Nations, corrective justice and state creation: How normative are normative remedial theories of secession?

Abstract Proponents of remedial secession theory (henceforth RST) claim that a group obtains the right to secede when it is wronged by the state, given that other preconditions – which can be more or less restrictive, depending on the theory's author – are also fulfilled. However, in doing so, they face multiple moral challenges and problems. Here, we identify five major problems with their normative claims while paying particular attention to the ethical and practical implications of the “implementation” and the “appropriateness” problem. With the help of Pollock's method for evaluating moral theories, we conclude that the critical problems encountered by RST remain unresolved due to the untenability of its fundamental premise: that secession is an instrument suitable for achieving corrective justice.