Secession

Leaving Louisiana and its racial problems behind, Rillieux returned permanently to France around the time of the Civil War. Fearful of losing their federal subsidies, most Louisiana sugar planters initially opposed secession. Nonetheless, when their state seceded in January 1861, most supported the Confederacy. In the end, the war destroyed their sugar plantations and freed their slaves. According to some reports, Rillieux returned to France before the war, but his closest French associate wrote that Rillieux left the United States after the war, exhausted and asking for nothing but rest. ... 

Dion, Stephane 1996. Why is Secession Difficult in Well-established Democracies British Journal of Political Science 26, 2, 269-83. 

The first principle requires the inclusion of the wish to believe p, which is the force that produces the secession of S and motivates all its operations. The point just made against Sartre is that this wish is more accurately described as the wish that should believe p It is, of course, shared by because, unlike many of the wishes in Freud s case histories, it is not reprehensible (only its operation is reprehensible) and finds the usual, briefer description of it sufficient. 

Official document recorded by Benn Pittman, The Indianapolis Treason Trial, 1865 Official Report — A Western Conspiracy in the Aid of the Southern Rebellion (Indianapolis 1865) see also An Authentic Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle or a History of Secession (pamphlet), author unknown, believed to be Union counterespionage agent named Jim Pumfrey (Indianapolis 1861) Mayo Fesler, "Secret Political Societies in the North during the Civil War," Indiana Historical Magazine 3 (Sept. 1918). 

B Fragment ion spectrum of the nonphos-phorylated peptide LPSSPVYEDAASFK of cortactin. Due to the secessions of-98 Da from y i Ser-418 (Ser-4 in the spectrum) was unambiguously detected to be phosphory-lated. 

D Fragment spectrum of the phosphorylated peptide ApTSNVFAMFDQSQIQEFK or ATpSNVFAMFDQSQIQEFK, respectively. This peptide contained three possible phosphorylation sites (Thr-2, Ser-3, and Ser-12). The comparison of the two spectra revealed Thr-2 or Ser-3 as phosphorylated residues. As no secession of-98 Da was observed till y,j a phosphorylation of Ser-13 could be excluded. On the basis of the MS/MS spectrum the exact site of phosphorylation was not determinable. 

The endeavour towards true wisdom is comparable to dying, because the true Philosophers aspire to nothing more than the secession of the Soul from the earthly body As long as the Soul is bound to the transitory body and is affected by it, the Soul cannot reach her true being, because the sensory perceptions are deceiving and nothing certain can be found in it. 

The principle of equal rights and self-determination. .. does not grant an unlimited right of secession to populations living in the territory of an independent sovereign state. .. 

The right of secession unquestionably exists, however, in a special, but very important case that of peoples, territories and entities subjugated in violation of international law. In such cases, the peoples have the right to regain their freedom and constitute themselves and independent sovereign states. 

Of course, in this context it is important to note one crucial distinction. This concerns secession by right in contrast to secession in fact. 

Even in relation to such traditional colonies, the right to self-determination can only be exercised within the boundaries established by the colonial power in that way it does not overcome the effects of coloniahsm, but the self-determination entity itself is defined by it. Furthermore, the right is of singular application. As soon as a colony has gained independence, it will itself start defending its own territorial integrity with utmost vigour. There is no secession from secession. And when armed self-... 

I] nternational law places great importance on the territorial integrity of national states and, by and large, leaves the relation of a new state to be determined by the domestic law of the existing state of which the seceding entity presently forms a part. Where, as here, unilateral secession would be incompatible with the domestic constitution, international law is likely to accept that conclusion. 

This irrelevance, generated through the exclusive application of self-determination in the sense of possible secession in the colonial context, applies in at least three sets of circumstances ... 

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, 2 SCR. (1998) 217. Text available at http // www.intstudies.cam.ac.uk/centre/cps/documents canada quebec.html, accessed 3 November 2008. 

Cases arising outside of the colonial context (for example, Chechnya, Corsica, the Basque country, Kosovo, etc). These are cases where the concept of self-determination in the sense of secession does not apply at all, given the lack of a colonial nexus. 

This monograph will first illuminate the restrictive nature of the doctrine of self-determination. It will then turn to relatively new concepts, such as constitutional self-determination and remedial secession. Finally, the remainder of the book will be devoted to the analysis of recent settlement practice in the area, addressing the question of whether this profusion of settlements has helped to overcome the damaging consequences of the restrictive doctrine of self-determination for the international system. 

Instances of secession. In such cases, it is clear that only one element of a composite state splits off, without putting into question the legal personality of the state. An example is furnished by the secession by agreement of Eritrea from Ethiopia. While Eritrea emerged as a new state, Ethiopia continued the legal personality of the former joint state. 

The right to opposed unilateral secession stands in obvious tension with the claim to territorial integrity and unity of existing states. Governments have enshrined the doctrine of territorial unity in countless international declarations and other instruments, often tied to, or twinned with, declarations concerning self-determination. ... 

The granting of the right to self-determination as an apparent exception to the rule of territorial unity therefore appears to indirectly confirm the existence of such a rule. Why would it be necessary to invoke a positive entitlement to self-determination, if there was no broad prohibition of secession that otherwise applied Of course, the answer lies in the distinction between privileged and unprivileged secession noted above. However, the first disenfranchising element of self-determination is rooted in the suggestion that secession is only possible in the narrowly conceived circumstances where the doctrine applies. 

---