Advertisement

Secession Reference and Its Intellectual Legacy: Sceptical Notes from the European Peripheries

  • Zoran Oklopcic
Chapter

Abstract

This essay confronts the legacy of the Secession Reference from the perspective of the periphery of the European Union: its external (Kosovo and Montenegro) and its internal (Catalonia and Spain) periphery. The main gift of Secession Reference to contemporary constitutional theory is not a broader understanding of democracy, as some claim, but rather an opportunity to look at democracy, self-determination, federalism, and popular sovereignty through a more nuanced—and hopefully analytically more productive—lens of constitutional sensitivity and institutional responsiveness. From that perspective, the main domestic achievement of the Secession Reference achieved was not a more democratic, but a more selectively responsive Canada. In asking for more sensitivity towards secessionist aspirations, the Reference encourages us to approach our democratic intuitions—whatever they may be—more reflectively and systematically. That—and not the internationally influential language of clarity and remedy—is its most important, yet unfortunately still not fully recognized, intellectual legacy.

References

  1. Bayefsky, Anne F. (2000), “Self-Determination”, in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, The Hague, London, and Boston, Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  2. Choudhry, Sujit (2007), “Referendum? What Referendum?”, in Literary Review of Canada, 15 (3), 7–9.Google Scholar
  3. Des Rosiers, Nathalie (2000), “From Telling to Listening: A Therapeutic Analysis of the Role of Courts in Minority-Majority Conflicts”, in Court Review, 37, 54.Google Scholar
  4. Dutrisac, Robert (2006), Référendum—Québec fixe la barre à 50% plus un, Montreal, Le Devoir, 16 March 2006.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission for Democracy through Law (2005), On the Compatibility of the Existing Legislation in Montenegro Concerning the Organization of Referendums with Applicable International Standards, Opinion No. 343/2005.Google Scholar
  6. Grand Council of the Crees (1995), “Sovereign Injustice: Forcible Inclusion and Cree Territory into a Sovereign Quebec”, available at http://www.gcc.ca/gcc/querelations.php.
  7. Haljan, David (2014), Constitutionalising Secession, Oregon and Portland, Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. International Court of Justice (2010), Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 22 July 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Oklopcic, Zoran (2009), “Populus Interruptus: Self-Determination, the Independence of Kosovo, and the Vocabulary of Peoplehood”, in Leiden Journal of International Law 22 (4), 677–702.Google Scholar
  10. Oklopcic, Zoran (2011), “The Migrating Spirit of the Secession Reference in Southeastern Europe”, in Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 24 (2), 347–376.Google Scholar
  11. Paulsen, M. (2004), “The Constitution of Necessity”, Notre Dame Law Review, 79, 1257–1297.Google Scholar
  12. Spanish Constitutional Tribunal, Opinion No. 42/2014.Google Scholar
  13. Texas v. White (1869), 74 U.S. 700.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zoran Oklopcic
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Law and Legal StudiesCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations