Crimea’s secession renews discussion of the right to self-determination. The EU and US condemned the enabling referendum as illegal because it violated Ukraine’s constitution and was conducted under duress of Russia’s military presence. But when do people have the right to choose their sovereignty? Key recent cases of independence referenda and remedial secession are relevant to Burma today.

In Canada, referenda on Quebec independence were held in 1980 and 1995. In the UK, the question of Scottish independence will be put to a vote this coming September. While democratic regimes do not guarantee the right to self-determination, these two cases demonstrate that some governments prioritize popular consent over territorial integrity.

In Kosovo, an argument for secession was tied to gross human rights abuse inflicted by sovereign power Serbia. This was said to generate a right of remedial secession derived from the UN General Assembly’s October 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. The “saving clause” of the 1970 Declaration obliges each state to represent the whole of its people without discrimination on the basis of race, creed or colour. A right to remedial secession can be held to flow from a failure to do that. In 2008, the International Court of Justice was asked by the UN General Assembly to render an advisory opinion on Kosovo. Its ruling two years later disappointed many. Avoiding the argument of remedial secession, it shifted the focus from a right to self-determination to a right to declare independence. Today Kosovo has a disputed status.

In Burma, discussion of federation and secession has been ongoing since the 1940s. The 1947 Panglong Agreement, signed by the Burmese government and Shan, Kachin and Chin representatives, promised future autonomy for Frontier Area peoples. After the 1962 military coup, however, the tatmadaw slogan “One Party, One Blood, One Voice and One Command” displayed the regime’s hostility towards ethnic nationals. Widespread human rights violations, such as extrajudicial killing, forced labour, forced displacement, rape and property extraction, have long been reported in ethnic states. While grounds for remedial secession have thus been strong, hope for peaceful separation from Burma has been slim. With ethnic groups able to choose only between submission to the military government and armed defence, Burma became trapped in a vicious cycle of oppression and civil war.

As Burma’s democratization continues, and the peace process unfolds, it is important that ethnic nationals’ right to self-determination be respected. Full democracy is a necessary condition for minority peoples to exert control over their political destinies. However, the issue of their future status should not be lost in wider reform debates. If Naypyitaw truly respects the rights of its disparate peoples, any constitutional overhaul should pay close attention to global efforts to deliver self-determination for ethnic nationals.

Debby Chan is a PhD candidate at the University of Hong Kong.