Advertisement

Leviathan

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 62–84 | Cite as

Das Sezessionsrecht im demokratischen Verfassungsstaat

  • Frank Dietrich
Weitere Aufsätze
  • 122 Downloads

The right to secede in democratic states

Abstract

Currently, many states in Europe and North America have to deal with separatist movements which try to gain independence. Their democratic constitutions are based on several values, e.g. the individual freedom to emigrate and the freedom to leave associations, that appear to speak in favour of allowing secession. The formal recognition of a right to secede meets, however, with two serious objections. Allen Buchanan and Cass Sunstein argue, first, that an exit-option can be used as a permanent veto on majority decisions and, second, that it has negative effects on the political participation of minority groups. In the article it is shown that their criticism does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Nevertheless, a constitutional right to secede raises other issues, such as the drawing of new borders or the distribution of the national debt, that need to be discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Beran, Harry, 1984: A Liberal Theory of Secession, in: Political Studies 32, S. 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beran, Harry, 1993: Border Disputes and the Right of National Self-Determination, in: History of European Ideas 16, S. 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch, Anthony H., 1984: Another Liberal Theory of Secession, in: Political Studies 32, S. 596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohman, James und William Rehg (Hrsg.), 1997: Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge/London.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, Allen, 1991: Secession. The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, Allen, 1998: Democracy and Secession, in: Margaret Moore (Hrsg.), National Self-Determination and Secession, Oxford, S. 14–33.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, Allen, 2003: The Making and Unmaking of Boundaries: What Liberalism Has to Say, in: Allen Buchanan und Margaret Moore (Hrsg.), States, Nations, and Borders. The Ethics of Making Boundaries, Cambridge, S. 231–261.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, James, 1990: Europe’s Constitutional Opportunity, in: Institute of Economic Affairs (Hrsg.), Europe’s Constitutional Future, London, S. 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, James, 1995: Federalism As an Ideal Political Order and an Objective for Constitutional Reform, in: Publius: The Journal of Federalism 25, S. 19–27.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, James und Faith, Roger L. 1987: Secession and the Limits of Taxation: Toward a Theory of Internal Exit, in: The American Economic Review 77, S. 1023–1031.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, James und Tullock, Gordon, 1965: The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, Yan und Ordeshook, Peter C., 1994: Constitutional Secession Clauses, in: Constitutional Political Economy 5, S. 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choudhry, Sujit und Howse, Robert, 2000: Constitutional Theory and The Quebec Secession Reference, in: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 13, S. 143–169.Google Scholar
  14. Chwaszcza, Christine, 1998: Selbstbestimmung, Sezession und Souveränität. Überlegungen zur normativen Bedeutung politischer Grenzen, in: Christine Chwaszcza und Wolfgang Kersting (Hrsg.), Politische Philosophie der internationalen Beziehungen, Frankfurt a.M., S. 467–501.Google Scholar
  15. Copp, David, 1997: Democracy and Communal Self-Determination, in: Robert MacKim und Jeff MacMahan (Hrsg.), The Morality of Nationalism, New York, Oxford, S. 277–300.Google Scholar
  16. Corlett, J. Angelo, 2003: Terrorism. A Philosophical Analysis, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Des Rosiers, Nathalie, 2000: From Quebec Veto to Quebec Secession: The Evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec-Canada Disputes, in: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 13, S. 171–183.Google Scholar
  18. Dietrich, Frank, 2005: Liberalismus, Nationalismus und das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung, in: Analyse & Kritik 27, S. 239–258.Google Scholar
  19. Dietrich, Frank, 2006: Zur Legitimation territorialer Ansprüche, in: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 54, S. 577–596.Google Scholar
  20. Doering, Detmar, 2002: Friedlicher Austritt. Braucht die Europäische Union ein Sezessionsrecht?, Trier.Google Scholar
  21. Dumberry, Patrick, 2006: Lessons Learned from the Quebec Secession Reference before the Supreme Court of Canada, in: Marcello G. Kohen (Hrsg.), Secession. International Law Perspectives, Cambridge, S. 416–452.Google Scholar
  22. Dürig, Günter, 2005: Kommentar zum Art. 11 GG, in: Theodor Maunz und Günter Dürig (Hrsg.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar Lieferungen 1-45, München (Eintrag seit 1970 unverändert).Google Scholar
  23. Dyczok, Marta, 2000: Ukraine. Movement without Change, Change without Movement, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Gauthier, David, 1994: Breaking Up: An Essay on Secession, in: Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24, S. 357–372.Google Scholar
  25. Hirschman, Albert O., 1974: Abwanderung und Widerspruch, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  26. Lüderitz, Alexander, 1999: Familienrecht. Ein Studienbuch, 27. Aufl., München.Google Scholar
  27. Mansvelt Beck, Jan, 2005: Territory and Terror. Conflicting Nationalisms in the Basque Country, London/New York.Google Scholar
  28. Pavkovic, Aleksandar, 2003: Secession, Majority Rule and Equal Rights: A Few Questions, in: Macquarie Law Journal 3, S. 73–94.Google Scholar
  29. Peters, Anne, 1995: Das Gebietsreferendum im Völkerrecht. Seine Bedeutung im Lichte der Staatenpraxis nach 1989, Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  30. Pfirtner, Frida Armas und Silvina Gonzalez Napolitano, 2006: Secession and International Law: Latin American Practice, in: Marcello G. Kohen (Hrsg.), Secession. International Law Perspectives, Cambridge, S. 374–415.Google Scholar
  31. Philpott, Daniel, 1995: In Defense of Self-Determination, in: Ethics 105, S. 352–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Philpott, Daniel, 2000: Revolutions in Sovereignty. How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations, Princeton.Google Scholar
  33. Schmücker, Reinold, 2006: Gerechtigkeit und Territorialität, in: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 54, S. 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scholz, Rupert, 2005: Kommentar zum Art. 9 GG, in: Theodor Maunz und Günter Dürig (Hrsg.), Grundgesetz-Kommentar Lieferungen 1-45, München (Eintrag seit 1999 unverändert).Google Scholar
  35. Sunstein, Cass R., 1991: Constitutionalism and Secession, in: The University of Chicago Law Review 90, S. 633–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tamir, Yael, 1993: Liberal Nationalism, Princeton.Google Scholar
  37. Zippelius, Reinhold and Thomas Würtenberger, 2005: Deutsches Staatsrecht, 31. Aufl., München.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Wiesbaden 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Dietrich

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations