Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Oklopcic, Zoran
2019.
The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession.
p.
209.
Article contents
The Migrating Spirit of the Secession Reference in Southeastern Europe
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2015
Extract
Apart from examining the use of the Secession Reference in three post-Yugoslav, Southeastern European countries, this article also suggests that there is a different, more general reading of the Secession Reference that could have been deployed in Southeastern Europe. Before discussing what I call the ‘spirit of the Secession Reference’, I examine an important preliminary question: what could justify the migration of such a general constitutional idea? I argue that existing justifications for the use of comparative jurisprudence are either inadequate or need to be qualified before we can make an argument that the spirit of the Reference can indeed migrate. I then turn to outlining the components of the Secession Reference’s spirit. My argument is that the Secession Reference should be approached not only as a set of particular arguments and interpretive strategies, but also as embodying a distinct way of dealing with deep national diversity. To me, the spirit of the Secession Reference comprises four components: First, it embraces radical political projects as legitimate. Second, it establishes that all contentious political issues are subject to principled negotiations. Third, in doing so, it downplays the dominant contemporary vocabulary of popular sovereignty and self-determination. Fourth, as a result of the previous three components, the spirit of the Secession Reference simultaneously respects and deflates radical nationalist mobilization.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2011
References
I am indebted to Helena Kolozetti, Rueban Balasubramaniam, Martin Hevia, Alex Schwartz and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. I also thank Alanda McLean of this Journal for her excellent editorial assistance.
1. Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 115 Google Scholar ILR (1998) 536 [Secession Reference cited to SCR].
2. Gaudreault-Desbiens, Jean-François, “The Quebec Secession Reference and the Judicial Arbitration of Conflicting Narratives About Law, Democracy, and Identity” (1999) 23 Vt L Rev 793 Google Scholar.
3. Walters, Mark, “Nationalism and the Pathology of Legal Systems: Considering the Quebec Secession Reference and its Lessons for the United Kingdom” (1999) 62:3 Mod L Rev 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tierney, Stephen, Constitutional Law and National Pluralism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
4. Charney, Jonathan I & Prescott, JRV, “Resolving Cross-Strait Relations Between China and Taiwan” (2000) 94 AJIL 453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. Partial Decision U 5/98 III of 1 July 2000 at para 47, citing art 1 of the Constitution of Republika Srpska as modified by Amendment XLIV.
6. Partial Decision U 5/98 III of 1 July 2000 at para 47.
7. Ibid at para 34.
8. Ibid.
9. Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 SCR 3 at para 95 Google Scholar.
10. Partial Decision, supra note 6 at para 23, citing Secession Reference, supra note 1 at paras 49-54.
11. Partial Decision, supra note 6 at para 54.
12. Ibid, citing Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 50.
13. Ibid at para 55, citing Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 64, citing R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 at para 136.
14. Partial Decision, supra note 6 at para 56.
15. Ibid at para 57.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Art 1 of the Constitution of Republika Srpska, as amended by Amendment LXVII, Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska 21/02.
19. For a more detailed description of the political process leading to constitutional changes at the entity level see Belloni, Roberto, State-building and International Intervention in Bosnia (London: Routledge, 2007) at 63.Google Scholar
20. Mansfield, Anna Morawiec “Ethnic But Equal: The Quest For a New Democratic Order in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (2003) 103 Colum L Rev 2052 at 2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21. Hayden, Robert M, “‘Democracy’ without a Demos? The Bosnian Constitutional Experiment and the Intentional Construction of Nonfunctioning States” (2005) 19 E Eur Pol & Societies 226 at 248-49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22. Vots, Ronald et al, Ustavno preuredenje Savezne Republike Jugoslavije (Beograd: Centar za liberalno-demokratske studije, 2002) at 55.Google Scholar
23. Ibid.
24. European Commission for Democracy through Law, “On the Compatibility of the existing legislation in Montenegro concerning the organization of referendums with applicable international standards”, Opinion no 343/2005.
25. Ibid at para 15.
26. Ramusovic, Aida, “Serbia and Montenegro: The Arithmetic of Secession”, Transitions Online (2 November 2009)Google Scholar, online: Transitions Online: Regional Intelligence www.tol.org.
27. Following the successful completion of the referendum the EU representative, Miroslav Lajcˇák did not try to conceal the critical role of the EU. He called Montenegrin independence “a successful European project … created with the active participation of the European Union.” Lajcˇák, Miroslav, “Serbia and Montenegro after the Referendum” (2006) 4 Südosteuropa Mitteilungen 6 Google Scholar.
28. The Secession Reference’s international legal argument was noted by prominent Serbian politicians well before the ICJ’s involvement in the Kosovo case. See Kostunica Vojislav, “Plenary Speeches: President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” in Blindbacher, Raoul & Koller, Arnold, eds, Federalism in a Changing World: Learning From Each Other (Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002) 559 at 561Google Scholar.
29. Pellet, Alain, “The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples” (1992) 3 Eur J Intl Law 178 at 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30. “Opinion No. 2 of the Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia—Paris, 11 January 1992” in Trifunovska, Snezˇana, ed, Yugoslavia Through Documents: From its creation to its dissolution (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994) 474 at 474Google Scholar.
31. “The Territorial Integrity of Quebec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty” (“L’integrite territoriale du Quebec dans l’hypotese de l’accession a la souverainete”) in Bayefsky, Anne F, Self-determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000) 241–305 Google Scholar.
32. Grand Council of Crees, Sovereign Injustice: Forcible Inclusion and Cree territory into a Sovereign Quebec (1995)Google Scholar online: http://www.gcc.ca/gcc/querelations.php.
33. Summary of Standards Double, Inconsistencies and Discrimination by Separatists, online: Grand Council of the Crees http://www.gcc.ca/archive/article.php?id=137.
34. Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 138.
35. “Written Statement of China” at 6Google Scholar, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15611.pdf
36. “Written Statement of Cyprus” at para 143Google Scholar, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15609.pdf
37. Ibid at para 164.
38. “Written Statement of Serbia” at para 536, 542, 547 online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15642.pdf citing the Secession Reference, supra note 1 at paras 132, 138 and 126 respectively.
39. “Written Statement of Serbia” at para 635, citing the Secession Reference, supra note 1 at 135.
40. “Written Statement of the Russian Federation” at para 84, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15628.pdf, citing Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 127 [cited to ILR].
41. Ibid at para 85.
42. Ibid at para 88.
43. Ibid at para 101.
44. “Written Statement of Romania” at para 115, citing Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 112.
45. Ibid at para 135.
46. “Written Statement of Egypt” at para 70, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15622.pdf citing the Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 133.
47. “Written Statement of Estonia” at 6, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15648.pdf; “Written Statement of Finland” at para 16, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15630.pdf; “Written Statement of Poland” at para 6.6, online: International Court of Justice, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15632.pdf.
48. “Oral Comments of Martti Koskenniemi, Finnish Legal Adviser, CR 2009/30” at 62Google Scholar, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15761.pdf
49. Ibid citing the Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 134.
50. United Kingdom quoted from the Reference, but did not explain whether or not it agrees with the SCC’s interpretation of remedial self-determination. “Written Statement of the United Kingdom” at para 5.32, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15638.pdf, citing Malcolm Shaw, “Re: Order in Council PC 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996” in Bayefsky, ed, supra note 31 at 136.
51. “Oral comments of the US legal adviser, Harold Hongju Koh, CR 2009/30” at 29, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15726.pdf citing Malcolm Shaw, “Re: Order in Council PC 1996-1497 of 30 September 1996” in Bayefsky, supra note 31 at 136.
52. Ibid at 30.
53. “Written Statement of France” at 27Google Scholar, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15607.pdf.
54. “Written Statement of Germany” at 8, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15624.pdf, but cf Secession Reference, supra note 1 at paras 112, 143.
55. “Written Statement of Germany”, supra note 54 at 35-37. For a similar position, see The Written Statement of Ireland” at 2, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15662.pdf. Ireland invoked the Secession Reference, to justify both conclusions: that secession is not regulated by international law, and alternatively, that the Supreme Court of Canada supports the remedial version self-determination. Ibid at 7 and 9 citing Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 112 and 122, respectively.
56. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo: Advisory Opinion (22 July 2010)Google Scholar at para 56, online: International Court of Justice http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf.
57. Ibid.
58. Osiatynski, Viktor, “Paradoxes of Constitutional Borrowing” (2003) 1 Int’l J Const 244 Google Scholar.
59. Hasebe, Yasuo, “Constitutional Borrowing and Political Theory” (2003) 1 Int’l J Const L 224 Google Scholar.
60. Tushnet, Mark, “Some Reflections on Method in Comparative Constitutional Law” in Choudhry, S, ed, The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) at 64 Google Scholar [Tushnet, “Some Reflections”]. The trichotomy presented in this article can be seen as a further development, and a partial revision of his earlier trichotomy between functionalism, expressivism and bricolage. In his earlier work, Tushnet defines bricolage as a spontaneous use of comparative material at our disposal. But, it seems to me that bricolage and functionalism are not on the same conceptual plane. Functionalism is both a manner and a justification for the use of comparative material, while bricolage is only a manner which is defined by a low-level reflexivity about its purposes. Even bricoleurs use the material at hand—albeit absent-mindedly—for some function, or to uphold a certain value. Cf Tushnet, Mark, “The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law” (1999) 108 Yale LJ 1225 at 1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
61. Tushnet, “Some Reflections”, supra note 60 at 68.
62. Ibid at 69.
63. Ibid at 68.
64. Ibid at 69.
65. The famous argument about the wisdom of seeking a medium-level common denominator is of course Sunstein, Cass R’s “Incompletely Theorized Agreements” (1995) 108:7 Harv L Rev 1773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
66. Shapiro, Ian & Hacker-Cordón, Casiano, “Outer Edges and Inner Edges” in Shapiro, Ian & Hacker-Cordón, Casiano, eds, Democracy’s Edges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 1 at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67. Goodin, Robert E, “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives” (2007) 35 Phil & Pub Affairs 40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68. Altman, Andrew & Wellman, Christopher Heath, A Liberal Theory of International Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69. Moore, Margaret, The Ethics of Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. Miller, David, “Democracy’s Domain” (2009) 37 Phil & Pub Affairs 201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71. Tushnet, “Some Reflections”, supra note 60 at 72.
72. Ibid at 74.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid at 76.
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid at 79.
77. Those who rely on an expressivist argument seem to rely on this postulated empirical existence of a constitutional subject. One may, of course, rely on a modicum of sociological unity of ‘the American people’ to argue that the courts belonging to their constitutional order should expound their law. But such an argument can only be a matter of constitutional ideology in the absence of a self-conscious effort on behalf of constitutional theorists to construct a normative argument about the legitimacy of an existing democratic unit.
78. Tushnet, “Some Reflections”, supra note 60 at 81.
79. “Dissenting Opinion of Judge Zvonko Miljko” at 49Google Scholar in Partial Decision, supra note 6.
80. Cf Fletcher, George P, “Comparative Law as a Subversive Discipline” (1998) 46 Am J Comp L 683 at 700CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While recognizing the ‘subversive potential’ of comparative jurisprudence due to its capacity to “generate a sense of our historical contingency”, the telos of Fletcher’s account is to make political reform possible, not to foster counter-hegemonic political struggle.
81. Rosiers, Nathalie Des, “From Telling to Listening: A Therapeutic Analysis of the Role of Courts in Minority-Majority Conflicts” (2000) 37 Court Rev 54 at 54 Google Scholar.
82. Ibid at 56.
83. Choudhry, Sujit, “Migration as a New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law” in Choudhry, Sujit, ed, The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) at 22 Google Scholar.
84. Ibid at 23.
85. See Uitz, Renata, Constitutions, Courts and History: Historical Narratives in Constitutional Adjudication (Budapest: CEU Press, 2005) at 145–55Google Scholar.
86. For Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens, unwritten principles are vehicles “through which substantive or procedural ideas migrate”. Gaudreault-Desbiens, Jean-François, “Underlying principles and the migration of reasoning templates: a trans-systemic reading of the Quebec Secession Reference” in Choudhry, Sujit, The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) at 178–79Google Scholar.
87. Secession Reference, supra note 1, summary of the judgment at para 92.
88. Ibid at para 151.
89. See Jovanovic´, Miodrag A, Constitutionalizing Secession in Federalized States (Utrecht: Boom Eleven International, 2007).Google Scholar
90. Texas v White (1869) 74 US 700 at 726Google Scholar.
91. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v The State of Kerala and Others (AIR 1973 SC 1461[1]).
92. Fremont, Jacques & Boudreault, François, “Supraconstitutionalité canadienne et sécession du Québec” 8 NJCL, 1-266, at 202 Google Scholar [translation mine].
93. Paulsen, Michael Stokes, “The Constitution of Necessity” (2004) 79 Notre Dame L Rev 1257 at 1257Google Scholar.
94. See, for example, Hogg’s, Peter W, influential Constitutional Law of Canada: 1997 Student Edition 2nd ed (Toronto, ON: Thomson Carswell, 1997)Google Scholar. A year before the Reference decision was passed Hogg argued that secession through a constitutional amendment is a distinct option, noting the almost-consensus among constitutional scholars that such an amendment would need to be passed under the unanimity formula. Ibid at 133.
95. Webber, Jeremy, “The Legality of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence Under Canadian Law” (1997) 42 McGill LJ 281 at 300Google Scholar.
96. For an influential theoretical argument about the incompatibility of constitutionalism with secession, see Sunstein, Cass R, “Constitutionalism and Secession” (1991) 58 U Chicago L Rev 633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As a practical matter, Marc Weller has recently argued that many recent constitutional settlements around the world contain a perpetuity clause, tying the exercise of national territorial autonomy to the existence of a “‘inviolable’, ‘indissoluble’, ‘inseparable’, ‘inalienable,’ or ‘indivisible’” larger state. Weller, Marc, “Settling Self-determination Conflicts: Recent Developments” (2009) 20:1 EJIL 111 at EJIL 111 at 160.Google Scholar See also Dion, Stéphane, “La gouvernance démocratique et le principe d’intégrité territoriale” in Être gouverné: Études en l’honneur de Jean Leca, ed by Favre, Pierre, Hayward, Jack et Schemeil, Yves (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2003).Google Scholar
97. Bartelson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Perpetuity of a state should not be confused with perpetuity of a constitution. For a defense of the idea of perpetuity of constitution against Jeffersonian attacks on the idea of precommitment, see Holmes, Stephen, Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1995) at 148–77Google Scholar.
98. Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 66.
99. Ibid.
100. At this point one can only speculate whether this duty is inseparable from the source of the secessionist demand: the province. From the Reference it appears that only a federal unit can expect its demands to be met in good faith. Imagine a situation; say in 2095, where territorially contiguous ridings in British Columbia with a Chinese majority demand secession from Canada. Could a Canadian constitutional order ‘remain indifferent’ contra the Supreme Court’s statement at para 63 of the Reference?
101. Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 96. Mancini, Susanna, “Rethinking the boundaries of democratic secession: Liberalism, nationalism, and the right of minorities to self-determination” (2008) 6: 3-4 Int J Const L at 571 Google Scholar.
102. Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 96.
103. This raises an interesting question, which I am not going to pursue here: what would be the normative basis for the claims of these minorities to remain in Canada? If we derived the legitimacy of their claim to choose their political status (Québécois or Canadian) from the principle of democracy, then the question becomes why not allow the same right to other territorially concentrated minorities irrespectively of their status as a federal unit. For the example, see the discussion supra note 100.
104. Secession Reference, supra note 1 at para 85.
105. Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, “Old Divisions Persist After Bosnian Elections” (4 October 2010) online: RFE/RL http://www.rferl.org.Google Scholar
106. Marko, Joseph, “Post-conflict Reconstruction through State- and Nation-building: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina” (2005) 4 European Diversity and Autonomy Papers—EDAP 1 at 10Google Scholar http://www.eurac.edu/edap.
107. See, e.g., Ashdown, Paddy & Holbrooke, Richard, “A Bosnian Powder Keg”, The Guardian (22 October 2008)Google Scholar online: The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/22/ashdown-holbrooke-bosnia-balkan-dayton; see also “William Hague fears for future of Bosnia”, The Telegraph (12 August 2009) online: The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/bosnia/6013809/William-Hague-fears-for-future-of-Bosnia.html.
108. Partial Decision, supra note 6 at para 57.
109. For general discussion of coming-together versus holding-together federalism see Stepan, Alfred C, Arguing Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
110. For example, maintaining the ‘visage linguistique’, in principle, was deemed as a legitimate objective for Quebec. Ford v Quebec [1988] 2 SCR 712 at para 73.
111. Partial Decision, supra note 6 at para 31.
112. Technically, the judgment in the Partial Decision could have been made without invoking the Secession Reference. See “Concurring Opinion of Judge Dr Hans Danelius” at 39-42 in Partial Decision, supra note 6.
113. For recent theorizing along these lines see Klabbers, Jan, “The Right to be Taken Seriously: Self-Determination in International Law” (2006) 28:1 Hum Rts Q 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
114. Dutrisac, Robert, “Référendum—Québec fixe la barre à 50 % plus un”, Le Devoir (16 March 2006)Google Scholar online: Le Devoir.com http://www.ledevoir.com/non-classe/104493/referendum-quebec-fixe-la-barre-a-50-plus-un [translation mine].
115. Ibid.
116. Ibid.
117. The federal government would probably point not only to Serbia and Montenegro, but also to the secession of Southern Sudan where the majority requirement was set to 60% of those voting.
118. Choudhry, Sujit, “Referendum? What Referendum?” (2007) 15:3 Literary Rev of Canada 7 at 9.Google Scholar
119. Dougherty, Kevin, “Kosovo Ruling Bolsters Quebec Independence Bid: Pequiste”, The Gazette (28 July 2010)Google Scholar online: The Gazette http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Kosovo+ruling+bolsters+Quebec+independence+Pequiste/3330698/story.html.
120. Dion, Stéphane, “What does Kosovo mean for Quebec?”, The Mark (12 August 2010)Google Scholar online: http://www.themarknews.com/articles/2023-what-does-kosovo-mean-for-quebec.
- 1
- Cited by