| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the case for Jammu and Kashmir's independence from India as a matter of remedial justice within the context of a moral right to secede premised upon the circumstances of the state's 1947 inclusion within the Indian union. Principles of remedial justice are defended as a suitable basis for adjudicating rival claims to sovereignty and negotiating secessionist disputes. The case for Kashmir's secession as a matter of remedial justice is then investigated with reference to the claims that India attempted to seize the former princely state by force and reneged on the promise of a plebiscite to ratify its sovereignty. This article argues that, while a contractual understanding of these claims might yield a coherent explication of a right to secede, this would not include a right to independent statehood and should be rejected because of the corollary that Dogra rule was morally legitimate. By contrast, the state's right to secede might be justified by reference to the claim that the events of accession violated its inhabitants' rights to popular sovereignty and self-determination. However, while offering a more plausible account of a right of secession, such a justification would not be a specifically remedial one and would fail to include many of the benefits of a remedial right. Consequently, we need to look beyond the historical events surrounding the state's accession as the basis for reconciling competing claims regarding Kashmir's rightful political status within a framework of remedial justice.
|