Topic: Determining the Legitimacy of Secession Movements and Obligations of Parent States
Country: Egypt
Delegate Name: Lara Muschel
School: Royal Oak High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All Egypt position papers GLIMUN 2016 committees
Secession is often a tool for the building of a new state, and the reasoning behind those secessions are usually found within the differing interests of the seceding and parent states. Yet, secessions often lead to highly unstable countries being formed, South Sudan being a prime example of such. Upon being recognized as a legitimate state, it is now obvious that not only do they have no infrastructure (that being almost no paved highways etc.) whatsoever in place, nor any resemblance to a stable economy, but they are also recognized (according for the Fund for Peace and various other sources) as one of the most unstable/fragile states in the world, and one of Africa’s least developed nations. In a case such as this- was S. Sudan ready to secede? Yes, it’s people wanted to, but did they have the necessary resources to do so? It might have not been the right time for South Sudan to secede, and one of the vital issues to address in committee is when this becomes the right time- at what point can a state be legitimized and assured that it is stable?
Who/What has the ability to determine when a movement calling for secession actually will have the ability to become an independent state without falling apart? How can we assure that the legitimate concerns of separatist movements looking to secede are being addressed, as well as the concerns of the nation being seceded from? Allowing too much leeway to secede could lead to an increase in instability, so a solution must be found where secession is still a possibility, yet not one that poses an imminent danger to the International Community in terms of stability. On the responsibility of parent states, Egypt sees this as an individual decision that states must take based on the level of peacefulness of separation between states. As a neighbor to various volatile states, Egypt would see another secession attempt within it’s area as counter to its interest, yet it cannot deny that sometimes the necessity for separation may arise. Being a state that is still dealing with its own internal issues, rebuilding, and still trying to develope some aspects of its government, Egypt is unable to aid any seceding states, and encourages the UN to play a role in helping newly formed nations build their infrastructure, and help them achieve relative stability once they have been legitimized.
The general opinion on how to determine legitimization of a state being that the United Nations should decide brings up a few concerns within our delegation. Giving the UN the sole power to determine whether or not a state is legitimate or not would be a mistake- it would bring up to many complications about when it would be time for the UN to step in. We must determine at which point a call for secession actually becomes a secession movement as well. There is an active group in Texas calling for secession from the United States, yet we do not consider them a legitimate secession movement- the SPECPOL committee must decide at which point that becomes the case. The US would not condone for the United Nations to step in and declare Texas independent, and although this is an unlikely scenario, it brings up the point that there is no single solution for determining when a state becomes legitimate. All cases must be judged on a case by case basis, and not necessarily with the UN being the only function to regulate what appropriates legitimacy. Assistance from a regional association of countries familiar with the issue at hand could be a viable solution. After all, if one is a Middle Eastern nation, having Western, Asian, and African nations (in the case of the UN) determine the legitimacy of secession movements, would be counter to one’e interests, since they do not always have a full understanding of the exact situation such as a neighbor country would have. Our delegation looks forward to discussing the details on this, as well as other options in committee.
The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in response to the 2008 Kosovo separation from Serbia calls for a change in international law so that secession movements be evaluated based on individual situations rather than a “state-centric” approach. Egypt stands behind this opinion and believes that the evaluation also be based on an individualistic approach rather than following a strict set of guidelines without examining the individual situation, since most contemporary secessionist movements have differing results. However, it must also be considered that some drivers of self-determination also have a moral reasoning, not just a legal base. While we acknowledge that secession movements are sometimes necessary, the legitimacy of these have to be severely tested, so states like South Sudan and E. Timor do not get formed without the necessary infrastructure.
As a nation that has gone through three different power exchanges in the last five years, and has been actively dealing with the issues arising from the secession movements of our neighbor Sudan, Egypt cannot see secession movements as a viable source of legitimate government that can be credible without the necessary infrastructure or at least some resemblance to order.
