It would be almost impossible to argue that states are not morally suspect and coercive institutions. It is equally difficult to argue that an individual or a group within such a state should remain in such a union. Although anarchists would excitedly applaud such notions, most would not. Due to strong secessionist movements all over the world and ever present concept of a state, there are certain criteria and ethical conventions that have been developed to guide states and separatists when dealing with a complicated issue of secession. Due to the fluidity of international law it is almost impossible to expect that any rules and conventions will be strictly followed, but it is not unreasonable to expect that certain ethical and moral standards will be respected due to the universality of the concept of 'the god life' and everyone's wish to obtain it.
International relations are not tangible or static, as some would claim.
Although one can assert that some concepts within the discipline are always constant, the sheer size and variability of events within the discipline make it unpredictable and as such not static. Secession within the discipline of international relations is a difficult subject because it threatens the very core of the discipline, namely the state. This argument is central in many debates between liberals and communitarians and as such in many offices of state leaders. States such as Canada, Serbia, Spain and others have strong secessionist movements and their arguments for secession vary greatly. Serbia, a new state in the Balkans, is facing the possibility that Kosovo might secede, thus taking away significant amount of territory, fixed capital, human capital and movable goods. This secession, endorsed by a majority of the U.N, is unethical and illegal for reasons which will be described below.
In an ideal world...