Skip Navigation


International Journal of Constitutional Law Advance Access originally published online on September 11, 2008
International Journal of Constitutional Law 2008 6(3-4):553-584; doi:10.1093/icon/mon022
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/3-4/553    most recent
mon022v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mancini, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

This article appears in the following International Journal of Constitutional Law issue: SYMPOSIUM: constitutionalism in an era of globalization and privatization [View the issue table of contents]

Rethinking the boundaries of democratic secession: Liberalism, nationalism, and the right of minorities to self-determination

Susanna Mancini*

* Professor of public comparative law, Law School of the University of Bologna; adjunct professor of international law, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Bologna center. Thanks to Anthony Bradley, Michel Rosenfeld, and Markku Suksi for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Email: susanna.mancini{at}unibo.it


  Abstract

Whereas secession has been dealt with extensively in international law, in connection with the creation and recognition of states, it has received little attention as a possible tool in the constitutional protection of minority rights. This paper examines the more frequent uses and invocations of secession and assesses their potential adaptability as means of promoting minority group rights. It argues that international law and the international community have never provided coherent guidance for responding to nationalistic minority aspirations or, specifically, to secessionist challenges. At the same time, constitutional models regarding the management of national diversity have also failed to reconcile liberal democracy and nationalism. From a substantive point of view, there is probably no solution to such difficulties. Neither available model of "constitutional coexistence" nor of secession is likely, ultimately, to be satisfactory. Nonetheless, the adoption of an explicit constitutional procedural approach to secession provides the best means of averting the worst dangers and excesses.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.