International Public Law

According to international law, minority groups like the Smileylanders who qualify as "citizens" have the right to self-determination. Importantly, self-determination is the ability of individuals to determine their political fate and establish their government. Moreover, international laws were developed to embrace self-determination principles in a binary form, relating to external or internal self-determination or depending on the issues.[1]  Thus, individuals who do not qualify in oppressed or colonized groups may use internal means, such as autonomy or free association. In contrast, oppressed or colonized people have the right to self-determination, and they can exercise this using secession from their mother country.

In this situation, Smileylanders are the minority population in Maryland state since they constitute 20 percent of the entire population. External self-determination using internal laws best suits this situation.  Moreover, they have been reliant on economic support for the Maryland government. Also, international laws can be useful since they are dissatisfied with the decision of the motherland to the treaty of the world union. However, although international laws embrace self-determination principles, it does not contain secession rights.  International laws only allow secession in a situation of external self-determination where individuals are oppressed, like the Smileylanders' case.

Additionally, international laws prohibit recession if the oppressed people try to separate using international law principles such as applying force, such as the Northern Cyprus case.[2] Also, in cases where there is no oppression, such as in Quebec, the internal laws are usually neutral concerning secession. As a result, the secessionist dispute will be left at the disposal of domestic law and political bargains between the secessionist and mother state.

Smileylanders lived concentrated in the northwest part of the country, where they could run their affairs autonomously, allowing them to adapt their laws in healthcare and education. Thus, according to ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo, it must prove they meet the four criteria under the international law for statehood if they want to secede from Maryland state. [3] These criteria are a permanent population, a defined boundary or territory, a government, and the ability to enter into international relations. In this case, Smileyland is part of Maryland historically. Moreover, Smileyland belongs to Maryland ethnic group. However, they have a permanent population since they are highly concentrated in the Northwestern part, and as such, they have a territory even though it must be clearly defined.

Thirdly, Smileylanders have a working government since they independently run their affairs and they have their laws.  However, its stability will heavily rely on protection first ensured by the United Nations. Lastly, Smileylanders can only enter into international relations due to the international community's involvement with it[4].  In other words, Smileylanders will be governed or administered by the United Nations, and its internal security will have to be protected by international forces. This will ensure that it can have access to the external world. Thus, it can trade, export, and import goods. However, without support, Smileylanders cannot enter any international relations with other nations since its borders will be subject to Maryland interference. Therefore, it will likely be blocked off from external trade by Maryland forces. Therefore, according to the Objective criteria of Statehood, Smileyland cannot meet the standard objective criteria of statehood[5].  Even though it has a territory in the Northwestern parts, the territory does not have a clearly defined boundary.  Also, it does not have a stable population, and it does not have a stable economy since it relies on assistance from the mother state.

Smileylanders can point to the increasing human rights violation by Maryland central government over the recent past in case there is any.  Additionally, there will be a threat of placing Smileyland under direct rule, thus suspending sovereignty, which might well be enacted before posting this contribution.  It can invoke the remedial secession doctrine in consequence. Still, according to this contested doctrine, population repression, or its state representation exclusion, can generate an entitlement to self-determination in the secession sense[6].  However, in Smileylander's case, it is not clear that the gravity of exclusion or repression is sufficient to prompt the application of this doctrine. 

                In summary, Smileylanders have limited chances for self-determination.  Mainly, it does not satisfy the criteria Montevideo criteria for succession. This is because it does not have a clearly defined territory, a permanent population, and a working government, even though it might have the capacity to enter relations with other countries.  However, this should not imply that self-determination as a legal entitlement is insignificant in this case. Universally, it is agreed that the power to govern should be based on the people's will, as stipulated in most international standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; therefore, if Smileylanders can step out of the framework through a declaration of independence. Slovenia and Croatia used this path when the Belgrade central authority failed to contemplate the federal system of Yugoslavia, and in the end, entire Maryland can dissolve.