Experience of Legislative Regulation of Secessions in Three Countries: The USSR, China, and Canada

Secession in the 20th-21st centuries have become subject to legal regulation at the level of current legislation issued on the basis of the provisions of the national Constitution. The paper analyzes three of the laws on secession. Two of them (the USSR and Canada) regulate the implementation of secession from the state, the third (China) prohibits secession. All the three acts are based on the interpretation of relevant constitutional norms. An analysis of these laws in terms of the purpose for their issuance, content, features, and the degree of achievement of the officially formulated goals shows a significant discrepancy between the officially set goals and the legal tools of legislative techniques used to achieve them. Despite the different names and officially stated goals for secession laws adoption, all the three laws are aimed at either preventing secession or significantly delaying the process. In the Soviet and Canadian laws that formally permit secession, the main role in the process of "delaying" the issue is assigned to the central authorities of the state, which are given broad powers and opportunities to recognize the results of a referendum held by the relevant region as invalid. Due to the nature of Taiwan’s status and its relationship with China the PRC law can hardly be seen as an attempt to create a legal mechanism of counteraction of secession. It is rather a political warning, made in the form of a legal act, of the inadmissibility, in the opinion of the PRC, the international legal formalization of the independence of Taiwan. The legislative regulation of secession issues does not yet contain new mechanisms that clearly ensure the democratic nature of state decision-making. However, no matter how weak the legislative regulation of secession issues is, it is a step forward in comparison with the use of force to solve regional problems.

secession, Constitution, Law of the USSR, Law of the People’s Republic of China, Canadian Clarity Act, referendum, democracy, legal mechanisms of counteraction, international law

1. Andreeva GN. Konstitutsionno-pravovaya doktrina po voprosam setsessii v stranakh — chlenakh ES (na primere Ispanii, Italii, Germanii, Velikobritanii) [Constitutional legal doctrine on the issues of secession in the EU member states (Case study of Spain, Germany, Italy, UK)]. Lex Russica. 2018;(8):130-143. (In Russ.)

2. Buchanan A. Setsessiya. Pravo na otdelenie, prava cheloveka i territorialnaya tselostnost gosudarstv [Secession. The right to secession, human rights and territorial integrity of the state]. Moscow: Rudomino; 2001. (In Russ.)

3. Kremnev PP. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye problemy, svyazannye s raspadom SSSR: avtoref. dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk [International legal problems associated with the collapse of the USSR. Dr. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Author’s abstract]. Moscow; 2010. (In Russ.)

4. Leksin IV. Setsessiya territorialnykh obrazovaniy: pravovye riski i mekhanizmy zashchity [Secession of territorial entities: legal risks and protection mechanisms ]. Gosudarstvo i Pravo [Gosudarstvo i Pravo]. 2014;2:5-14. (In Russ.)

5. Melik-Shakhnazarov AA. Vykhod NKR iz zerbaydzhanskoy Respubliki v 1991 g [Withdrawal of the NKR from the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1991]. Postsovetskie issledovaniya [Post-Soviet studies]. 2018;1(2):142-149. (In Russ.)

6. Murasheva GF. Est li alternativa status-kvo v territorialnom spore v Yuzhno-Kitayskom more? [Is there an alternative to the status quo in the South China Sea territorial dispute?]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Aziya: aktualnye problemy razvitiya [South-East Asia: Current development issues]. 2013;20:5-16. (In Russ.)

7. Hartwig M. Konsultativnoe zaklyuchenie Mezhdunarodnogo suda OON po voprosu o deklaratsii nezavisimosti Kosovo — predystoriya i kritika sudebnogo «postanovleniya» [Advisory opinion of the International court of justice on the Declaration of independence of Kosovo: background and criticism of the judicial “ruling”]. Daydzhest publichnogo prava Instituta Maksa Planka po zarubezhnomu publichnomu i mezhdunarodnomu pravu [Max Planck Institute’s digest of public law on foreign public and international law]. Bonn. 2013;2:121- 155. (In Russ.)

8. Aguado Renedo C. Mitad más uno y principio democrático: nuevas noticias de Quebec. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional. Madrid. 2019;115:305–329. (In Spanish)

9. Campañá NG. Secesión y constitucionalismo comparado. Revista de derecho político. Madrid. 2019;106:105- 135. (In Spanish)

10. Gall GL. Québec Referendum. The Canadian Encyclopedia. 1995. Available from: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-referendum-1995 [cited 2020 May 10]. (In Eng.)

11. Krasner S. Foreword: Varieties of Sovereignty. The Future of United States, China, and Taiwan Relations. NY; 2011. (In Eng.).

12. Mushkat M. The process of decolonization International legal aspects. University of Baltimore Law Review. Baltimore. 1972;2(1):16–34. (In Eng.)

13. Tkacik JJ, Jr. The «ASL» as the «Anti-TRA»: The Impact of China’s Anti-Secession Law on U. S. Relations with Taiwan. The Future of United States, China, and Taiwan Relations. NY; 2011. (In Eng.)