Advertisement

The Legacy of the Quebec Secession Reference Ruling in Canada and Internationally

  • Errol P. MendesEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on some of the key political and legal reasons that first let to the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. The chapter then focuses on the intermingling of politics and law in the ruling itself and the legal attempts to solidify the outcome of the ruling by the Canadian government in the Clarity Act along with the backlash to it from Quebec. Finally, in the conclusion, the author explores how these key political and legal factors behind the ruling and its impact in Canada act as cautionary signals for secessionist attempts in liberal democracies, especially in Europe. Above all, the chapter suggests that the Quebec Secession Reference warns that process legitimacy is critical for such secessionist movements in liberal democracies around the world.

References

  1. An Act to Give Effect to the Requirement for Clarity as Set Out in the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, S.C. (2000), c. 26.Google Scholar
  2. Bossacoma Busquets, P. (2018), “Obstacles and Passages to Secession in Liberal-Democratic Contexts: Lessons from Catalonia”, in Political Theory Working Paper, 20, 1–24, retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10230/34424.
  3. Brun, H. and Tremblay G. (1990), Droit Constitutionnel, 2nd ed., Éditions Yvon Blais, Cowansville.Google Scholar
  4. Came, B. (2003), Referendum Question Unveiled, Canadian Encyclopedia, retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/referendum-question-unveiled/.
  5. Crawford, J. (1998), “State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession”, in British Yearbook of International Law, 69 (1), 85–117.Google Scholar
  6. Dawson, M. (1999), “Reflections on the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference”, in National Journal of Constitutional Law, 11 (1), 5–48.Google Scholar
  7. DeVotta, N. (2004), Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Dion, S. (1996), “Why Is Secession Difficult in Well-Established Democracies? Lessons from Quebec”, in British Journal of Political Science, 26 (2), 269–283.Google Scholar
  9. Dion, S., Gibson, G., Claude, R., Facal, J. and Monahan, P. (2000), “The Clarity Act Debate in the House of Commons”, in Canadian Parliamentary Review, 23 (2), 20–30.Google Scholar
  10. Dumberry, P. (2006), “Lessons Learned from the Quebec Secession Reference Before the Supreme Court of Canada”, in M.G. Kohen (ed.), Secession: International Law Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 416–452.Google Scholar
  11. Gaudreault-DesBiens, J.-F. (1999), “The Quebec Secession Reference and the Judicial Arbitration of Conflicting Narratives About Law, Democracy, and Identity”, in Vermont Law Review, 23 (4), 793–843.Google Scholar
  12. Haljan, D.P. (1998), “Negotiating Québec Secession”, in Revue belge de droit international, 31 (1), 190–216.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, G. (2018, April 19), “Court Upholds Quebec Law on Self-Determination But Says It Doesn’t Give Unilateral Right to Secede”, National Post, http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/court-upholds-quebec-law-on-self-determination.
  14. Monahan, P.J. (1999), “The Public Policy Role of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Secession Reference”, in National Journal of Constitutional Law, 11 (1), 65–105.Google Scholar
  15. Monahan, P.J. (2000), “Doing the Rules: An Assessment of the Federal Clarity Act in Light of the Quebec Secession Reference”, in C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, 135, 1–39.Google Scholar
  16. Newman, W.J. (1999), The Quebec Secession Reference: The Rule of Law and the Position of the Attorney General of Canada, York University, Toronto.Google Scholar
  17. Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 161 DLR (4th) 385.Google Scholar
  18. Ruypers, J., Austin, M., Carter, P. and Murphy, T.G. (2005), Canadian and World Politics, Emond Montgomery Publication, Toronto.Google Scholar
  19. Usher, D. (1999), “The New Constitutional Duty to Negotiate”, in Policy Options, 41–44.Google Scholar
  20. Waters, T.W. (2016), “For Freedom Alone: Secession After the Scottish Referendum”, in Nationalities Papers, 44 (1), 124–143.Google Scholar
  21. Wickremesekara, C. (2016), The Tamil Secessionist War in Sri Lanka, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations