This book presents novel theoretical and empirical findings on the issue of unrecognized states and secession. The first part of the book conceptualizes unrecognized states as entities with a national identity and which have achieved political independence, yet are not internationally recognized as independent states. It also addresses topics such as the role of superpowers in secessionist conflicts, ontological security in post-Soviet states, and factors influencing the legitimacy of secession referenda. In turn, the book’s second part presents selected case studies on various secessionist regions and territories, including Kurdistan, the Caucasus, Kosovo, and Bougainville.

While a number of movements seek state secession, the majority never achieves internationally recognized statehood. Paradoxically, some movements that have succeeded have had weaker claims to statehood than many movements that have failed. Regional Politics and State Secession seeks to explain the variation in outcomes for secessionist movements. Why do some movements succeed when so many fail?

Secession in International Law argues that the effective development of criteria on secession is a necessity in today’s world, because secessionist struggles can be analyzed through the legal lens only if we have specific legal rules to apply. Without legal rules, secessionist struggles are dominated by politics and sui generis approaches, which validate secessionist attempts based on geo-politics and regional states’ self-interest, as opposed to the law. By using a truly comparative approach, Milena Sterio has developed a normative international law framework on secession, which focuses on several factors to assess the legitimacy of a separatist quest.

This book approaches contested secession and the more Western concept of consensual secession from a political theory perspective. In particular, it focuses on the Kashmir issue as a form of contested secession and examines whether the Kashmiri people have a ‘right’ to secede.

Many accounts of the secession crisis overlook the sharp political conflict that took place in the Border South states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. Michael D. Robinson expands the scope of this crisis to show how the fate of the Border South, and with it the Union, desperately hung in the balance during the fateful months surrounding the clash at Fort Sumter. During this period, Border South politicians revealed the region's deep commitment to slavery, disputed whether or not to leave the Union, and schemed to win enough support to carry the day. Although these border states contained fewer enslaved people than the eleven states that seceded, white border Southerners chose to remain in the Union because they felt the decision best protected their peculiar institution. Robinson reveals anew how the choice for union was fraught with anguish and uncertainty, dividing families and producing years of bitter internecine violence. Letters, diaries, newspapers, and quantitative evidence illuminate how, in the absence of a compromise settlement, proslavery Unionists managed to defeat secession in the Border South.

The first book to jointly analyse withdrawal of a member state from the EU (i.e. Brexit) and territorial secession.

Offering a provocative new look at the politics of secession in antebellum Virginia, William Link places African Americans at the center of events and argues that their acts of defiance and rebellion had powerful political repercussions throughout the turbulent period leading up to the Civil War. An upper South state with nearly half a million slaves--more than any other state in the nation--and some 50,000 free blacks, Virginia witnessed a uniquely volatile convergence of slave resistance and electoral politics in the 1850s. While masters struggled with slaves, disunionists sought to join a regionwide effort to secede and moderates sought to protect slavery but remain in the Union. Arguing for a definition of political action that extends beyond the electoral sphere, Link shows that the coming of the Civil War was directly connected to Virginia's system of slavery, as the tension between defiant slaves and anxious slaveholders energized Virginia politics and spurred on the impending sectional crisis.