The referendum on independence in Catalonia and the reaction of the Spanish authorities to it once again raise the question of the relationship between the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity of the state. Modern international law does not provide clear answers to these questions; the decision in each case depends on the validity of the demands of the self-determining and the extent of the violation of their rights.

The leaders of the autonomous region declared victory in the referendum, the central authorities – about the referendum’s failure (illegal) and the possible temporary deprivation of Catalonia’s autonomous status (according to the constitution). The Committee of Ministers of the European Union declared the referendum illegal, the OSCE – about the excessive use of force by the Spanish police and the Civil Guard (about 840 people were injured during the clashes on Sunday).

From the editor: Parade of sovereignties in Europe

Opinions

The issue of the right to self-determination arose back in 1861, when the population of Nice, then part of Italy, voted to join France, but since then no single rule for resolving issues has been developed. International law does not have a clear framework for determining when, as an exception, the right of peoples to self-determination begins to prevail over the principle of territorial integrity, explains Vera Rusinova, professor at the Department of International Public and Private Law at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Firstly, the issue of who is the bearer of the right to self-determination, what community of people can be considered a “people”, is not clearly regulated. Secondly, there is no consensus on the scale that human rights violations must reach so that a “people” that has failed to exercise its right to self-determination can legitimately claim secession.

Usually the issue is decided individually, notes international relations expert Vladimir Frolov. In 1995, the African Commission on Human Rights considered the arguments of the Congress of the Peoples of Katanga (a province of Zaire) about mass violence against the local population insufficient to initiate secession. In August 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that the French-speaking province of Quebec could leave only in the event of mass violations of the rights of French Canadians.

A peaceful response to the declaration of independence or a harsh crackdown on secession depends on mechanisms to resolve contradictions between the center and the regions. In recent years, many separatist movements have emerged that demand secession for economic reasons (the Northern League in Italy, the Flemish Movement in Belgium), but this is not a sufficient reason for secession.

Editorial: Divide and conquer

A series of conflicts after the collapse of the socialist camp added decisions that allow us to talk about double standards: some consider the violation of the rights of Albanians in Kosovo and the potential threat to Russian-speaking residents of Crimea as sufficient reasons for recognizing the independence of the former and the annexation of the latter to Russia, while others do not.

There are no clear rules on what is considered the will of the people, for example, whether the Catalan referendum can be considered "clean". But violence on each side increases the opponent's chances of being recognized as right.

But the risk of a "parade of sovereignties" in the world is low. In countries that have faced separatism (France, Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, Italy), mechanisms for eliminating contradictions have been developed, says Frolov.

Corrected version

How to evaluate Catalan self-determination