Public International Law and the Catalan Secession Process

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1007/s40803-024-00203-w
{"title":"Public International Law and the Catalan Secession Process","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s40803-024-00203-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This article briefly identifies the aspects of public international law related to the Catalan secession process, bearing in mind that Spain is a constitutional social and democratic state governed by the rule of law and a member of both the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE). Over 6 years ago, on 27 October 2017, the regional Catalan Parliament proclaimed the independence of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. From the start, the most recondite stratum of the Catalan pro-independence strategy has consistently invoked <em>international</em> law considerations with no real basis. Here we explain why. First, given the function of state sovereignty (today humanized and, in the context of the EU and CoE, democratized), under international law, these events can only be classified as a secession process (<em>stricto sensu</em>), that is, a revolutionary act in the constitutional order of the state of Spain with undertones that are far from peaceful. Second, we address the facet of the Catalan pro-secession strategy – typical of populist policies today – consisting of abusing terms and concepts, a language policy that, in our view, was and still is intended to win the minds of both the Catalan population and any other uninformed external observers. Finally, we examine how statehood is acquired under international law and its relationship to the 2017 declaration of Catalan independence and the present-day situation.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00203-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article briefly identifies the aspects of public international law related to the Catalan secession process, bearing in mind that Spain is a constitutional social and democratic state governed by the rule of law and a member of both the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE). Over 6 years ago, on 27 October 2017, the regional Catalan Parliament proclaimed the independence of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. From the start, the most recondite stratum of the Catalan pro-independence strategy has consistently invoked international law considerations with no real basis. Here we explain why. First, given the function of state sovereignty (today humanized and, in the context of the EU and CoE, democratized), under international law, these events can only be classified as a secession process (stricto sensu), that is, a revolutionary act in the constitutional order of the state of Spain with undertones that are far from peaceful. Second, we address the facet of the Catalan pro-secession strategy – typical of populist policies today – consisting of abusing terms and concepts, a language policy that, in our view, was and still is intended to win the minds of both the Catalan population and any other uninformed external observers. Finally, we examine how statehood is acquired under international law and its relationship to the 2017 declaration of Catalan independence and the present-day situation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际公法与加泰罗尼亚分离进程
摘要 本文简要阐述了与加泰罗尼亚分离进程相关的国际公法的各个方面,同时铭记西班牙是一个宪政社会民主法治国家,同时也是欧洲联盟(EU)和欧洲委员会(CoE)的成员。6 年多前,即 2017 年 10 月 27 日,加泰罗尼亚地区议会宣布加泰罗尼亚自治区独立。从一开始,加泰罗尼亚支持独立战略的最底层就一直在毫无实际依据的情况下援引国际法因素。在此,我们将解释其中的原因。首先,考虑到国家主权的功能(如今已经人性化,在欧盟和欧委会的背景下,已经民主化),根据国际法,这些事件只能被归类为分离进程(严格意义上的),即西班牙国家宪法秩序中的革命行为,其暗含的意义远非和平。其次,我们讨论加泰罗尼亚支持分离战略的一个方面--当今民粹主义政策的典型--包括滥用术语和概念,我们认为这种语言政策过去和现在都是为了赢得加泰罗尼亚民众和其他不明真相的外部观察者的心。最后,我们将探讨如何根据国际法获得国家地位及其与 2017 年加泰罗尼亚独立宣言和当今局势的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
18.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Rule-of-Law Violations in a State of Emergency? Towards a General Analytical Framework The Shifting Landscape of Judicial Independence Criteria Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure: A Comment on the CJEU’s Recent Case Law and the Trajectory of Article 267 TFEU The Rule of Law and Corporate Actors: Measuring Influence EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’ Confused Constitutionalism in Hungary—New Assessment Criteria for Recognising a Populist Constitutional Court
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1