member States towards secession. The formula, which still holds true today, inspires the following grouping of cases relating to secession into pre-decolonization, decolonization, post-decolonization, and non-decolonization cases.
25 The case from the pre-decolonization period that is still most relevant today—the dispute of the Åland islands, sometimes also called Aaland islands—took place during the time of the League of Nations. The Åland islanders, mostly Swedish speakers that inhabited a group of islands in the Baltic Sea, expressed their desire in a referendum to separate from the newly (re-)constituted State of Finland and to join Sweden. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) designated by the Council of the League of Nations first found in 1920 that the case was within the purview of the League and not a purely domestic affair of Finland (International Commission of Jurists, 'Report of the International Commission of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question' (1920)). The Commission of Rapporteurs, subsequently entrusted by the Council to consider the substance of the case, denied the Åland islanders the option to join Sweden and referred them to a state of autonomy within Finland, for which it gave some guidelines. The Rapporteurs' finding was based mainly on the sovereignty of Finland and disregarded ethnic, geographical, and plebiscitary arguments. The ruling of the Rapporteurs was also founded on ideas of justice and recompense for the victors of World War I, among them Finland, but not neutral Sweden: 'It would be an extraordinary form of gratitude…to wish to despoil her [ie Finland] of territory to which she attaches the greatest value' (The Aaland Islands Question 30). Although the dispute was mainly about the extent of Finnish sovereignty, which was uncertain at the time, the Commission of Rapporteurs famously opened the possibility of secession, 'when a State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees' (at 28). This part of the ruling continues to fuel today's discussions about remedial secessions (see also Remedies).
26 The majority of States existing today were created during decolonization under the auspices of the United Nations and in application of the principle of (external) self-determination. However, the process of separation of colonies or other non-self-governing territories from the metropolitan State is not to be considered as a series of secessions. The reason for this is that, at the time of decolonization, these territories were no longer considered to be integral parts of the metropolitan States. This is expressed by the Friendly Relations Declaration when it proclaims that such a territory 'has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it' (Principle V). The Declaration continues:
and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right to self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles. (ibid)
27 The emergence of new States as a result of decolonization must therefore be understood as a process through which the ties between the administering powers and administered territories were severed, rather than as the breaking up of uniform States through secessions.
28 Yet this way of looking at decolonization does not mean that decolonization as a whole is irrelevant to the concept of secession. On the contrary, decolonization gave rise to many secessionist movements. However, these movements did not primarily target the relationship between the administered territory and the administering State, but rather the relationship between the formerly administered territories themselves. They were formed within the newly created States in the wake of decolonization and mainly concerned the relations within or among the latter. These can be described as post-decolonization cases.
29 Each of these cases of post-decolonization is marked by a wide variety of aspects, but the borders of the newly established States played a significant role in most of them. These borders had been pre-drawn during colonization as external or administrative borders, without much regard to the relations, the ethnicity, or the sense of belonging of the inhabitants. During decolonization, these borders were preserved for practical reasons. Legally, this perpetuation of the boundaries was justified by the uti possidetis doctrine. However, when the administering power was beginning to leave the stage, the arbitrary nature of the borders was an important factor and one that fuelled secessionist claims.
30 Most prominent among the post-decolonization cases are Katanga and Biafra (Biafra Conflict). Attempts at secession were made in both cases. In the Katanga case, the regime of the province Katanga declared its independence from the newly established Republic of Congo in 1960 (Congo, Democratic Republic of the). In the case of Biafra, the Ibo population endeavoured to secede from Nigeria and to establish its own State by declaring independence on 30 May 1967. Both attempts failed, mainly because the secessionist movements were not, or not sufficiently, endorsed by the international community. Only five States recognized the State of Biafra—Gabon, Haiti (see also Haiti, Conflict), Ivory Coast, Tanzania, and Zambia—and none did so with Katanga. It is also noteworthy that in 1964—one year after the secessionist attempt in Katanga had failed—the African heads of State and government, in the assembly of the Organization of African Unity in Cairo, reiterated their commitment to uphold the existing borders as established by the colonial powers: 'The assembly of Heads of States and Government…solemnly declares that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence' (Organization of African Unity Assembly of Heads of State and Government, 'Border Disputes Among African States' [17–21 July 1964] AHG/Res 16(I), Art. 2; see also Boundary Disputes in Africa). And it was a question about the Biafra incident that led UN Secretary-General U Thant to clarify the position of the United Nations in his famous dictum in the press conference of 1970.
31 The lasting Western Sahara conflict, another case of post-decolonization, is only marginally relevant to the concept of secession, although prima facie the contrary seems to be the case, considering that the population of Western Sahara is still striving for its own State. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held, in the Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), that neither Morocco nor the 'Mauritanian entity' (see the term used in the question of the UN General Assembly repeated in para. 1 of the opinion), had any sovereign rights over the territory of Western Sahara at the time of colonization, although some legal ties did exist ([1975] ICJ Rep 12, para. 162; Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion)). The continuing dispute about the referendum to be held in Western Sahara therefore appears as a dispute about the right to self-determination in the setting of decolonization, and not about the secession of Western Sahara, be it from Spain, Morocco, or Mauritania.
32 Eritrea was admitted as a member of the United Nations by consensus in 1993 (UNGA Res 47/230 [28 May 1993] GAOR 47th Session Supp 49 vol 2, 6). It is difficult to explain the development of the State of Eritrea in terms of secession. Italian colonial domination over Ethiopia and Eritrea came to an end in World War II. The two territories were then administered by Great Britain and finally coupled into a federation under United Nations patronage in 1952, with substantially more powers being accorded to Ethiopia than to Eritrea (UNGA Res 390 (V) [2 December 1950] GAOR 5th Session Supp 20, 20: laying out the details of the federation). In 1962, Ethiopia dissolved the federation by annexing Eritrea (Annexation). The Eritrean liberation movement fought a long civil war against Ethiopian forces and ultimately helped overthrow the military government of Ethiopia in 1991 (National Liberation Movements; Armed Conflict, Non-International). Following acknowledgement of Eritrea's right to self-determination by the new government of Ethiopia, and after Eritrea's wish to become independent had been expressed in a UN-sponsored plebiscite by an overwhelming majority—99.8%—in April 1993, Eritrea celebrated its independence on 24 May 1993. Several facts seem to suggest that the outcome of the whole affair constitutes the final, co-ordinated settlement of a decolonization process rather than a secession: the fact that Eritrea's distinctness was already recognized in the first, unsuccessful formula in the process of decolonization; the federation with Ethiopia; the role of Eritrean forces in the regime change in Ethiopia; and the ensuing consent by the Ethiopian government to Eritrean independence. Nevertheless, although not a secession stricto sensu—Ethiopia agreed to Eritrea becoming a State—elements of secession appear, from a formal perspective, in that a new State emerged from the clutches of an existing sovereign State.
33 The case of Bangladesh shows some similarities with that of Eritrea, and it probably comes closest to secession in the strict sense of the term. Bangladesh initially constituted the eastern part of Pakistan, which, since decolonization, was geographically separated from the western part of Pakistan by the territory of India. When a mainly eastern Pakistani party, the Awami League, won the majority of seats in the election for the parliamentary assembly of Pakistan in 1970, the government of Pakistan refused to accept the result and launched a military operation in the eastern part of Pakistan. In the ensuing civil war, India intervened in support of the Awami League. The Indian–Pakistani war that followed was ended by the surrender of Pakistan on 17 December 1971. Even before the defeat, India had recognized eastern Pakistan as the sovereign State of Bangladesh, which had formally been proclaimed in April 1971. Recognition by several States followed. After Pakistan had finally given its consent by recognition on 22 February 1974, Bangladesh was admitted to the United Nations (UNGA Res 3203 [17 September 1974] GAOR 29th Session Supp 31 vol 1, 2). While the case, which was also set in a post-decolonization context, is an incidence of secession, it also demonstrates the significance, from a political point of view, of foreign sponsorship and military support for the chances of success of secessionist movements.
34 Outside the context of decolonization, one of the most prominent cases concerning secession is that of Quebec. Secession of Quebec from Canada has been looming for a long time. The famous opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada (Reference re Secession of Quebec 1998) on whether Quebec had a right to secede from Canada was only one episode in a mainly political incident, but from a legal point of view, it was the most interesting one. The Supreme Court considered the issue of Quebec's right to secede from Canada from two angles. It opined that, under Canadian constitutional law, if the population of Quebec expressed its will to secede by a clear majority, this would entail an obligation to negotiate in good faith the change of the Canadian Constitution necessary for a withdrawal of Quebec, without any outcome of these negotiations being pre-determined by constitutional law (paras 32–108, in particular para. 102). It held that international law, on the other hand, does not grant Quebec the right to secede unilaterally from Canada (paras 109–46, in particular para. 138). However, the Court acknowledged that in principle such a right could arise under specific circumstances—decolonization, alien 'subjugation, domination or exploitation' (para. 133), and 'when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally' (para. 134). Since the Supreme Court gave its opinion in 1998, the population of Quebec has not expressed the clear wish to secede, which, according to the opinion, would be required under Canadian constitutional law.
35 The demise of the Soviet Union and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are other prominent cases in which the idea of secession played a certain role. In both cases, a State from which power had radiated out to the neighbouring States and beyond, came to an end. As a result, a number of States came—or came back—into existence, and each would merit a separate, extensive analysis under the subject of secession. To put it briefly here, the dismemberment of the Soviet Union enabled the satellite States of Eastern Europe, which had remained formally sovereign during Soviet rule, to shake off Russian influence and orient themselves towards the European Union. The Baltic States, which had been annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940, re-asserted their sovereignty. Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation—the latter being the successor State of the Soviet Union—founded the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) under the Minsk agreement of 8 December 1991, thus ending the Soviet Union (Agreement establishing the Commonwealth of Independent Nations [done and entered into force 8 December 1991] (1992) 31 ILM 143). The other former Soviet Republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) gained recognition by the Russian Federation and joined the Commonwealth of Independent States by virtue of the Alma Ata Declaration ([done and entered into force 21 December 1991] (1992) 31 ILM 148). However, Georgia, which joined in 1993, notified its withdrawal on 18 August 2008. This break up of the Soviet Union as a whole is not to be seen as a series of secessions. It is clear, however, that the States which emerged from, or survived, the process have been consolidated to such an extent that, at least from their perspective, future structural changes would have to be assessed in terms of secession, as in the case of Chechnya, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.
36 That the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was also disintegrating was confirmed by the Badinter Commission (for the Former Yugoslavia) in its Opinion No 1 (Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission, Opinion No 1). When asked whether the claims to sovereignty and independence of the formerly constituent entities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia amounted to secessions, the Badinter Commission opined that the Federation 'is in the process of dissolution' (para. 3). It thus applied a factual approach that confirmed that Slovenia, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina did not secede from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is noteworthy that part one of the preamble of the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of 21 February 1974 contained a right of the constituent republics to secede, but such a right was not given to provinces such as Kosovo (Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [adopted 21 February 1974], in WB Simons, The Constitutions of the Communist World [Sijthof and Noordhoff Alphen aan den Rijn 1980] 444–577). Later on, Montenegro dissolved the newly constituted union with Serbia with the consent of the latter (based on Art. 60 Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro [adopted and entered into force 4 February 2003]), after the population of Montenegro had voted for independence in the referendum of 21 May 2006. While the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, like that of the Soviet Union, was a factual rearrangement rather than a series of secessions—or at least, in the case of Montenegro, an agreed solution—the case of Kosovo is different.
37 Kosovo was the first case, at least in the immediate past, in which the separation of a part of a State was promoted by a large number of States, even though the existing State, of which the separating entity was a part, expressly opposed the separation. How did the declaration of independence of Kosovo of 17 February 2008 and the ensuing recognition by 60 States as of June 2009 come about? The most recent events may be summed up as follows. In the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo only enjoyed the status of an autonomous province, not that of a republic. As such, it had no constitutional right to secede from the federation. But even this limited status was rescinded by the Milosevic regime in 1989. During the early 1990s, the Kosovars resisted pressure from the Serbian government by peaceful means, eventually building up a shadow administration in Kosovo. The situation was militarized, however, when Serbia resorted to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. After diplomatic efforts to settle the situation had proved to be in vain, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its Member States intervened in Kosovo, despite the fact that the UN Security Council had not authorized the action. After the surrender of Serbia, UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 established an international civil and military presence in Kosovo—UNMIK and KFOR—while ignoring both the legality of the prior use of force, as well as the final status of Kosovo (UNSC Res 1244 [1999] [10 June 1999] SCOR 54th Year 32). There followed almost ten years of international administration and countless attempts at finding an agreeable solution (International Administration of Territories). The latest effort, led by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, made it plain that Serbian and Kosovar positions could not be reconciled: Serbia insisted on Kosovo's remaining a part of the Serbian State—albeit with substantial autonomy—while Kosovo accepted nothing short of independence (UN Special Envoy for the Future Status Process for Kosovo, 'Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement'). Due to Serbian opposition, represented by Russia, the UN Security Council failed to adopt Ahtisaari's proposal. Kosovo proclaimed its independence soon afterwards. However, the status of Kosovo remains controversial, as some States have recognized it as a State and others have refused to do so.
38 In many senses, the case of Kosovo is illustrative of the role of international law in the domain of secession. In the face of an attempt at secession, States try to avoid creating a precedent. As evidenced by the analysis of State practice, virtually no case is considered to amount to secession. Each and every case is qualified as special and unique—even Kosovo, which, although from an impartial point of view plainly constituting secession, perhaps even an example of remedial secession, is still seen as singular, due to the long-standing presence of an international administration. This may well be the case, because international law is perceived to be an impediment in this case. Practice as a creative element of international law, namely of customary international law, is therefore construed in a way that inhibits its consolidation into, and the creation of, a legal standard. In other words, a non-principled, pragmatic approach is preferred in the domain of secession. This case-by-case approach usually comes down to upholding the territorial integrity of existing States—though not always, for when a State no longer exists, as with the Soviet Union or the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nothing can be upheld—and, in extremis, it may mean that independence becomes an option if all other alternatives fail. The approach also means that it is not non-compliance with legal standards that is decisive for the success or failure of an attempt at secession, but rather non-legal factors, such as diplomatic abilities, or the ability to raise international support, or influence the media. Quite plainly, military power is often crucial and third States, in the aftermath of a secession crisis, tend to base their attitude on a 'winners and losers' rationale and on practical considerations. All these factors can undoubtedly be seen at work in the most recent secession episode in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, although the latest facts of this situation are not well enough established, so that any verdict would be premature.
E. After Secession
39 While the birth of a new State through secession is governed by facts rather than legal rules, the latter play a more important role after secession has taken place. It is important to note, however, that even after secession the pre-existing State—the one from which the part seceded—does not become irrelevant. On the contrary, it continues to play an important role, notably in two regards. First, it is involved in the process of succession, since the rules on State succession apply to the new State emerging from secession (Zimmermann 213). But the two existing conventions in the area of State succession concern only two, albeit important domains (Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties [23 August 1978], in particular Arts 34–38; Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts [8 April 1983], in particular Arts 17, 30, and 40; note also UN ILC, 'Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States' [1999], in particular Arts 24–26), and the settlement of matters depends to a large extent on negotiation (see Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission, Opinion No 9 [4 July 1992] para. 4). Here, the co-operation of the first State seems to be necessary if an agreeable solution is to be reached. The number of issues to be settled through these negotiations is vast and diverse issues, such as the partitioning of the foreign debt of the pre-existing State (Debts) and the citizenship of inhabitants, are involved. An illustration of the scope of the issues involved can be seen in the UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaahri's plan for the final status of Kosovo. In Ahtisaahri's proposal, particular importance is accorded to minority protection and the plan puts forward the establishment of an elaborate regime of guaranteed representation, home areas, and cultural rights. It may be presumed that similar issues relating to minority protection would have to be addressed in other cases involving secession.
40 Second, the pre-existing State's role is crucial when it comes to recognition of the newly emerged State. Recognition of a new State is, of course, at the discretion of each State. Its nature is declaratory, in that the legal existence of a State does not depend on recognition by other States. However, the factual existence of a State is hampered when fewer States recognize it, and to this extent the declaratory nature of recognition is relative. Rather, the reality of a State is to be tested against the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention 'a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states' (Art. 1 Convention on Rights and Duties of States [signed 26 December 1933, entered into force 26 December 1934] 165 LNTS 19); the last two elements can be considered to embody the principle of effectiveness. But practice shows that States regard the recognition by the pre-existing State as paramount. They are hardly ever prepared to recognize a new State without the consent of the pre-existing State. The cases of Bangladesh and Kosovo are certainly exceptional in this regard. This reluctance to grant recognition seems to be due to two factors: on the one hand, it seems that the follow-up issues in a State succession can hardly be tackled without the co-operation of the pre-existing State (see above para. 39 (i)). On the other hand, States probably prefer to recognize a new State at a late stage, because a premature recognition, much like early support for a secessionist movement, could be considered as illegal interference in the domestic affairs of an existing State.
41 As to recognition in general, and in the context of secession, it is noteworthy that recognition no longer seems to depend solely on the question of whether a new State has come into existence—in other words whether the four elements of the Montevideo Convention have been fulfilled. Other circumstances seem to have become relevant, too. To be sure, recognition as a discretional act of each State has always depended on factual circumstances, such as the existence of a diaspora of the population claiming statehood. But apart from these factual considerations, new conditions, which are applied to statehood and thus to recognition, seem to be evolving. These conditions involve elements of democracy, rule of law, human rights, minority protection, and possibly the principle of self-determination. Evidence of this can be seen in the guidelines on the recognition of new States adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Community on 16 December 1991, or in the fact that the acts of recognition of Kosovo were usually made conditional on an effective protection of minorities in Kosovo (EC, 'Declaration on the "Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union"' [1992]; the text of all recognitions of Kosovo is available). It will be interesting to see the effectiveness of these conditional recognitions of Kosovo. In substance, this will have to be examined in light of the Ahtisaari plan—notwithstanding Serbia's disagreement with it.
F. Outlook
42 Secession affects the fundament of the international order: the State and the guarantee of its integrity. Whenever a secession is about to occur, the international order trembles, and that is why there is a stigma attached to it. Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are only the most recent and most important episodes in the history of secession. International law, however, does not play a very prominent role in it. As is most often the case in the origins of States, other, mainly political, considerations prevail. International law remains neutral vis-à-vis secession and neither prohibits nor permits it. International law becomes important, however, when the facts have been consolidated and the new State has come into existence, in particular when it comes to matters of State recognition and succession. The limited role of international law must be borne in mind in the argument relating to the legality of remedial secessions, as much of the argument is normatively tinged. In fact, there is little safe legal ground on which to base it. Nonetheless, the recent secession of Kosovo from Serbia, while not in itself giving rise to a customary right to secession, appears to motivate other, seemingly oppressed, populations to voice their grievances and their claims to statehood, regardless of the apparently unique nature of the Kosovo example. It remains to be seen whether such claims will be more successful than in the past, and what the repercussions on the international legal order will be. For now it can only be said that the possible success of these attempts, from a neutral standpoint, may not be such a bleak prospect after all, and the repercussions on the international legal order may well prove to be just another element of the general change in the structure of the international order. The significance of States would thus be put into a new perspective—a perspective in which States will have lost some of their air of untouchability, since they are being influenced more than ever from the top—supranational organizations, international courts—as well as from the bottom—civil society, minorities, and transnational corporations.
SR Chowdhury,The Genesis of Bangladesh: A Study in International Legal Norms and Permissive Conscience (Asia Publishing House New York 1972).
S Cronje, The World and Nigeria: The Diplomatic History of the Biafran War 1967–1970 (Sidgwick and Jackson London 1972).
D Thürer, Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker mit einem Exkurs zur Jurafrage (Staempfli Zürich 1976).
LC Buchheit, Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (Yale University Press New Haven 1978).
Y Dinstein (ed) Models of Autonomy (Transaction Books New Brunswick 1981).
S Oeter 'Selbstbestimmungsrecht im Wandel: Überlegungen zur Debatte um Selbstbestimmung, Sezessionsrecht und "vorzeitige" Anerkennung' (1992) 52 ZaöRV 741–780.
C Brölmann, R Lefeber, and M Zieck (eds) Peoples and Minorities in International Law (Nijhoff Dordrecht 1993).
C Tomuschat (ed) Modern Law of Self-Determination (Nijhoff Dordrecht 1993).
M Koskenniemi 'National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice' (1994) 43 ICLQ 241–69.
A Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (CUP Cambridge 1995).
H Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Acccomodation of Conflicting Rights (2nd ed University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia 1996).
A Buchanan 'Theories of Secession' (1997) 26 Philosophy and Public Affairs 31–61.
R Lapidoth, Autonomy: Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts (United States Institute of Peace Press Washington DC 1997).
M Moore (ed) National Self-Determination and Secession (OUP Oxford 1998).
AF Bayefsk, Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned (Kluwer The Hague 2000).
R McCorquodale (ed) Self-Determination in International Law (Dartmouth Aldershot 2000).
G Welhengama, Minorities' Claims: From Autonomy to Secession. International Law and State Practice (Ashgate Aldershot 2000).
P Alston (ed) Peoples' Rights (OUP Oxford 2001).
A Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (OUP Oxford 2004).
N Ghanea and A Xanthaki (eds) Minorities, Peoples, and Self-Determination: Essays in Honour of Patrick Thornberry (Nijhoff Leiden 2005).
D Thürer 'Minorities and Majorities: Managing Diversity. A Fresh Look at an Old Problem' (2005) 15 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht 659–663.
J Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed Clarendon Oxford 2006).
MG Kohen (ed) Secession: International Law Perspectives (CUP Cambridge 2006).
I Primoratz and A Pavkovic (eds) Identity, Self-Determination and Secession (Ashgate Aldershot 2006).
J Summers, Peoples and International Law: How Nationalism and Self-Determination Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations (Nijhoff Leiden 2006).
C Tomuschat 'Secession and Self-Determination', in MG Kohen (ed), Secession: International Law Perspectives (CUP Cambridge 2006) 23–45.
A Zimmermann 'Secession and the Law of State Succession', in MG Kohen (ed), Secession: International Law Perspectives (CUP Cambridge 2006) 208–30.
MG Kohen 'Le Kosovo: un test pour la communauté internationale', in V Chetail (ed), Conflits, sécurité et coopération: Liber amicorum Victor-Yves Ghebali (Bruylant Bruxelles 2007) 367–82.
E McWhinney, Self-Determination of Peoples and Plural-Ethnic States in Contemporary International Law: Failed States, Nation-Building and the Alternative, Federal Option (Nijhoff Leiden 2007).
KA Wirth 'Kosovo am Vorabend der Statusentscheidung: Überlegungen zur rechtlichen Begründung und Durchsetzung der Unabhängigkeit' (2007) 67 ZaöRV 1065–1106.
P Hilpold 'Die Sezession: Zum Versuch der Verrechtlichung eines faktischen Phänomens' (2008) 63 Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 117–41.
S Oeter 'The Dismemberment of Yugoslavia: An Update on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro' (2008) 50 GYIL 457–521.
D Thürer and T Burri 'Introduction: Minorities, Law, and Conflict Resolution', in D Thürer and D Kedzia (eds), Convivenza Tagungsband (Schulthess Zürich 2009).
The Aaland Islands Question (Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs 16 April 1921) League of Nations Council Doc B.7 21/68/106.
Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission, Opinion No 1 (29 November 1991) 92 ILR 162.
Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission, Opinion No 9 (4 July 1992) 92 ILR 203.
EC, 'Declaration on the "Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union"' (1992) 31 ILM 1486.
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res 2625 (XXV) (24 October 1970) GAOR 25th Session Supp 28, 121.
Independent International Commission on Kosovo (ed), Kosovo Report (OUP Oxford 2001).
International Commission of Jurists, 'Report of the International Commission of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question' (1920) 1 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No 3.
Reference re Secession of Quebec Supreme Court of Canada (20 August 1998) (1998) 2 SCR 217, (1998) 161 DLR (4th) 385.
UN ILC, 'Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States' (1999) GAOR 54th Session Supp 10, 15.
UN Secretary-General U Thant, 'Press Conference held in Dakar, Senegal' (4 January 1970) 7(2) United Nations Monthly Chronicle 34–38.
UN Special Envoy for the Future Status Process for Kosovo, 'Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement' UN Doc S/2007/168/Add.1.
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts (done 8 April 1983, not yet entered into force) (1983) 22 ILM 306.
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (concluded 23 August 1978, entered into force 6 November 1996) 1946 UNTS 3.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


AKRON, Ohio, June 15, 2017 – For the 63rd consecutive year, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is in the upper echelon of American businesses in Fortune magazine's annual ranking of the 500 largest companies in the United States.
Based on 2016 sales of $15.2 billion, Goodyear is the 184th largest business in the country. It is ranked fourth in the magazine's Motor Vehicles and Parts category.
Compiled since 1955, the "Fortune 500" ranks U.S. companies by sales. Companies are ranked by total revenues for their respective fiscal years. Included in the survey are companies that are incorporated and operate in the U.S. and file financial statements with a government agency. This year, a company had to post sales of $5.14 billion to make the list.
The complete "Fortune 500" listing is in the magazine's June 15 issue and on its website, www.fortune.com.
Goodyear is one of the world's largest tire companies. It employs approximately 66,000 people and manufactures its products in 48 facilities in 21 countries around the world. Its two Innovation Centers in Akron, Ohio and Colmar-Berg, Luxembourg strive to develop state-of-the-art products and services that set the technology and performance standard for the industry. For more information about Goodyear and its products, go to www.goodyear.com/corporate.


Today at the Southside Shuffle Festival! Sunday, Sept. 11th at 2pm Ken Whiteley & his Freedom Blues band heat things up on the Heath & Sherwood Stage 4. Then a blast from the past as The Original Sloth Band reunite on Sept. 30th at Hugh's Room. For this show, Chris Whiteley (trumpet, harmonica, guitar, vocals) and Ken (guitar, mandolin, piano, accordion, washboard, jug, vocals), along with long time drummer Bucky Berger (Fathead) are putting together a very special night. The show will also feature Chris' son Daniel Whiteley on guitar, vocals and mandolin, Drew Jurecka on fiddle, clarinet and sax and Ben Whiteley on bass. They'll pay tribute to their friend Tom Evans and take you on a musical journey that will be quite a ride. Ken's Sunday Gospel Matinee series at Hugh's Room kicks off on October 30th. Save the dates and reserved your spot now from Hugh's Room. For more info click on the Shows tab.
We hope you enjoy the first two YouTube videos "Bring It All Right Down" and "Give Your Hands To Struggle" from the Freedom Blues CD release concert in Toronto. Thanks to Riddle Films and specifically Liam Romalis and Mako Funasaka for the video production and all the incredible musicians including Amoy Levy, Ciceal Levy, Bucky Berger, Ewan Divitt, Richard Underhill, Perry White, Alastair Whitehead and Denis Keldie. Tell your friends to check this out.


text:
import * as Lint from 'tslint/lib/lint';
import * as ts from 'typescript';
import { Ng2Walker } from './angular/ng2Walker';
import { CssAst } from './angular/styles/cssAst';
export declare class Rule extends Lint.Rules.AbstractRule {
    static FAILURE: string;
    apply(sourceFile: ts.SourceFile): Lint.RuleFailure[];
}
export declare class UnusedCssNg2Visitor extends Ng2Walker {
    private templateAst;
    visitClassDeclaration(declaration: ts.ClassDeclaration): void;
    protected visitNg2StyleHelper(style: CssAst, context: ts.ClassDeclaration, baseStart: number): void;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Beautiful PJ's. lovely feel to them. Top great design for feeding. I live in a warm house so top will be great in the slightly cooler months. Shorts could be slightly longer.
Love these pjs! I wish I brought two pairs. Great service with quick delivery.
Absolutely love these pyjamas, they are super soft and comfy, having the waste band which can be loosened during all parts of pregnancy and post partum is great!! They're just the best.


Following the leaked images of the new-generation 2016 Toyota Hilux that surfaced yesterday and the weeks prior, what appears to be the official Thai brochure of the upcoming pickup was recently posted on the Hilux Revo Thailand Facebook page.
From the pamphlet itself, the upcoming 2016 Hilux sports the brand's current design language that can be seen on current models like the Camry, Corolla and Vios. The front end has a three-bar chrome grill while the distinct headlights are fitted with projectors and LED daytime running lights (DRLs). Other exterior features present on the new-generation Hilux include 17-inch alloys, side-steps and a 'bee-sting' antenna.
Aboard the 2016 Hilux, the double cab variant features a black-gray interior trim along with a wide array of equipment such as: 60:40 split rear seats, keyless entry and start, a 4.2-inch multi-information display, a 7-inch touchscreen display with USB, Aux and Bluetooth connectivity, automatic climate control with rear vents, cruise control and a 220-volt AC charger.
As previously reported, it will be powered by two new turbo diesel engines, the smaller 2.4-liter 2GD-FTV inline-four that puts out 160 PS at 3,400 rpm with 400 Nm of torque at 1,600 – 2000 rpm, and the larger 2.8-liter 1GD-FTV inline-four that produces 177 PS at 3,400 rpm with 450 Nm at 1,600 – 2,000 rpm.
The gasoline-powered 2.7-liter inline-four returns and now benefits from Toyota's Dual-VVT-i valvetronic system. It is rated at 166 PS at 5,200 rpm along with 245 Nm of torque available at 4,000 rpm. Both the gasoline and turbo-diesel powerplants can be mated to either a manual or automatic gearbox.
Safety features found on the range-topping 2.8G A/T model include seven airbags, traction control, VSC, ABS with EBD, Brake Assist, trailer sway control, hill start assist and hill descent control.
It will be making its world debut later today.


text:
Уговор о Европској унији или Мастришки уговор, потписан је у Мастрихту (Холандија), 7. фебруара 1992. године, а ступио је на снагу 1. новембра 1993. године. Мастришки уговор је створио нови политички ентитет - Европску унију.

Мастришки уговор је настао после распада Совјетског Савеза (1991), слома совјетског комунистичког система и уједињења западне и источне Немачке.

Европска унија је описана као ентитет сачињен од три стуба:
 Први стуб чине три постојеће Европске заједнице - Европска заједница за угаљ и челик, Европска економска заједница и Европска заједница за атомску енергију.
 Други стуб чини систем заједничке спољне и безбедносне политике.
 Трећи стуб обухвата сферу која се односи на правосуђе и унутрашњу политику.

Овим уговором наложено је успостављање монетарне уније посредством увођења јединствене валуте у три корака, најкасније до 1. јануара 1999. године.

Уговором о Европској унији она из претежно привредне заједнице, прераста у политичку заједницу.

Њиме је предвиђено и стварање саветодавног тела под именом одбор регија.

Литература
 Проф. др Филип Турчиновић: Право Европске уније, Београд, 2005.
 Уговор о Европској унији из Мастрихта, сајт Европске уније
 Уговор о европској унији  (текст уговора), Official Journal C 191, 29. јул 1992.
 Уговор из Мастрихта (1992)

Уговори Европске уније
1992.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
How to Have That Difficult Conversation (Unabridged, Mp3)
by Henry Cloud, John Townsend
CD|Aug 2015
Successful people confront well. They know that setting healthy boundaries improves relationships and can solve important problems. They have discovered that uncomfortable situations can be avoided or resolved through direct conversation. But most of us don't know how to have...
Available in other Formats
eBook - $9.99
How to Have That Difficult Conversation (Unabridged, 10 Cds)
Henry Cloud, John Townsend
How to Have That Difficult Conversation: Gaining the Skills For Honest and Meaningful Communication (Mp3)
John Townsend, Henry Cloud, Tom Parks (Narr)
Making Small Groups Work: What Every Small Group Leader Needs to Know (Unabridged, Mp3)
12 "Christian" Beliefs That Can Drive You Crazy: Relief From False Assumptions (Unabridged, 1 Mp3)
Henry Cloud, John Townsend, Jonathan Petersen (Narr)
Boundaries: When to Say Yes, How to Say No to Take Control of Your Life (Unabridged, Mp3)
12 "Christian" Beliefs That Can Drive You Crazy: Relief From False Assumptions (Unabridged, 6 Cds)
How People Grow: What the Bible Reveals About Personal Growth (Abridged, Mp3)
Boundaries With Kids (Abridged, Mp3)
How People Grow: What the Bible Reveals About Personal Growth (Abridged, 2 Cds)
How People Grow: What the Bible Reveals About Personal Growth (Mp3)
Successful people confront well. They know that setting healthy boundaries improves relationships and can solve important problems. They have discovered that uncomfortable situations can be avoided or resolved through direct conversation. But most of us don't know how to have difficult conversations, and we see confrontation as scary or adversarial.
Authors Henry Cloud and John Townsend take the principles from their bestselling book, Boundaries, and apply them to a variety of the most common difficult situations and relationships in order to:
* Show how healthy confrontation can improve relationships
* Present the essentials of a good boundary-setting conversation
* Provide tips on preparing for the conversation
* Show how to tell people what you want, stop bad behavior, and deal with counterattack
* Give actual examples of conversations to have with your spouse, your date, your kids, your coworker, your parents, and more!
Full of practical tips and how-tos, this audiobook will help you make your relationships better, deepen your intimacy with people you care for, and cultivate more love, understanding, and respect between you and others.
Department Audio Books
Category Audio Book
Sub-Category Non-fiction
Publisher Brilliance Publishing
Dr. Cloud is a clinical psychologist with a unique ability to connect with his audiences. Drawing upon his broad range of experiences in private practice, leadership consulting, and media, he simplifies life's issues and gives easy-to-understand, practical advice. It is Dr. Cloud's humour, compassion, and 'in the moment' confrontation that make his approach to psychology and spirituality such a success.
He has written or co-written 19 books, including the best-selling Boundaries. His most recent books are Integrity, Necessary Endings and The Law of Happiness. He has earned three Gold Medallion awards and was awarded the distinguished Retailers Choice award for God Will Make A Way.
Dr. Cloud has appeared on numerous radio and television broadcasts and has been featured in many publications. Millions of listeners have benefited from his wit and wisdom for over a decade.
As president of Cloud-Townsend Resources, he has produced and conducted hundreds of public seminars around the country. He speaks on relationships - marriage, parenting, dating, personal growth, and spirituality. His seminars are often broadcast live to over two thousand venues at a time.
In his consulting practice, he works with leaders of organisations and corporations, from family-held firms to Fortune 25 companies and non-profit organisations. With his extensive executive coaching background and experience as an organisational and leadership consultant, he speaks regularly at corporate and leadership events held across the United States and internationally.
Dr. Cloud co-founded a health-care company that operated treatment centres in 35 cities in the Western United States; he served as Clinical Co-Director for ten years. In that context of hands-on clinical experience, he researched and developed many of the treatment methods and principles he communicates to audiences today. Since then, he has devoted his time to spreading principles of hope and life change through speaking, writing, and the media. His books have sold over four million copies.
He is a graduate of Southern Methodist University, having earned a BS in psychology with honours. He completed his PhD in clinical psychology at Biola University and his clinical internship at Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. His philanthropic interests lie in the area of homelessness and the inner city, as well as Third World missions and development. He serves on the board of the Los Angeles Mission, a rescue mission on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles.
Dr. Cloud is an avid golfer and enjoys boating, deep sea fishing and scuba diving. He lives in Los Angeles.
Dr. John Townsend (Psy.D., Rosemead Graduate School of Psychology) is a psychologist, popular speaker, radio host and the bestselling author and co-author of numerous books, including the Gold Medallion award-winning Boundaries and God Will Make a Way. He is co-founder of the Cloud-Townsend Clinic in Southern California.
How to Have That Difficult Conversation You've Been Avoiding (Abridged)
How to Have That Difficult Conversation: Gaining the Skills For Honest and Meaningful Communication (7 Cds)
How to Have That Difficult Conversation: Gaining the Skills For Honest and Meaningful Communication
Bestsellers in Audio Book
Power Thoughts (Unabridged, 8 Cds)
The Purpose Driven Life (Unabridged, 9 CDS) (The Purpose Driven Life Series)
Parenting Scripts
Amber Lia, Wendy Speake
eAudio
The Bondage Breaker (3 Cds, 180 Mins)
Neil T Anderson
What Grieving People Wish You Knew About What Really Helps (Unabridged, 5 Cds) (And What Really Hurts)
The Five Love Languages (3cds Abridged)
Lifeway Women Devotions Volume 3 - 12 Devotions, 10 Mins Each (2 Cds)
Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, Jennie Allen, Lysa Terkeurst, Lauren Chandler, Lisa Harper, Nicki Koziarz, Kelly Minter, Jennifer Rothschild, Angie Smith, Angela Thomas-pharr, Jen Wilkin
Handel's Messiah (Unabridged, 6.25 Hrs, 5 Cds)
Calvin R Stapert
The Book of Mysteries (Unabridged, 5 Mp3 Cds)
The Grand Weaver (Abridged, 7 Cds)


text:
Massachusetts medical marijuana dispensary expands in Tampa Bay
Sanctuary Medicinals adds four new locations in Florida, two locally, with six more planned.
By Louis Llovio
| 4:50 p.m. March 17, 2022
ST. PETERSBURG — A Massachusetts builder has completed work on four marijuana dispensaries in Florida, including two in Pinellas County.
The facilities, built by Vantage Builders, are for Sanctuary Medicinals, a Massachusetts company which offers "premium, pharmaceutical grade cannabis products for medical use." The four dispensaries bring the total number Sanctuary has in the state to six.
The two local dispensaries are at 3790 Tyrone Blvd. in St. Petersburg and 1352 Main St. in Dunedin. The company, which also has dispensaries in Massachusetts, has one other in Tampa on Waters Avenue.
A spokesperson for Vantage says the company is working on six more in Florida that are expected to open later this year.
The St. Petersburg and Fort Pierce dispensaries are 2,300 square feet, and the one in Dunedin is 1,200 square feet. Sebring's comes in at 1,200 square feet.
Vantage's spokesperson says the buildouts were all similar except for the one in Fort Pierce. The company had to transform what had once been a Sunoco Mobil Mart, which meant major structural work along with roofing work and adding new window and doors. A two-story "tower" was also built at the front of the building to give the location some visibility.
Other than that, the locations all feature the same style and branding, have new MEP and HVAC systems, and are built so "the operational flow of the stores helps patients feel cared for and unhurried."
This isn't the first time Vantage and Sanctuary, which moved into the Florida market last year, have worked together. The construction company built four dispensaries and a 36,000-square-foot cultivation facility for Sanctuary in Massachusetts.
Vantage was founded in 2000 and has an office in Orlando as well as Massachusetts.
Summit Splashes into St. Petersburg
Firm readies for more Gulf Coast rubs
Naples office park sells for $19M
Marijuana industry continues to sprout in Florida
Homes to be built near century-old St. Pete neighborhood
Billion-dollar industry blooms as acceptance for marijuana becomes widespread
Atlanta investor to build nearly 1.3 million square feet of industrial space locally
Construction of 622,000-square-foot St. Pete industrial park to begin this summer


TECHNICAL SERVICE WANTED! | Ergoline Германия, Солариуми за професионална употреба!
Do you have any questions on the tanning technology or Ergoline accessories?
Please state your technical service query as precisely as possible and if you have a problem with a particular piece of equipment, you must please tell us the name and number of that equipment. This helps us to deal with your case more rapidly.
When filling out the form, please ensure you provide a telephone number on which we can reach you if we have any questions.


text:
Tag: Your Yes Matters
Saoirse's first vote will be for marriage equality
Saoirse talked to the Independent.ie at the Yes Equality 'Your Yes Matters' campaign launch today about the importance of voting in the Marriage Equality referendum.
Academy Award-nominated actress Saoirse Ronan says she is excited and honoured that her first vote will be for marriage equality.
The 21-year-old Carlow native is eager to encourage her fellow young people to get out and vote this Friday in the Marriage Equality referendum.
Speaking at the Yes Equality 'Your Yes Matters get out the vote' campaign launch, Ms Ronan said this is an opportunity for her generation to create a fair and equal society.
"I'm really excited about it and I'm really honoured that my first vote is going to be a yes vote for marriage equality," she said. "If it's a yes vote it means we're standing with the best of them. We're forward-thinking, we're fair, we're just and we're equal. If we don't, then we're none of those things and I would be extremely disappointed."
Campaigns Interviews
(Video) Saoirse Ronan launches Your YES Matters
Saoirse Ronan launched the 'Your Yes Matters' campaign which encourages people to plan how they'll vote on Friday by visiting GetMeToTheVoteOnTime and you can watch a video in which she talks about it below:


text:
Il singolare femminile del torneo di tennis Ordina Open 2003, facente parte del WTA Tour 2003, ha avuto come vincitrice Kim Clijsters che ha battuto in finale Justine Henin-Hardenne che si è ritirata sul puntenggio di 6(4)-7, 3-0.

Teste di serie

 Kim Clijsters (campionessa)
 Justine Henin-Hardenne (finale)
 Amélie Mauresmo (secondo turno)
 Elena Dement'eva (quarti di finale)

 Nadia Petrova (semifinali)
 Iroda Tulyaganova (quarti di finale)
 Ashley Harkleroad (primo turno)
 Katarina Srebotnik (secondo turno)

Tabellone

Finale

Parte alta

Parte bassa

Collegamenti esterni

Ordina Open 2003


Glastonbury's headline slots have seen some iconic performances by the greatest acts of all time. It's also seem some questionable choices picked to top the bill. Here are some of the strangest.
Jack White is an excellent guitarist and there's no denying that Seven Nation Army went off, but the axe-and-drums combo gets a bit limited after the first 40 minutes. When Big Jack starts to play a vibraphone solo, you know the time is right to check out what's happening on The Other Stage. In this case, it was Fatboy Slim, unleashing the bangers.
Hey, we LOVED The Man Who. Driftwood, Writing To Reach You… all solid hits. But the post-Britpop malaise is summed up by the Scottish indie-popsters being the best option for the first Glasto of the new millenium. It was an odd day all round at the main stage that Saturday, with Ocean Colour Scene giving way to Pet Shop Boys before Travis finished up the night. Still, the crowds had Bowie's peerless comeback set on the Sunday evening.
The "Legends" slot at Glastonbury is always a treat, but there's a reason it usually happens on Sunday afternoon. Letting Rod headline the Pyramid in 2002 made a lot less sense. Sorry Rod, still love the hair.
The Killers were playing the Pyramid Stage at the same time that The Twang were bringing their unique brand of noise to the John Peel Stage. Where would you have rather been?
What, really? Yep. When the Gallaghers headlined the Pyramid Stage in 1995, they were at the height of their powers. Come 2004 and the antagonism between the brothers had grown to a point where their set was less than thrilling. Even though hits like Champagne Supernova and Don't Look Back In Anger were all present and correct, there was something of a spark missing.
Their debut album K had been a storming success at the height of Britpop. But by the time Kula Shaker came to headline the Other Stage, they'd lost a lot of momentum. Classic case of Glastonbury: right place, wrong time.
It's not like 1992 was a fallow year for great music, all of which makes the duo's top spot on Saturday even more odd. Also on the bill that year was Lou Reed, The Breeders, Ocean Colour Scene and Billy Bragg.
The NME Stage in 1994: the home of new music, at the height of Britpop. Who would you book to top the bill on Friday? Why, none other than Chrissie Hynde and co, a band founded in 1978 and back in the charts with their power ballad, I'll Stand By You. Cowering below them in the line-up were Manic Street Preachers, the Boo Radleys and Beastie Boys. Hmmm.


A penguin that waddled across the ice 60 million years ago would have dwarfed the king and emperor penguins of today, according to the Associated Press. As indicated by fossils recently uncovered in New Zealand, the extinct species measured 5 feet 10 inches while swimming, surpassing the height of an average adult man.
The discovery, which the authors say is the most complete skeleton of a penguin this size to date, is laid out in a study recently published in Nature Communications. When standing on land, the penguin would have measured 5 feet 3 inches, still a foot taller than today's largest penguins at their maximum height. Researchers estimated its weight to have been about 223 pounds.
Kumimanu biceae, a name that comes from Maori words for "monster" and "bird" and the name of one researcher's mother, last walked the Earth between 56 million and 60 million years ago. That puts it among the earliest ancient penguins, which began appearing shortly after large aquatic reptiles—along with the dinosaurs—went extinct, leaving room for flightless carnivorous birds to enter the sea.
The prehistoric penguin was a giant, even compared to other penguin species of the age, but it may not have been the biggest penguin to ever live. A few years ago, paleontologists discovered 40-million-year-old fossils they claimed belonged to a penguin that was 6 feet 5 inches long from beak to tail. But that estimate was based on just a couple bones, so its actual size may have varied.


text:
Graeffea doederleini är en insektsart som beskrevs av Günther 1929. Graeffea doederleini ingår i släktet Graeffea och familjen Phasmatidae. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Spökskräckor
doederleini


Trend masculine bedding for men all modern home designs mens bedroom. Masculine comforter set : mens bedding sets ideas lostcoastshuttle. Neutral flax room painting focused on masculine blue batman nursery. Bedroom: gray bedroom idea featured anglepoise wall lamp also.


Clean, clear economical strainers eliminate unnecessary repairs by keeping debris and other particles out of the pump. Screws directly on the pumphead. Transparent design shows when it is time to clean the bowl. Easy disassembly, cleaning and reassembly.
Shurflo Raw Water Strainer - 1/2"
Shurflo Swivel Nut Fresh Water Strainer 1/2"
Shurflo Fresh Water Swivel Nut Strainer 1/2"


Tyre pressure 'read as you drive' Jump to media player A UK company has developed a device which can read the tyre pressure of vehicles as they pass over it.
UK's first fast-charge electric bus Jump to media player Britain's first fast-charging electric bus is being launched.
A UK company has developed a device which can read the tyre pressure of vehicles as they pass over it.
The device, developed by WheelRight in conjunction with computer scientists from Birmingham's Aston University, is embedded in the road.
As vehicles pass over it pressure sensors collect data, which is immediately processed to calculate the tyre pressure of the car, lorry or bus.
The device is being tested at a Swindon bus depot, where buses pass over the machine at the end of every day's service. If a tyre is low, a message is automatically sent and the tyre manually inflated to the correct pressure.
One industry organisation said the idea could have merit.
"Good maintenance standards are essential to the safe and efficient operation of heavy goods vehicles," Kate Gibbs, spokeswoman for the UK's Road Haulage Association, told the BBC.
"Certainly, in principle, we consider the 'drive-over' system to be a good idea. However, we would want to see firm evidence of its benefits and safety advantages before giving it the 'green light'."