This article analyzes the nations’ right of self-determination in international law, regarding
its application to contested lands and the controversial doctrine of remedial secession. It
traces the evolution of the principle that initially was created as a tool of decolonization and
then become an absolute right under the UN Charter and human rights covenants. Through
a close study of Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh, and a comparative analysis of Crimea,
Catalonia, and Abkhazia, the article weighs whether a norm of remedial
secession—secession as a last option for peoples facing dire human rights abuses and
exclusion from internal self-determination—is in the making. It analyzes whether the
doctrine of remedial secession should become a part of international law. The article also
looks at the subjective and often unfair application of self-determination, highlighting
inconsistencies in international responses to Kosovo’s limited recognition in contrast to the
rejection of Nagorno-Karabakh and others. Dependent on ICJ jurisprudence, specifically the
Kosovo Advisory Opinion, and state practice, the study finds that territorial integrity
prevails, but exceptional circumstances like Kosovo allow for a cautious embrace of
remedial secession—though not as a vested right. The balancing act between territorial
integrity, uti possidetis, and self-determination is emphasized, with geopolitical interests
proving to be the deciding factor in most cases. The article concludes that there is no
general right of remedial secession, but evolving norms may support exceptional cases. It
recommends that states maintain internal self-determination and that international
organizations establish frameworks for mediation in the settlement of disputes while
maintaining a balance between stability and justice. The article also advocates that the
doctrine of remedial secession be made part of international law.
Keywords: Self-determination, remedial secession, territorial integrity, international law,
ICJ, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabagh, Crimea.