The purpose of the paper is to ascertain when non-territorial autonomy (NTA)
arrangements are a morally appropriate response by states to various
minority claims, given possible alternatives. As such, it is not about the
relationships between minorities and majorities, but minorities and the
state. The two main questions are: (1) What are the criteria of moral
appropriateness? (2) When are any of the alternatives morally appropriate?
Methodologically speaking, it makes sense to start from the most difficult
of the alternatives to justify secession because it represents the most
extreme possible claim of a minority towards a state, or even against a
state. Once such a criterion or set of criteria is established, the criteria
for other alternatives can only be reasonably lower, and the criteria for
secession will be indicative of what these lower criteria could be.