Generally, unilateral secession is not regarded as permissible whether by international law or by most other legal systems. Curious exceptions have been found, though.
Restrictive views of secession are held in most countries, but most neurotically in quasi-democracies or countries that are major holders of real-estate like Russia and China. Even Spain, though a democracy, is in this very restrictive class. In these countries the threat of secession is guarded against with great determination and harsh constitutional clauses. The Soviet Union in its day had a remarkably liberal constitution which guaranteed all member republics the right to secede. Only, (surprise!) it wasn't true. The only Soviet republics allowed to secede were the three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (forcibly annexed in 1940) who managed to pocket Moscow's concession four months before the USSR collapsed in December 1991.
Others were less fortunate. That same year Slovenia discovered the gravity of its decision to secede when it promptly found itself at war with Yugoslavia, its old mother country. All the other Yugoslav republics met a similar fate when they followed Slovenia's lead, and Yugoslavia predictably disappeared from the map. When Catalonia had a similar idea last year, there were ominous rumblings heard in the Spanish military (see my blog last October).
So what should be required for a part of a country to reasonably and legitimately be allowed to secede and seek recognition as a sovereign country on its own? Canada and its province Quebec have been through more iterations of this issue than most other countries and their experience offer some instructive ideas on how to think. A workable procedure according to international law would include a negotiated path to a referendum and a process in which both populations concerned agree on every step along the way. If they cannot agree, there will be no secession. The legal basis of the process would have to be within the constitutional framework of the country from which a region wants to secede. Next to Canada, the best current example of this kind of a cool approach to such a hotly disputed issue is the case of Scotland, where a referendum will be held in 2014. When the Scots found that their rules of "devolution", or self-government, did not allow them to call a referendum on their own, they appealed to the United Kingdom government to grant them that right on this particular occasion, and the appeal was granted - on specific, tight but not contested, conditions.
In Catalonia, you may have noticed something happening almost every week since the euphoria of independence broke headlines in September of last year. And still, nothing much has really happened after all. The government of conservative CiU's Artur Mas, who lost his former majority in the November elections and resumed power with the uncertain support of radical ERC, was formed chiefly on the premise that a referendum on independence was to be held before the end of 2014. Euphoria last fall meant "Independence now!". The attraction at that time of a possibly separate EU membership for Catalonia - much written up in the Catalonian press and encouraged by similar feelings in Scotland - may have been a spur to extra enthusiasm. That was ultimately quashed by the EU's Barroso, who offered the stark message that a unit seceding from a current member will not be regarded as part of the EU any more, but will have to reapply for membership, kewing up at the end of the line. In spite of this, Catalonia's early euphoria peaked with a resounding declaration in January of not merely 'the right to decide', but of Catalonian sovereignty as well, voted by a clear majority (though less than two-thirds) of the Catalonian Parlament.
Later, the mood in Catalonia appears to have shifted to a slightly more sober reflection. Critics called for moderation and negotiation. Catalonian President Mas and Spain's Premier Rajoy met, and a process of talks behind the scenes got underway. In April there was a minor shock when Spain's Constitutional Court ordered a temporary suspension of the January declaration and whatever steps the Catalonian government was taking to act upon it until a more definite decision could be rendered by the Court. Reflection, by early summer 2013, means, apparently, "we have a right to voice our opinion" and "... maybe we should discuss this."
But the recognition that Spain's Constitution of 1978 does not allow such referenda has only come quite late. As in the UK, special legislation needs to be enacted for a referendum of this sort to be conducted. This has not been evident judging from the statements of Catalonia's President, Mr. Mas. Others around him apparently have more sense. In a glimpse from the submerged talks in Madrid the CiU's spokesman in the Spanish Congress stated yesterday that he was convinced the Government of Rajoy would come around to allowing the Constitution's clause for exceptional legislation to be employed to allow a referendum, the way it was done for Scotland in the United Kingdom. He may be wrong, but the path is there towards compromise.
If so, the prospects of an orderly process in Catalonia are better than they have been in a long time.
2 comments:
Interesting piece, Olav. Of course, if the secessionist is rich or in other ways valuable (including geopolitically), it is understandable if such suggestions are not popular with the government. But my definite feeling is that this is not all that matters (if it were, has anyone heard of a country willfully giving up parts of its territory because it “wasn’t worth much” or “giving it up improves or geopolitical security”?). To me, albeit a bit simplistic, it seems as the “right to stay together as a nation” somehow belongs to the nation. That nations somehow have rights. That’s absurd, if you ask me. Nations cannot have anything, only individuals can. Could it possibly be an artifact dating back to non-democratic days, when the right to the nation presumably resided with the King (or whoever ruled the country)? If so, is this really something worth protecting?
Of course, some Conservatives will most likely object, arguing that it is a value in protecting a historical unit, such as an existing country. But if it is agreed that the concept of humans rights resides with the individual, then I think those Conservatives have to make their case. Not long ago it was a rather fierce debate in Sweden about Labor union members being automatically enrolled as members of the Social democratic party without having asked for it. After some (self interested) protests from the Labor union and the Party, it was clear that this was not reasonable. Similarly, the “enforced” membership of all Swedes into the Swedish State church was abolished some decades ago. From a principal perspective, is it at any time acceptable to force people into memberships they don’t want to be part of? If not, why should it – in principle – be different with countries?
Of course, principle is one thing, practicalities another. It would probably not work if all secessionist requests were automatically accepted. But I think the time could be ripe for a change in perspective; maybe the state rather than the secessionist should have the burden of proof, thereby codifying the increasingly liberal world we all live in. States and governments may not be withering away, but the increased focus on the individual rights should be noted (and according to me, in most cases, something well worth nurturing).
Regards, Björn H
Dear Björn - you are hitting right at the most controversial part of the argument for nations. But the main response, to me, must still be that since nations are the chief providers of order and security in the world - its basic structure so to speak - nations have a certain claim to our loyalty as citizens. If everybody "left", there would be chaos everywhere, just like there is chaos in all nations that fail to deliver the security and order they are supposed to provide. So,as I see it, the secessionists have a moral/political obligation greater than for any other kind of casual association that people find themselves born into, an obligation to consider also the value (and cost) to others of the ties that have bound them together in the past. There is only one circumstance which to me completely trumps that obligation, and that is if the "mother country" has used force to establish its rule in the first place. That applies, inter alia, to the case of Norway and Sweden. The way Sweden forced that union upon Norway from 1814 to 1905 obviated any right on the part of the Swedes to resist its dissolution, as I and probably 99% of other Norwegians see it.
Post a Comment