Secession and referendum: a new dimension of international law on territorial changes?

PhD Thesis in Iternational Law. The aim of the present research is to focus on current developments on territorial changes in international law. The study inquiries about whether according to international law, the referendum is a sufficient or a necessary condition for secession, or both. For this purpose, an empirical approach is adopted, focusing on the cases of, inter alia, Quebec, Montenegro, Crimea, Scotland and Catalonia. The thesis is divided into four main parts: firstly (1) it examines the relationship between self-determination and secession, then, (2) it discusses the approach of international law towards secession and develops a proposal for disentangling secession from self-determination. In the third part, (3) the research focuses on the role of territorial referendum in international law on territorial changes. The study finds that there is no sufficient practice and opinio juris to support the existence of an international rule according to which the referendum is a sufficient element to legitimize the birth of a new entity through secession. Neither there is an international obligation to hold a referendum to secede. Nevertheless, for the latter, the thesis finds at least some elements to support the view that more and more the referendum is becoming a necessary element in the process for secession, provided that it takes place in combination with the fulfillment of other conditions. Among these conditions, on the one side the study suggests that the referendum might trigger an obligation upon the parties to negotiate a new territorial assessment. On the other side, the referendum has to comply with certain procedural standards derived from international documents; case law and practice of the Council of Europe. Hence, the study is concluded with a (4) focus on the international procedural requirements for territorial referenda and on international reactions to the conduct of referenda in compliance with, or in violation of, the procedural standards above mentioned.