Editing Irredentism (section)

=== Secession ===
{{main|Secession}}
[[File:US Secession map 1861.svg|thumb|alt=Map showing the secession of southern states surrounding the events of the American Civil War|Surrounding the events of the [[American Civil War]], various southern states (shown in bright and dark red) seceded from the [[United States]].]]
Irredentism is closely related to secession.{{sfn|Ambrosio|2011|pp=1346–1348|loc=irredentism}}{{sfn|Saideman|Ayres|2000|pp=[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2647868 1126–1144]}}{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|p=158}} Secession can be defined as "an attempt by an ethnic group claiming a homeland to withdraw with its territory from the authority of a larger state of which it is a part."{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|p=158}} Irredentism, by contrast, is initiated by members of an ethnic group in one state to incorporate territories across their border housing ethnically kindred people.{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|p=158}} Secession happens when a part of an existing state breaks away to form an independent entity. This was the case, for example, in the [[United States]], when many of the [[Slavery|slaveholding]] southern states decided to secede from the Union to form the [[Confederate States of America]] in 1861.{{sfn|Ackermann|Schroeder|Terry|Upshur|2008b|p=4}}{{sfn|Griffiths|O'Callaghan|Roach|2008|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9vU7xX4eNf4C&pg=PA175 175–177]}}

In the case of irredentism, the break-away area does not become independent but merges into another entity.{{sfn|Griffiths|O'Callaghan|Roach|2008|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9vU7xX4eNf4C&pg=PA175 175–177]}}{{sfn|Ambrosio|2011|pp=1346–1348|loc=irredentism}}{{sfn|Clarke|Foweraker|2003|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=eT9PEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA375 375–376]}} Irredentism is often seen as a government decision, unlike secession.{{sfn|Siroky|Hale|2017|p=1}} Both movements are influential phenomena in contemporary politics but, as Horowitz argues, secession movements are much more frequent in [[postcolonial]] states. However, he also holds that secession movements are less likely to succeed since they usually have very few military resources compared to irredentist states. For this reason, they normally need prolonged external assistance, often from another state.{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|pp=159–160}} However, such state policies are subject to change. For example, the Indian government supported the [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam|Sri Lankan Tamil secessionists]] up to 1987 but then reach an [[Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War|agreement with the Sri Lankan government]] and helped suppress the movement.{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|p=162}}{{sfn|Senaratne|2021|pp=[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/internal-selfdetermination-in-international-law/sri-lanka/A82170DEF8B07A020F676BBC01C9DEBF 155–194]|loc=Sri Lanka: A Case Study}}{{sfn|Ackermann|Schroeder|Terry|Upshur|2008a|pp=403–404}}

[[File:Cold War border changes.png|thumb|left|260px|Changes in national boundaries after the end of the [[Cold War]] and the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union]] and [[breakup of Yugoslavia]]]]
Horowitz holds that it is important to distinguish secessionist and irredentist movements since they differ significantly concerning their motivation, context, and goals.{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|pp=159–160}} Despite these differences, irredentism and secessionism are closely related nonetheless.{{sfn|Ambrosio|2011|pp=1346–1348|loc=irredentism}}{{sfn|Saideman|Ayres|2000|pp=[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2647868 1126–1144]}} In some cases, the two tendencies may exist side by side. It is also possible that the advocates of one movement change their outlook and promote the other. Whether a movement favors irredentism or secessionism is determined, among other things, by the prospects of forming an independent state in contrast to joining another state.{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|pp=160–161}} A further factor is whether the irredentist state is likely to espouse a similar [[ideology]] to the one found in the territory intending to break away. The anticipated reaction of the international community is an additional factor, i.e. whether it would embrace, tolerate, or reject the detachment or the absorption by another state.{{sfn|Horowitz|2011|pp=161–162}}