Konsensusliku setsessiooni tingimustele vastavuse analüüs: Sudaani ja Serbia-Montenegro liitriigi lagunemise näitel
States have been in the centre of international relations for many centuries now and the number of states has almost doubled during the 21st century. There are many ways for states to come about – one of them is secession. Secession designates a process, where a territory, usually expressed by the permanent population, withdraws from a sovereign state with the aim of forming a new independent sovereign state. There are many theoretical viewpoints on secession, which can be divided mainly into two – unilateral secession and consensual secession. This thesis focuses on consensual secession, which literally means that the parent state is willing to let go of a seceding entity. The first part of the thesis gave an overview of the theoretical background of secession. It described, how secession as a term in international relations is connected to state sovereignty, territorial integrity and to the right of self-determination. The theoretical part gave an overview of unilateral secession, in order to differentiate it from consensual secession, which was analysed subsequently. The last part of the theoretical part focused on the procedural framework and described in turn the conditions that form the framework. The procedural framework was based on the framework constructed by Miodrag A. Jovanović, but in the current thesis the framework was expanded and other conditions were added. The procedural framework that was composed listed the following conditions: the existence of a constitution or an agreement; a right to initiate the secession procedure; a waiting period between two secession procedures; a referendum with a majority threshold, a minimum turn-out requirement, a clearly posed question, conditions for eligibility to vote and accurate certification of results; divided territory between the entities; divided resources between the entities and divided debt between the entities; the willingness of the parent state; the approval of the international community. Most importantly the methodological part of the thesis formulated the hypothesis of the research project and gave values to the variables that were analysed in the empirical part. The hypothesis was: the break up of Serbia-Montenegro is more consistent with consensual secession requirements than Sudan-South Sudan’s case. The variables were the conditions of the procedural framework. The empirical part was divided into two. The first part analysed the case of Serbia and Montenegro secession and the second part analysed the Sudan and South Sudan secession. In both cases the procedural framework was the basis for the analysis as the conditions of the framework were analysed separately in both cases. The Montenegrin secession from Serbia can be summarized according to the framework as follows. There existed a constitution that determined the relations between the entities, called the Constitutional Charter. The Charter also included a clause for the right to initiate a secession procedure, referendum. There was also stipulated that a waiting period of three years must be between the adoption of the charter and conducting a referendum. The referendum was planned according to the laws but the Referendum Law was adopted just a month and a half before the referendum took place. It can be seen, that the referendum was planned but the exact date of the referendum was determined in the late phase. There was stipulated a qualified majority threshold of 55% for the referendum to succeed. In the end there was 55,54% of those opting for secession. There was also a minimum turnout requirement of 50%. In the end 86,4% of the electorate participated, which was a high rate. The question put on to referendum was assessed as a clear one. There were also clear conditions for the eligibility to vote, as voting rights were enjoyed only by the citizens of Montenegro. The results of the referendum were assessed to have been made public accurately. The territory, resources and debt are divided by the entities, Serbia and Montenegro. The willingness of the parent state, Serbia, was mostly achieved before the process and the international community was mainly in favour of the secession. The South Sudan’s secession from Sudan can be summarized according to the framework as follows. There was a document that determined the relations between the entities, it was a peace agreement called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The agreement ended the long civil war in the country and laid down a framework for the future. The CPA also included a right for South Sudan to initiate a secession procedure. There was also stipulated an interim period in the agreement, that was six years and that a referendum must be held a half a year before the end of that period. The referendum therefore was planned quite early and with an exact date. For the success of the referendum, there was required a simple majority of 50% + 1 vote in favour of secession. In the end 98,5% of the people who voted were in favour of secession. There was also stipulated a minimum turnout requirement of 60%. This requirement was also passed as 97,58% of registered voters participated in the referendum. The question (a choice in South Sudan’s case) put to referendum was in brief assessed as clear. There were clear conditions for the eligibility to vote, as voting rights were enjoyed only by people with South Sudan’s origin. The results of the referendum were assessed to have been made public accurately. The territory, resources and debt are not divided by Sudan and South Sudan. These issues are a source of conflict between the states. The willingness of the parent state, Sudan, was mostly achieved during the process and the international community was in favour of the secession. The analysis of the results outlined the main similarities and differences between the two secession cases. It was concluded that many conditions related to the referendum were handled similarly in both cases. There were slight differences in the majority threshold and minimum turnout requirement conditions, although conditions themselves were apparent in both cases. The biggest differences between the cases are related to the division of territory, resources and debt. When Serbia and Montenegro have mainly settled these issues calmly, Sudan and South Sudan face serious challenges during the writing of this thesis in spring 2012, as many commentators warn of the possibility of war. The formulated hypothesis stating that the breakup of Serbia and Montenegro is more consistent with consensual secession requirements than the case of Sudan and South Sudan was therefore confirmed. Montenegrin case fulfils more or less all the conditions set out in the procedural framework but South Sudan’s case does not. The conditions that are not met by South Sudan are a source of conflict between South Sudan and Sudan. The procedural framework that was composed in the theoretical part therefore reflects the actual situations in these states and adding conditions to the base model has been justified. It stems that the procedural framework has a normative character. It is concluded that the successful attempt to widen the procedural framework for secession has been made, but the framework still needs to be tested more thoroughly and on a bigger number of cases.