Indivisibility and Secession Clauses in Current Constitutions and the Prevalence of Secessionist Movements – Empirical Paper Series on Secession and Constitutionalism, Part 1 of 2

A. Beauséjour
{"title":"Indivisibility and Secession Clauses in Current Constitutions and the Prevalence of Secessionist Movements – Empirical Paper Series on Secession and Constitutionalism, Part 1 of 2","authors":"A. Beauséjour","doi":"10.1515/icl-2018-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Split into two parts, the Empirical Paper Series on Secession and Constitutionalism explores the relationship between constitutionalism and secession. While the second part of the article will examine the constitutional arrangement towards secession that prevailed in the states that had a region secede since 1900, this first part discusses the relationship between indivisibility and secession clauses in current constitutions and the prevalence of secessionist movements worldwide. Virtually all consequentialist claims contained in existing scholarship concerning the relationship between constitutionalism and secession fall within either one of two doctrinal creeds. Whereas the Indivisibilist School asserts that indivisibility clauses best prevent secessionism and that secession clauses necessarily prompt this phenomenon, the Secessionist School maintains that prohibiting secession is counter-effective and that recognising it as a right can help defuse secessionism by avoiding confrontational tactics. These claims are assessed on the basis on the Cohesion Dataset, the first-ever census of all constitutional arrangements regarding secession currently operative throughout the world. Contrarily to what existing doctrinal claims would suggest, the relationship between these various constitutional arrangements and secessionism is not linear, but rather U-shaped: both indivisibility and secession clauses are significantly associated with more secessionist activity than average. It is in fact constitutions where secession is neither permitted nor prohibited that are correlated with the least secessionist activity.","PeriodicalId":41321,"journal":{"name":"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2018-0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Split into two parts, the Empirical Paper Series on Secession and Constitutionalism explores the relationship between constitutionalism and secession. While the second part of the article will examine the constitutional arrangement towards secession that prevailed in the states that had a region secede since 1900, this first part discusses the relationship between indivisibility and secession clauses in current constitutions and the prevalence of secessionist movements worldwide. Virtually all consequentialist claims contained in existing scholarship concerning the relationship between constitutionalism and secession fall within either one of two doctrinal creeds. Whereas the Indivisibilist School asserts that indivisibility clauses best prevent secessionism and that secession clauses necessarily prompt this phenomenon, the Secessionist School maintains that prohibiting secession is counter-effective and that recognising it as a right can help defuse secessionism by avoiding confrontational tactics. These claims are assessed on the basis on the Cohesion Dataset, the first-ever census of all constitutional arrangements regarding secession currently operative throughout the world. Contrarily to what existing doctrinal claims would suggest, the relationship between these various constitutional arrangements and secessionism is not linear, but rather U-shaped: both indivisibility and secession clauses are significantly associated with more secessionist activity than average. It is in fact constitutions where secession is neither permitted nor prohibited that are correlated with the least secessionist activity.
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
现行宪法中的不可分割性和分离条款以及分离主义运动的盛行-关于分离主义和宪政的实证系列论文,2集之一
《分裂与宪政》实证丛书分为两部分,探讨了宪政与分裂之间的关系。文章的第二部分将考察自1900年以来,在那些有地区脱离联邦的州中,针对分离的宪法安排,而第一部分将讨论当前宪法中不可分割性和分离条款与世界范围内分离主义运动盛行之间的关系。实际上,所有现存的关于立宪主义和分裂国家之间关系的结果主义主张都属于以下两种教义之一。然而,分离主义学派认为,不可分割条款最能防止分离主义,而分离主义条款必然会导致这种现象,而分离主义学派则认为,禁止分离主义是适得其反的,承认分离主义是一种权利,可以通过避免对抗策略,帮助化解分离主义。这些主张是在凝聚力数据集的基础上进行评估的,这是有史以来第一次对目前在世界各地实施的有关分离的所有宪法安排进行普查。与现有的理论主张相反,这些不同的宪法安排和分离主义之间的关系不是线性的,而是u形的:不可分割性和分离条款都与比平均水平更多的分离主义活动显著相关。事实上,既不允许也不禁止分离的宪法与最少的分离主义活动有关。
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
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
A Paradigm Shift for Hong Kong’s National Security Constitution – A Comparative Study of the Impact of Its National Security Law B R Ambedkar’s Multiple Consciousness and the Framing of the Indian Constitution You Cannot Have the Cake and Eat It – How to Reconcile Liberal Fundamental Rights with Answers to the Climate Crisis The Politics of Silence: Hannah Arendt and Future Generations’ Fight for the Climate A Reflection on the Methods of Interpretation of EU Law
×
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