Secessionist Referenda in International and Domestic Law

Abstract

This article assesses the extent to which there is a legal requirement to hold referenda in the context of secessionist claims. If the right to secession is underpinned by the right of peoples to self-determination, ascertaining the will of the relevant people is of undoubted importance in securing political legitimacy. However, the legal requirement for a referendum is limited to cases involving agreements between relevant parties to hold a referendum and to cases where a state's constitutional law mandates a referendum as part of the secession process.

Notes

1. Peter Radan, The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 173, 177.

2. For the sake of convenience, the state that is subjected to a secessionist claim will be hereafter referred to as the “parent state.”

3. For discussion of such procedural matters as to who are the voters, who calls the referendum, and what majority is required, see Stephen Tierney, Constitutional Law and National Pluralism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 284–324; Miodrag Jovanović, Constitutionalizing Secession in Federalized States: A Procedural Approach (Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing, 2007), 183–195; Lawrence T. Farley, Plebiscites and Sovereignty, The Crisis of Political Legitimacy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986), 49–137.

4. James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), 375.

5. Ibid., 388, 403, 416, 417, 418.

6. On Bangladesh's recognition, see J. Castellino, “The Secession of Bangladesh in International Law: Setting New Standards?,” Asian Year Book of International Law 7: 98–100 (1997); Janice Musson, “Britain and the Recognition of Bangladesh in 1972,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 19: 125–44 (2008).

7. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 415.

8. Peter Radan, “Secession: A Word in Search of a Meaning,” in Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan, eds., On the Way to Statehood, Secession and Globalisation (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2008), 18.

9. Ibid., 30–31.

10. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 390.

11. Karen Knop, Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 281–284, 324–325.

12. Barcelona Traction, Light, & Power Co (Belgium -v- Spain) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, 304; Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 [1971] ICJ Rep 16, 89–90.

13. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 Oct. 1970.

14. Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 119–20. See also Brad R. Roth, “State Sovereignty, International Legality and Moral Disagreement,” in T. Broude and Y. Shany, eds., The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), 136–37; Robert McCorquodale, “Self-Determination Beyond the Colonial Context and Its Potential Impact on Africa,” African Journal of International & Comparative Law 4: 603–04 (1992); Ved P. Nanda, “Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 13: 269–70 (1981).

15. See, for example, James Summers, Peoples and International Law: How Nationalism and Self-Determination Shape a Contemporary Law of Nations (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 343–348.

16. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 390. See also, Antonello Tancredi, “A Normative ‘Due Process’ in the Creation of States Through Secession,” in Marcelo G. Kohen, ed., Secession: International Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 188.

17. Advisory Opinion, Accordance With International Law and the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (2010) 49 International Law Materials 1410.

18. Ibid., 1425.

19. Ibid., 1424.

20. The various judicial opinions are discussed in Peter Radan, “International Law and the Right of Unilateral Secession,” in Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan, eds., The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2011), 327–30.

21. Kosovo Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16005.pdf (accessed 3 Nov. 2011).

22. Summers, Peoples and International Law, 43.

23. Radan, The Break-Up of Yugoslavia, 199–200.

24. Marc Weller, Contested Statehood: Kosovo's Struggle for Independence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 142.

25. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 417. It has also been argued that the holding of a plebiscite in the context of disputes between states over territory that the holding of a plebiscite is not required by customary international law: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, “The ‘Requirement’ of Plebiscite in Territorial Rapprochement,” Houston Journal of International Law 12: 23–54 (1989–1990).

26. Quoted in Weller, Contested Statehood, 276. See also Yash Ghai and Anthony J. Regan, “Unitary State, Devolution, Autonomy, Secession: State Building and Nation Building in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea,” The Round Table 95(386): 598 (2006).

27. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement Between The Government of the Republic of The Sudan and The Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Sudan People's Liberation Army, 9 Jan. 2005. See http://www.aec-sudan.org/docs/cpa/cpa-en.pdf (accessed 21 Sept. 2011).

28. Southern Sudan Referendum Act 2009. See http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Referendum/SS%20Referendum%20MOJ-Englis.pdf (accessed 21 Sept. 2011).

29. Southern Sudan Referendum Act 2009. Unofficial draft translation of 21 Feb. 2010. See http://saycsd.org/doc/SouthernSudanReferendumActFeb10EnglishVersion.pdf (accessed 5 Feb. 2012).

30. Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem, 31 March 2004, http://www.cyprus. gov.cy/moi/PIO/PIO.nsf/0/BF93317E0BF0EEF3C2256E6F0030BD70/$file/The%20Annan%20plan%20% 205%20-%2031%20march%202004.pdf (accessed 21 Sept. 2011).

31. Kudret Özersay, “Separate Simultaneous Referenda in Cyprus: Was is a ‘Fact’ or an ‘Illusion’?,” Turkish Studies 6(3): 379–399 (2005).

32. “‘Guidelines on Recognition’, 16 December 1991,” in Snežana Trifunovska, Yugoslavia Through Documents: From its Creation to its Dissolution (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994), 431–32.

33. For a detailed analysis of the recognition of these republics, see Radan, The Break-Up of Yugoslavia, 167–96.

34. Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples, 272.

35. Tancredi, “A Normative ‘Due Process,’” 189–90.

36. Reference re: Secession of Quebec (1998) 161 DLR (4th) 385, p. 449.

37. Yves Beigbeder, International Monitoring of Plebiscites: Referenda and National Elections, Self-determination and Transition to Democracy (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994), 97–98.

38. Crawford, The Creation of States, 417.

39. Markku Suksi, Bringing in the People: A Comparison of Constitutional Forms and Practices of the Referendum (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 247.

40. Barbara J. Wells, United Nations Decisions on Self-Determination (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1963), 159–83.

41. Reference re: Secession of Quebec, 393.

42. Albania, Article 3; Australia, Preamble; Azerbaijan, Articles 5(2) & 11(1); Croatia, Article 1(1); Cyprus, Article 185(1); Estonia, Article 2(1); France, Article 2(1); Italy, Article 5; Laos, Article 1; Nigeria, Preamble and Article 2(1); Russia, Article 4(3); South Africa, Section 41(1)(a); Spain, Article 2; Thailand, Chapter I, Section 1; Turkey, Article 3(1); Ukraine, Article 2.

43. Azerbaijan, Article 5(2); India, Preamble; Russia, Articles 4(3), 5(3); South Africa, Section 41(1)(a); Turkey, Article 3(1); Vietnam, Articles 1 & 13(2).

44. Iran, Article 9; Mongolia, Article 4(i); Uganda, Article IV(i); Vietnam, Articles 1 & 13(2).

45. Peter Radan, “Lincoln, the Constitution, and Secession,” in Don Doyle, ed., Secession as an International Phenomenon: From America's Civil War to Contemporary Separatist Movements (Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2010), 56–75.

46. Jovanović, Constitutionalizing Secession in Federalized States, 137–138.

47. On the Montenegrin secession, see Miodrag Jovanović, “Consensual Secession of Montenegro – Towards Good Practice?,” in Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan, eds., On the Way to Statehood, Secession and Globalisation (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2008), 133–48.

48. Reference re: Secession of Quebec, 394.

49. Ibid., 430–31.

50. Ibid., 423.

51. Ibid., 424.

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid., 424–28.

54. Ibid., 429.

55. An Act Respecting the Exercise of the Fundamental Rights and Prerogatives of the Quebec People and the Quebec State, 2000 S. Q., c. 46, s. 4

56. 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, 2000 S. C., c. 21, s. 2.

57. Kohlhaas v. Alaska 147 P 3d 714 (2006).

58. 74 US 700 (1868).

59. Peter Radan, “‘An indestructible Union … of indestructible States’: The Supreme Court of the United States and Secession,” Legal History 10: 187–205 (2006).

60. Suksi, Bringing in the People, 247.

61. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) (1995) 105 ILR 227, 276, per Judge Vereschetin.