This dissertation delves into the intricacies of the international law surrounding secession, aiming to elucidate its complexities and challenges. While international law provides a definitive definition of secession, the practical application often diverges from this clarity. Despite the existence of certain categories of secession deemed legally permissible, the reality often falls short, with even legitimate claims failing to garner recognition.

Moreover, while there may be limited avenues for peoples to assert certain rights, such assertions seldom translate into formal recognition of their formal existence on the international plane. Economic and legal rights ensured at international forums may secure interests to be acknowledged, yet they often remain subordinate to the political rights of already recognized states. This hierarchical prioritization of rights underscores the enduring dominance of established state interests over those of emergent ones.

Examining the rationale behind prevailing forms of secession, particularly evident in the former Soviet republics, reveals a complex interplay of historical legacies and power dynamics. The influence of entities like the Russia Federation, rooted in notions of imperialism and historical precedents dating back to the mandatory system from the era of the League of Nations, underscores the enduring impact of standard of civilization in shaping contemporary secessionist movements.

In conclusion, this research offers a critical analysis of the international legal framework surrounding secession, shedding light on its ambiguities and underlying power dynamics. By examining cases and historical precedents, it contributes to a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in the concept of secession within the realm of international law.