UsO DE EQUIPO DE PrOTECCIóN PErsONAL (continuación)

Struggles for secession are situations in which an ethnic, religious, ideological or social- economical segment of a state’s population demands to separate itself from the state and establish a new state. The challenging group does not contest the legitimacy of the government or the existence of the state per se, but only to the extent that it exercises it’s authority over a territory associated with the group.49 Thus, a struggle for secession is different from both of the preceding classes of conflicts: unlike in a struggle for control, the opposition does not seek to replace the government.

In general, demands for secession may be based on two different classes of claims. The first type involves claims according to which a central government oppresses or neglects a segment of its population, thereby prompting it to demand secession – this is the controversial doctrine of remedial secession.50 An illustrative way to look at such claims may be through the social compact metaphor.51 While recognizing that a compact was originally in place, the group would argue that its terms have been violated thus granting it the right, or obligation, to revolt against the central government,52 which would in turn spawn a right to be recognized as an independent state vis-à-vis the international community.

A classic example for such a case is the American Civil War. While the Confederate States never doubted the initial validity of the Union, they saw their struggle

49

It is important to distinguish, in this context, between secession and dissolution. When several groups struggle for separation simultaneously, the state itself can dissolve and then the complex question of succession arises. A classic example is Yugoslavia, the collapse of which was deemed to be a dissolution rather than secession. See Opinion 1, Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (Badinter Commission) (Nov. 29, 1991). On the causes of the conflict in Yugoslavia and the state’s breakup, see Ivo H. Daalder, Fear and Loathing in the Former Yugoslavia, in THE INTERNATIONAL

DIMENSIONS OF INTERNAL CONFLICT,supra note 6, at35,35–45. 50

See the discussion in Chapters 11–12. 51

See JOHN LOCKE,SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT Ch. VIII§95(1689). 52

for secession as a result of the violation of the original social compact, a violation that spawned their right to secede.53 This notion is revealed in the preface to Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ account of the Civil War and the events that preceded it:

The object of this work has been from historical data to show that the Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that the denial of that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that the war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disregard of the limitations of the Constitution, and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.54

A second type of struggle for secession occurs in the situation where a challenging party denies the very existence of a social compact between the group and the central government, in which case there was never consent by the group to be ruled by the challenged state. If such consent never existed, the claim goes, separation is justified. An informative example for such a situation can be found in the conflict in Chechnya. Chechnya, like many of the eighty-nine administrative territorial units that comprise the Russian Federation, is ethnically distinct, and is one of the Federation’s

53

See Mark E. Brandon, Secession, Constitutionalism and American Experience, in SECESSION AND SELF- DETERMINATION 272,273(Stephen Macedo & Allen Buchanan, eds., 2003) (providing a case study of the American Civil War as an example for a claim for secession and its constitutional backdrop); Another case of such a struggle is the Bengali (East Pakistan) struggle for independence from Pakistan in 1971, that was based, inter alia on inequities between West and East Pakistan. See RICHARD SISSON &LEO R.ROSE,WAR AND SECESSION:PAKISTAN,INDIA AND THE CREATION OF BANGLADESH 8–9(1990).

54

twenty-one “republics.”55 The basic Chechen claim against Russia is that Chechnya should be looked upon as a former republic under the Soviet Union, rather than under the Russian Federation.56 If such a claim would have been accepted, Chechnya would have become and independent state with the collapse of the Soviet Union, just like the Ukraine, Latvia and other ex-Soviet states. This was the backdrop for Chechnya’s unilateral declaration of independence from the U.S.S.R, in September 1991, which led to the catastrophic Russian invasion of 199457 and the more successful operation of 1999.58 Secession conflicts, as opposed to struggles for control, present additional dilemmas to the international system. First, they have the potential to become “international” once the seceding party receives widespread recognition. In addition, they challenge the basic principle of territorial integrity of states. These complexities, addressed later on, should be taken into consideration when assessing interventions in secession conflicts.

Secession struggles should be distinguished from struggles for autonomy. The latter occur when opposition forces seek to depose a government which is an agent of a foreign power, in an effort to establish political autonomy. Such efforts may invoke, for instance, the right to self-determination, and were a frequent feature of the colonial era. In struggles for autonomy, where agency relations exist between a local government and a foreign power, it can be difficult to draw the line as to when a struggle is a genuine internal conflict, and when it is actually a direct conflict between an indigenous population of a certain territory and a dominating foreign power.

55

See Mathew Evangelista, Historical Legacies and the Politics of Intervention in the Former Soviet Union, in THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERNAL CONFLICT,supra note 6, at108,112.

56

ANATOL LIEVEN,CHECHNYA:TOMBSTONE OF RUSSIAN POWER 58(1998). 57

See STASYS KNEZYS &ROMANAS SEDLICKAS,THE WAR IN CHECHNYA (1999). 58

For a clear timeline summarizing the events in Chechnya, see Timeline: Chechnya, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/2357267.stm.

As we shall see in Part 2, “colonial” struggles were seen, in the age of empires, as regular internal armed conflicts. However, this rule was a product of an era in which colonialism was – at least in the eyes of the major powers – an accepted international phenomenon. It is clear that such a formalistic approach has become outdated in the post- colonial era, and that struggles for autonomy in the colonial contexts were categorized, in contemporary law, as closer to international armed conflicts.59