Secession and comparative constitutionalism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.106.2019.26149Keywords:
Secession, referendum, constitutionalism, democracy, Rule of LawAbstract
This article reviews the link between secession and constitutionalism among advanced constitutional democracies through the analysis of the debate between the classic paradigm, identified with US constitutionalism, and the so called new paradigm, identified with Canadian constitutionalism. While the classic approach is represented by a highly restrictive interpretation that prohibits secession (including a referendum on secession), the new paradigm attempts to accommodate pro-independence demands if there is a clear majority asking for it. Today, different legal orders from European democratic States have been forced to respond to this type of demands. British constitutionalism, for instance, when dealing with Scottish demands for independence, has followed the new paradigm, allowing for the secession referendum to take place in a geographically located part of the country, although with certain supervision by the central government and excluding a unilateral right to secede or even to organize an independence referendum. In other countries, however, the position of the central government and the Constitutional Courts have been highly restrictive. In this sense, Spain is undoubtedly a relevant example, yet it is not an exceptional case. In effect, recent decisions of the Italian and German Constitutional Courts confirm this interpretation, although with nuanced differences. In all these cases, the Courts have noted that sovereignty belongs to the (national) people as a whole and that a segment of such people cannot make fundamental choices when they do affect the whole of the citizenship. These common positions show that the new paradigm has not replaced the classic approach, but that both are equally valid for advanced democracies. Furthermore, this article also attempts to underline that despite the differences between both approaches to secession (classic and new paradigm), there are some common traits: respect for the Rule of Law and key role for the central government, which excludes the possibility of any type of unilateral secession.
Summary:
1. Introduction. 1.1 Secession and constitutionalism. 1.2 Should Constitutions include secession clauses? 2. The classic and new paradigm: United States and Canada. 2.1 United States. 2.1.a) Secesion through revolution. 2.1.b) Secession through consensus. 2.2 Canada. 2.2.a) Opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court Reference re Secession of Quebec. 3. Responses to pro-independence movements within the Western European context. 3.1 United Kingdom. 3.1.a) Scotland. 3.1.b) Northern Ireland. 3.2 Italy and Germany. 4. Concluding remarks. 5. References.
Downloads
References
Ahumada Ruiz, M.A. (2019). “La jurisprudencia de la secesión: Texas versus White en contexto” en Aragón Reyes et altri (dirs), La Constitución de los Españoles, Madrid, Fundación Giménez Abad y Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Aláez Corral, B. (2015). “Constitucionalizar la secesión para armonizar la legalidad constitucional y el principio democrático en Estados territorialmente descentralizados como España”. Revista d’Estudis Autonòmics i Federals, 22, 136-183.
Alonso, R. (2004). “Pathways Out of Terrorism in Northern Ireland and the Basque Country: The Misrepresentation of the Irish Model”. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (4), 695-713.
Arzoz, X. y Suksi, M. (2018). “Comparing constitutional adjudication of self-determination claims”. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25 (4), 452-475.
Aughey, A. (2012). “Northern Ireland narratives of British democracy”. Policy Studies, 33 (2), 145-158.
Barber, N. (2012). “Scottish Independence and the Role of the United Kingdom”, UK Constitutional Law Association Blog, 11 de enero.
Basler, R.P. et al (eds). (1954). Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, Vol. 4.
Benjamin, J.P. (1996). “The right of Secession (December 31, 1860)”, en Wakelyn, J.L. (ed), Southern Pamphlets on Secession. November 1860 – April 1861, Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Blais, A. y Nadeau, R. (1992). “To be or not to be sovereignist: Quebeckers’ perennial dilemma”. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de politiques, XVIII (1), 89-103.
Buchanan, A. (1998). “Democracy and Secession”, en Moore, M. (ed), National Self-Determination and Secession, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cairns, A.C. (1995). “The Charlottetown Accord: multinational Canada vs. Federalism”, en Williams, DE. (ed), Reconfigurations: Canadian Citizenship and Constitutional Change – Selected Essays by Alan C. Cairns, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart.
Castellà Andreu, J.M. (2017). “Sobre el encaje constitucional del pretendido referendum de secesión en Cataluña” en Sáenz Royo, E. y Garrido López, C. (coords), La funcionalidad del referéndum en la democracia representativa, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch.
— (2019). “20 años del Dictamen del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá sobre la secesión de Quebec: su recepción en España” en Aragón Reyes et altri (dirs), La Constitución de los Españoles, Madrid, Fundación Giménez Abad y Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Choudhry, S. (2006). “Migration as a new metaphor in comparative constitutional law”, en Choudhry, S. (ed), The migration of constitutional ideas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Closa, C. (2017) (ed). Secession from a Member State and Withdrawal from the European Union. Troubled Membership, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
De Vergottini, G. (2019). “Referéndum y secesión”. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 43, 103-119.
Dion, S. (1996). “Why is Secession Difficult in Well-Established Democracies? Lessons from Quebec”. British journal of Political Science, 26 (2), 269-283.
Elliott, J.H. (2018). Catalanes y Escoceses. Unión y Discordia, Madrid, Taurus.
Farber, D. (2003). Lincoln’s Constitution, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Fasone, C. (2015). ‘“Italian-style” secession and the semi-indifference of national politics”. Verfassungsblog, 21 de abril.
— (2019) “Canada as an “importer” and as an “exporter” of federal arrangements: A view from Europe”. DPCE Online, 38 (1), 643-671.
Ferreres Comella, V. (2014). “The Spanish Constitutional Court Confronts Catalonia’s “Right to Decide”” (Comment on the Judgment 42/2014)”. European Constitutional Law Review, 10 (3), 571-590.
Gaudreault-DesBiens, J.F. (2019) “The Law and Politics of Secession: From the Political Contingency of Secession to a “Right to Decide”? Can Lessons Be Learned from the Quebec Case?”, en Delledonne, G. y Martinico, G. (eds), The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession, London, Palgrave.
Haljan, D. (2014). Constitutionalising Secession, Londres, Hart.
Hirschl, R. (2005). “The question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law”. American Journal of Comparative Law, 53, 125-156.
Hogg, P.W. (1998). Meech Lake Constitutional Accord annotated, Toronto, Carswell.
— (2015). Constitutional Law of Canada, Toronto, Carswell, 5th ed.
Horowitz, D. (2002). “Explaining the Northern Ireland Agreement: The Sources of an Unlikely Constitutional Consensus”. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 193-220.
Johnston, A.M. (1990). “Self-determination in comparative perspective: Northern Ireland and South Africa”. Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 17 (2), 5-22.
Keating, M. (2009). The Independence of Scotland. Self-government and the Shifting Politics of Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kissane, K. (2011). New Beginnings: Constitutionalism and Democracy in Modern Ireland, Dublin, University College Dublin Press.
Leclair, J. (2019). “Legality, Legitimacy, Decisionism and Federalism: An analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Reasoning in Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998” en López Basaguren, A. y Escajedo San-Epifanio, L. (eds), Claims for
Secession and Federalism, Cham, Springer.
Lerner, C.S. (2004). “Saving the Constitution: Lincoln, Secession, and the Price of Union”. Michigan Law Review, 102 (6), 1263-1294.
López Basaguren, A. (2014). “Estado democrático y secesión de territorios. Un análisis comparado sobre el tratamiento democrático de las reclamaciones secesionistas”, en Arregi Aranburu, J. (ed), La Secesión de España, Madrid, Tecnos.
MacCormick, N. (2000). “Is There a Constitutional Path to Scottish Independence?” Parliamentary Affairs, 53, 721-736.
Mancini, S. (2012). “Secession and self-determination” en Michael, R. y Sajó, A. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Martinico, G. (2017). “Identity conflicts and secession before Courts: Three case Studies”. Revista General de Derecho Público Comparado, 21, 1-30.
— (2019). ‘“A Message of Hope”: A Legal Perspective on the Reference” en Delledonne, G. y Martinico, G. (eds), The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession, London, Palgrave.
McEvoy, K. y Morison, J. (2002). “Beyond the “Constitutional Moment?: Law, Transition, and Peace-making in Northern Ireland”. Fordham International Law Journal, 26 (4), 961-995.
McHarg, A. (2019). “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Territorial Constitution: Can the Union surive?” en López Basaguren, A. y Escajedo San-Epifanio, L. (eds), Claims for Secession and Federalism, Cham, Springer.
McGarry, J. (2010). “Asymmetrical Autonomy in the United Kingdom”, en Weller, M. y Nobbs, K. (eds), Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflicts, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Montilla Martos, J.A. (2016). “The independence referendum in Germany”. Instituto de Derecho Público, 16 de diciembre.
Moore, M. (2000). “The ethics of secession and a Normative Theory of Nationalism”. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 13, 225-250.
Morgan, A. (2000). The Belfast Agreement: a practical legal analysis, Belfast, The Belfast Press.
Munro, C.R. (2000). “Scottish Devolution: Accommodating a Restless Nation”, en Tierney, S. (ed), Accommodating National Identity. New Approaches in International and Domestic Law, London, Kluwer Law International.
Norman, W. (1998). “The Ethics of Secession as the Regulation of Secessionist Politics”, en Moore, M. (ed), National Self- and Secession, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Oklopcic, Z. (2014). “Independence referendums and democratic theory in Quebec and Montenegro”, en Qvortrup, M. (ed), Nationalism, Referendums and Democracy. Voting on Ethic Issues and Independence, Abingdon, Routledge.
Oliver, P. (2000), “Canada’s Two Solitudes”, en Tierney, S. (ed), Accommodating National Identity. New Approaches in International and Domestic Law, London, Kluwer Law International.
Page, A. (2019). “Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement?” en López Basaguren, A. y Escajedo San-Epifanio, L. (eds), Claims for Secession and Federalism, Cham, Springer.
Palermo, F. (2019). “Towards a Comparative Constitutional Law of Secession?” en Delledonne, G. y Martinico, G. (eds), The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession, London, Palgrave.
Paulsen, M.S. (2004). “The Civil War as Constitutional Interpretation”. University of Chicago Law Review, 71 (2), 691-727.
Pavkovic, A. and Radan, P. (2007). Creating New States, Farnharm, Ashgate.
Penney, J.W. (2005). “Deciding in the Heat of the Constitutional Moment”. Dalhousie Law Journal, 28 (1), 217-260.
Qvortrup, M. (2013). “The Referendum Challenge to Constitutional Sovereignty: The Case of Scotland”. Jus Politicum, 9.
Radan, P. (2006). “An Indestructible Union… of Indestructible States: The Supreme Court of the United States and Secession”. Legal History, 10, 187-205.
Ragone, S. (2018). “Los Länder no son “señores de la Constitución”: el Tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán sobre el referéndum separatista bávaro”. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 41, 407-418.
Ruipérez Alamillo, J. (2013). “La nueva reivindicación de la secesión de Cataluña en el contesto normativo de la Constitución española de 1978 y el Tratado de Lisboa“. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 31 (89), 89-135.
Ryan, E. (2019). “Secession and Federalism in the United States: Tools for Managing Regional Conflict in a Pluralist Society” en López Basaguren, A. y Escajedo San-Epifanio, L. (eds), Claims for Secession and Federalism, Cham, Springer.
Skoutaris, N. (2017). “Territorial Differentiation in EU Law: Can Scotland and Northern Ireland Remain in the EU and/or the Single Market?”. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 19, 287-310.
Sosa Wagner, F. (2017). “Bávaros y Referéndum por la independencia”. Revista de Administración Pública, 202, 157-167.
Strauss, D.A. (2001) “The irrelevance of constitutional amendments”. Harvard Law Review, 114 (5), 1457-1505.
Sunstein, C. (1991). “Constitutionalism and Secession”. University of Chicago Law Review, 58, 633-670.
Tajadura, J. (2019). “La problemática jurídica de la secesión” en Aragón Reyes et altri (dirs), La Constitución de los Españoles, Madrid, Fundación Giménez Abad y Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Thatcher, M. (1995). The Downing Street Years, New York, HarperCollins.
Tierney, S. (2009). “Constitutional Referendums: A theoretical inquiry”. The Modern Law Review, 72 (3), 360-383.
— (2012). Constitutional Referendums: The Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Todd, J. (2017). “Contested Constitutionalism? Northern Ireland and the British-Irish Relationship since 2010”. Parliamentary Affairs, 70 (2), 301-321.
Williams, P. R. y Ardalan, S. (1999). “The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement: Evolving the Principle of Self-Determination”. Leiden Journal of International Law, 12, 155-171.
Weinstock, D. (2011). “Constitutionalizing the Right to Secede”. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9 (2), 182-203.
Welikala, A. (2017). “More than meets the eye? The Sri Lankan Supreme Court’s decision on the proscription of the Federal Party”. Constitutionnet, 29 de agosto.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Núria González Campañá
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Los autores que publican en esta revista están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
- La Revista de Derecho Político se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional
- Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo.
- Los autores pueden establecer por separado acuerdos adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión de la obra publicada en la revista (por ejemplo, situarlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro), con un reconocimiento de su publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir sus trabajos electrónicamente (por ejemplo, en repositorios institucionales o en su propio sitio web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, ya que puede dar lugar a intercambios productivos, así como a una citación más temprana y mayor de los trabajos publicados (Véase The Effect of Open Access) (en inglés).
