The Right to Self-Determination and Secession in International Law: Comparative Analysis of Biafra, Ambazonia, and Kosovo

This study conducts a comparative analysis of self-determination claims in the contexts of Biafra (Nigeria), Ambazonia (Cameroon), and Kosovo (Serbia) to identify the conditions under which international law recognises or rejects secessionist assertions, and to draw analytical lessons for the Nigerian constitutional debate. The right to self-determination in international law operates within contested boundaries, distinguishing between internal self-determination (participation in governance) and external self-determination (secession), with the latter generally permissible only in extreme remedial circumstances. Using a comparative doctrinal methodology, the research analyses relevant UN resolutions, the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Kosovo, the African Commission's jurisprudence on the Katanga communication, and the international responses to each secessionist movement. It critically examines the legal arguments advanced by IPOB and the legal and constitutional counter-arguments of the Nigerian federal government, situating these within international law's framework. The paper makes an original contribution to the literature by developing a three-part legal test for evaluating the viability of remedial secession claims under contemporary international law, applied across the three case studies. Findings indicate that none of the examined cases meets the full threshold for legally recognised remedial secession under current international law, though all three reflect genuine governance grievances that international law's self-determination framework inadequately addresses. Recommendations include constitutional devolution as the legally sustainable pathway for addressing minority grievances in Nigeria. Keywords: self-determination, secession, Biafra, Kosovo, international law.