Ensuring the Eternality of the Principle of Territorial Integrity in Opposition to Separatism and the Right to Self-determination

One of the legal mechanisms for preserving the fundamental principle of territorial integrity is to consider it eternal and permanent in the constitutions; in other words, the constitutions express the irrevocable principles within the framework of the theory of constitutionalization. Considering such a principle eternal does not mean that it is unchallengeable, but rather that it is challenged by other fundamental principles such as claims of secessionism that emerge in the form of the right to self-determination and democracy. The main question of the article is how can the eternality of the principle of territorial integrity be guaranteed in the opposition to the claim for secession, which is sometimes presented in the form of a right to claim, and the right to self-determination? The hypothesis of the article is that although from a legal perspective, the order governing the constitution guarantees the eternality of the principle of territorial integrity, the presentation of political theories and the dominance of politics over the law challenges this principle in practical terms. The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical .

Introduction

A key legal mechanism for safeguarding the fundamental principle of territorial integrity is its constitutional entrenchment as a perpetual and unamendable norm. This principle, as part of the collective identity of the nation, confronts secessionist claims often framed within the discourse of the right to self-determination and democracy. The central question of this article is how the perpetuity of the principle of territorial integrity can be guaranteed against such claims. The hypothesis posits that while, from a legal perspective, the normative order of the constitution is the primary guarantor, the dominance of politics over law in practice poses significant challenges to this guarantee.
2.Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this article rests on three main pillars:
- Constitutionalization: The core theory is the "constitutionalization" of fundamental principles like territorial integrity, rendering them an unalterable part of the constitutional identity.
- Theoretical Conflict on Secession: The article examines the clash between two major justifications for a right to secede: the "deontological" theory (e.g., Wellman), emphasizing the moral-political right of groups, and the "consequentialist" theory (e.g., Lafkowitz), focusing on the practical outcomes of secession.
- Clash of Rights: Another framework involves analyzing the conflict between the "right to self-determination" (as the basis for secessionist claims) and the "principle of territorial integrity." This section analyzes the "Liberal Nationalist" theory (which attributes the right to self-determination to ethnic/regional groups) and the theory of "Popular Sovereignty over Territory" (which attributes this right to the entire nation as a single political entity).
3.Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical. Data and information were gathered through a library study of authoritative sources in constitutional law, political science, scientific articles, and the review of rulings from constitutional courts of various countries. The analytical focus is on the procedures and case studies from nations that have faced the most serious challenges in this domain, particularly Ukraine (regarding Crimea) and Spain (regarding Catalonia).
4.Results & Discussion
The research findings indicate that a purely legal approach is insufficient by itself to guarantee territorial integrity in practice.
- Symbolic Role of Unamendable Principles: Declaring territorial integrity as an unamendable principle, while having an important symbolic and identity-forming function, can be overridden when confronted with strong political will and deep crises (as seen in Crimea).
- The Challenge of Constitutionalizing Secession: Examining the constitutions of the few countries that recognize a right to secede (such as Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan) shows that this is usually conditional and limited to specific regions, not a general right. However, the theoretical confrontation between those who see this as reinforcing territorial integrity through blocking mechanisms (e.g., Norman) and those who view it as violating the constitutional normative order (e.g., Sunstein) persists.
- Legal Balancing: The case studies of Ukraine and Spain show that their constitutional courts have attempted to balance the right to self-determination with territorial integrity by invoking the rule of law and constitutional order. In Spain, the Constitutional Court, by annulling unilateral resolutions of the Catalan parliament, emphasized the necessity of following constitutional procedures for any change. In Ukraine, although legal solutions (such as constitutional amendment) have been proposed, political and international power has been the determining factor in practice.
5.Conclusions & Suggestions
The overall conclusion of the article is that guaranteeing the perpetuity of the principle of territorial integrity cannot be achieved through a purely legal path alone and requires complementary political-social measures. The most important proposed solutions are:
- Clarification of the Right to Self-Determination in Domestic Law: Clarifying that the right to self-determination primarily means participation in governance, not unilateral secession.
- Strengthening National Unity and Common Identity: Promoting a sense of national belonging and reinforcing the foundations of social solidarity among all groups and ethnicities.
- Expanding Genuine Autonomy and Positive Decentralization: Granting extensive and meaningful powers to regions within the framework of national sovereignty, in a way that reduces feelings of discrimination and deprivation.
- Guaranteeing Minority Rights: Establishing effective mechanisms to respect the cultural, linguistic, and religious rights of minorities to undermine the grounds for secessionist claims.
Ultimately, when political power (internal and external) merges with the claim to self-determination, the fragility of the constitution in preserving territorial integrity is revealed, and the legal order can be overshadowed by political realities.
 
 
.