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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Dumberry (2006) for a detailed description of the events that led to the Supreme Court ruling.
- 2.
See Hamilton (2018) for the report of the ruling in one of Canada’s English language national newspapers but not mentioned elsewhere in print or television.
- 3.
See Gaudreault-DesBiens (1999: 827–28) for support on this key duty to negotiate obligation.
- 4.
See Dumberry (2006: 443–446) for the discussion of this issue and the relevance of the international law principle of uti possidetis juris.
- 5.
See 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 [Clarity Act] (2000) for the full text.
- 6.
See Brun and Tremblay (1990) for the argument that not only the 50% plus one was a clear majority but also that the entire Clarity Act was unconstitutional.
- 7.
See Pellet, cited in Dumberry (2006, footnote 170) for a discussion of the double veto.
References
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.
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.
Brun, H. and Tremblay G. (1990), Droit Constitutionnel, 2nd ed., Éditions Yvon Blais, Cowansville.
Came, B. (2003), Referendum Question Unveiled, Canadian Encyclopedia, retrieved from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/referendum-question-unveiled/.
Crawford, J. (1998), “State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession”, in British Yearbook of International Law, 69 (1), 85–117.
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.
DeVotta, N. (2004), Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Dion, S. (1996), “Why Is Secession Difficult in Well-Established Democracies? Lessons from Quebec”, in British Journal of Political Science, 26 (2), 269–283.
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.
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.
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.
Haljan, D.P. (1998), “Negotiating Québec Secession”, in Revue belge de droit international, 31 (1), 190–216.
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.
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.
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.
Newman, W.J. (1999), The Quebec Secession Reference: The Rule of Law and the Position of the Attorney General of Canada, York University, Toronto.
Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 161 DLR (4th) 385.
Ruypers, J., Austin, M., Carter, P. and Murphy, T.G. (2005), Canadian and World Politics, Emond Montgomery Publication, Toronto.
Usher, D. (1999), “The New Constitutional Duty to Negotiate”, in Policy Options, 41–44.
Waters, T.W. (2016), “For Freedom Alone: Secession After the Scottish Referendum”, in Nationalities Papers, 44 (1), 124–143.
Wickremesekara, C. (2016), The Tamil Secessionist War in Sri Lanka, Routledge, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mendes, E.P. (2019). The Legacy of the Quebec Secession Reference Ruling in Canada and Internationally. In: Delledonne, G., Martinico, G. (eds) The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03469-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03469-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03468-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03469-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)