Advertisement

Sovereignty Referendums in Constitutional Law

  • İlker Gökhan Şen
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, there will be an analysis of the sovereignty referendums from the perspective of constitutional law. In constitutional law (as is the case with international law), sovereignty referendums have both a formal and material aspect. In its material context, the concept of sovereignty is the central theme of constitutions and constitution making. In other words, if we refer to the final authority to make and execute laws in an organisation when we use the term “sovereignty”, then the sovereignty becomes the basic condition, which should be secured before any constitution may be established. Formally, the question of the legal status of sovereignty referendums may be considered within the larger framework of constitutional change, boiling down to two questions: (1) the legal evaluation of the constitution-making activity (constituent power ) in a state and (2) the overall picture of sovereignty referendums in comparative constitutional law. Having dealt with these two questions, we will go on to tackle the in-depth cases: France , the United Kingdom , Canada (Quebec ) and the United States of America .

Keywords

Sovereignty Status Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Change Constituent Power Overseas Territory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, M. J., & Thompson, B. (2005). Cases and materials on constitutional and administrative law (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alley, R. (2003). Ethnosecession in Papua New Guinea: The Bougainville case. In R. Ganguly & I. Macduff (Eds.), Ethnic conflict and secessionism in South and South East Asia: Causes dynamics and solutions (pp. 225–256). New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Amiel, H. (1976). La pratique française des plébiscites internationaux. Revue générale de droit international public, 425–501.Google Scholar
  4. Anckar, D. (2004). Finland. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 59–61). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ardant, P. (2005). Institutions politiques & droit constitutionnel (17th ed.). Paris: L.G.D.J.Google Scholar
  6. Auer, A. (1996). Le référendum constitutionnel. In A. Auer (Ed.), Les Origines de la Démocratie Directe en Suisse (pp. 79–101). Bale, e.t.c.: Helbing et Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  7. Auer, A. (2007). La démocratie directe comme piège et comme chance pour l’Union européenne. In A. Flücgiker, A. Auer, & M. Hottelier (Eds.), Etudes en l’honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni Les droits de l’homme et la constitution (pp. 57–75). Genève: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  8. Barany, E., Brhlikova, R., & Colotka, P. (2001). Slovakia. In A. Auer & M. Bützer (Eds.), Direct democracy: The eastern and central European experience (pp. 170–191). Aldershot, e.t.c.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  9. Barnett, H. (2006). Constitutional & administrative law (6th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bea, K., & Garrett, R. S. (2010). Political status of Puerto Rico: Options for congress, May 19, 2010. http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=24445. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  11. Beaud, O. (1994). Puissance de l’Etat. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  12. Beaud, O. (1997). Propos sceptiques sur la légitimité d’un référendum Européen ou plaidoyer pour plus de réalisme constitutionnel. In A. Auer & J. F. Flauss (Eds.), Le Référendum Européen (pp. 125–180). Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  13. Björklund, T. (2004). Norway. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 98–101). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bogdanor, V. (1998). Devolution: The constitutional aspects. In J. Beatson, C. Forsyth, & I. Hare (Eds.), Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom: Practices and principles (pp. 9–19). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Bogdanor, V. (2003a). Introduction. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), The British constitution in the twentieth century (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bogdanor, V. (2003b). Conclusion. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), The British constitution in the twentieth century (pp. 689–720). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Borgeaud, C. ([1895] 1989). Adoption and amendment of constitutions in Europe and America (trans: Hazen C. D.). Littleton, CO: F.B. Rothman.Google Scholar
  18. Bortwick, R. L. (1997). What has happened to the sovereignty of parliament? In L. Brace & J. Hoffman (Eds.), Reclaiming sovereignty (pp. 26–41). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  19. Burdeau, G. (1943). Cours de droit constitutionnel (2nd ed.). Paris: R. Pichan et R. Durand-Auzias.Google Scholar
  20. Cadoux, C. (1980). Droit constitutionnel et institutions politiques. Vol 1: Théorie générale des institutions politiques. Paris: Cujas.Google Scholar
  21. Camacho, K. (2004). The United States–Puerto Rico relationship: Incomplete decolonization. Howard Law Journal, 48(1), 491–523.Google Scholar
  22. Carcassonne, G. (2007). La Constitution (8th ed.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  23. Carroll, A. (2003). Constitutional administrative law (3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Chander, A. (1991). Sovereignty, referenda, and the entrenchment of a United Kingdom bill of rights. Yale Law Journal, 101, 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chantebout, B. (1991). Droit constitutionnel et science politique (10th ed.). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  26. Christakis, T. (1999). Le droit a l’autodétermination en dehors des situations de décolonisation. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  27. Conac, G. (1987). Article 11. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La Constitution de la République française (pp. 409–505). Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  28. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Debbasch, C., Pontier, J. -M., Bourdon, J., & Ricci, J. -C. (1986). Droit constitutionnel et institutions politiques (2). Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  30. Diaz, J. O. (2001). Puerto Rico, The United States, and the 1993 referendum on political status. Latin American Research Review, 30, 203–211.Google Scholar
  31. Dicey, A. V. (2010). Introduction to the law of the constitution (6th ed.). Lexington: Elibron Classics [1902].Google Scholar
  32. Dobelle, J.-F. (1996). Référendum et droit à l’autodétermination. Pouvoirs, 77, 41–60.Google Scholar
  33. Ellis, E. (2004). The legislative supremacy of parliament and its limits. In D. Feldman (Ed.), English public law (pp. 142–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Favoreau, L. (1976). La décision du 30 Décembre 1975 dans l’affaire des Comores. Revue du droit public et de la science politique en France et à l’étranger, 557–579.Google Scholar
  35. Feldhune, G. (2004). Latvia. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 77–82). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Formery, S.-L. (2011). La constitution commentée: article par article (14th ed.). Paris: Hachette Superieur.Google Scholar
  37. Freedman, J. (2004). Comoros–France (Mayotte). In P. Calvert (Ed.), Border and territorial disputes of the world (pp. 12–18). London: John Harper Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Gallagher, M. (1996). Ireland: Referendum as a conservative device. In M. Gallagher & P. V. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe. Houndmills, e.t.c.: Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  39. Garrett, R. S. (2012). Puerto Rico’s political status and the 2012 plebiscite: Background and key questions congressional research service report. 2 October 2012. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf. Retrieved 23 Nov 2012.
  40. Gawenda, J. A. B. (1946). Le plébiscite en droit international. Fribourg: Imprimerie St. Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Gebethner, S. (2001). Poland. In A. Auer & M. Bützer (Eds.), Direct democracy: The eastern and central European experience (pp. 129–140). Aldershot, e.t.c.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Gillis, M. (2001). Czech Republic. In A. Auer & M. Bützer (Eds.), Direct democracy:The eastern and central European experience (pp. 39–46). Aldershot (e.t.c): Ashgate.Google Scholar
  43. Goldmann, M. (2004). Sweden. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 115–118). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gözler, K. (1992). Le Pouvoir Constituant Originaire:Mémoire du D.E.A. de Droit public, Directeur de recherches: Prof. Dmitri Georges Lavroff, Université de Bordeaux I, Faculté de droit, des sciences sociales et politiques. www.anayasa.gen.tr/gozler/memoire.htm. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
  45. Gözler, K. (1997). Le pouvoir de révision constitutionnelle. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
  46. Gözler, K. (1999). Pouvoir constituant. Bursa: Ekin.Google Scholar
  47. Gözler, K. (2011). Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Teorisi (Vol. I, II vols.). Bursa: Ekin.Google Scholar
  48. Hadfield, B. (2003). The United Kingdom as a territorial state. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), The British constitution in the twentieth century (pp. 585–630). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hamon, F. (1995). Le référendum: étude comparative. Paris: L.G.D.J.Google Scholar
  50. Hamon, F., & Troper, M. (2005). Droit Constitutionnel (29th ed.). Paris: L.G.D.J.Google Scholar
  51. Hinck, J. (1990, July). The Republic of Palau and the United States: Self-determination becomes the price of free association. California Law Review, 78(4), 915–971.Google Scholar
  52. Holder, A. R., & Holder, J. T. R. (1997). The meaning of the constitution. New York: Barron’s.Google Scholar
  53. Jennings, I. W. (1959). The law and the Constitution 136 (5th ed.).Google Scholar
  54. Jennings, I. (1963). The law and the constitution. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
  55. Johari, J. C. (2006). New comparative government. New Delhi: Lotus Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kjaerulff-Schmidt, S. (2004). Denmark. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 51–54). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Keitner, I. C., & Reisman, W. M. (2003). Free association: The United States experience. Texas International Law Journal, 39, 1–64.Google Scholar
  58. Klein, C. (1996). Théorie et pratique du pouvoir constituant. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  59. Lawson, G., & Sloane, R. D. (2009). The constitutionality of decolonization by associated statehood: Puerto Rico’s legal status reconsidered. Boston College Law Review, 50, 1123–1193.Google Scholar
  60. LeDuc, L. (2003). The politics of direct democracy: Referendums in global perspective. Ontario, e.t.c.: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lindahl, H. (2007). Constituent power and reflexive identity: Towards an ontology of collective selfhood. In M. Loughlin & N. Walker (Eds.), The paradox of constitutionalism: Constituent power and constituent form (pp. 9–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Loveland, I. (2003). Britain and Europe. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), The British constitution in the twentieth century (pp. 663–688). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Maestre, J.-C. (1976). L’Indivisibilité de la République Française et l’exercice du droit a l’autodétermination. Revue du droit public et de la science politique en France et à l’étranger, 2, 431–461.Google Scholar
  65. Malberg, R. (1920). Carré de Contribution à la théorie générale de l’Etat (Vol. II, II vols). Paris: Librairie Recueil Sirey.Google Scholar
  66. Marrani, D. (2006). Principle of indivisibility of the French Republic and the people’s right to self-determination: The “New Caledonia Test”. Journal of Academic Legal Studies, 2, 16–29.Google Scholar
  67. Marshall, G. (2003). The constitution: Its theory and interpretation. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), The British constitution in the twentieth century (pp. 29–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. McCorquodale, R. (1995). Negotiating sovereignty: The practice of United Kingdom in regard to the right of self-determination. The British Yearbook of International Law, 66, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McWhinney, E. (2007). Self-determination of peoples and plural-ethnic states, in contemporary international law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Medina, L. E. (2009–2010). An unsatisfactory case of self-determination: Resolving Puerto Rico’s political status. Fordham International Law Journal, 33, 1048–1100.Google Scholar
  71. Morel, L. (2001). The rise of government initiated referendums. In M. Mendelsohn & A. Parkin (Eds.), Referendum democracy: Citizens, elites and deliberation in referendum campaigns (pp. 47–66). Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  72. Morel, L. (2007, November). The rise of politically obligatory referendums: The 2005 French referendum in comparative perspective. West European Politics, 30(5), 1041–1067.Google Scholar
  73. Negri, A. (1999). Insurgencies: Constituent power and the modern state. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  74. Offe, C. (2004, Fall). Capitalism by democratic design? Democratic theory facing the triple transition in East Central Europe. Social Research, 71(3), 501–528.Google Scholar
  75. Palayret, G. (2003). Overseas France and minority and indigenous rights: Dream or reality? International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 10, 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Parpworth, N., & Padfield, N. (2002). Constitutional and administrative law (2nd ed.). London, e.t.c.: Butterworths/Lexis Nexis.Google Scholar
  77. Pavia, M.-L. (1989). Le Référendum du 6 Novembre. Revue de droit Public, 4, 1697–1734.Google Scholar
  78. Pavkovic, A., & Radan, P. (2007). Creating new states. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  79. Pellet, A. (1987). Commentaire de l’Article 53. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La Constitution de la République Française (pp. 1005–1058). Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  80. Philips, O. H. (1962). Constitutional and administrative law (3rd ed.). London: Maxwell & Sweet.Google Scholar
  81. Phillips, O. H., Jackson, P., & Leopold, P. (2001). Constitutional and administrative law (8th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  82. Poggi, G. (1978). The development of the modern state: A sociological introduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Preuss, U. K. (1994). Constitutional power-making for the new polity: Some deliberations on the relations between constituent power and the constitution. In M. Rosenfeld (Ed.), Constitutionalism, identity, difference, and legitimacy: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 143–164). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Preuss, U. K. (2007). The exercise of constituent power in central and eastern Europe. In M. Loughlin & N. Walker (Eds.), The paradox of constitutionalism: Constituent power and constituent form (pp. 212–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Qvortrup, M. A. (2005). A comparative study of referendums: Government by the people (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Reti, P. (2004). Hungary. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 67–69). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  87. Rezvani, D. A. (2007, Spring). The basis of Puerto Rico’s constitutional status: Colony, compact or “Federacy”? Political Science Quarterly, 122(1), 115–140.Google Scholar
  88. Rideau, J. (1997). Les référendums nationaux dans le contexte de l’intégration européenne. In A. Auer & J.-F. Flauss (Eds.), Le référendum européen: actes du colloque international de strasbourg, 21–22 février 1997 (pp. 81–113). Bruxelles: E. Bruylant.Google Scholar
  89. Roman, E. (2006). The other American colonies. Durham: Caroline Academic Press.Google Scholar
  90. Rosenfeld, M. (1994). Modern constitutionalism as interplay between identity and diversity. In M. Rosenfeld (Ed.), Constitutionalism, identity, difference, and legitimacy: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 3–35). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Rourke, J. T., Hiskes, R. P., & Zirakzadeh, C. E. (1992). Direct democracy and international politics: Deciding international issues through referendums. London: Lynne Rienner Publ.Google Scholar
  92. Roussillon, H. (1996, April). Contre le référendum! Pouvoirs, 77, 184–190.Google Scholar
  93. Ruin, O. (1996). Sweden: The referendum as an instrument for defusing political issues. In M. Gallagher & P. V. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe (pp. 171–184). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  94. Ruus, J. (2001). Estonia. In A. Auer & M. Bützer (Eds.), Direct democracy: The eastern and central European experience (pp. 47–62). Aldershot, e.t.c.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  95. Ruus, J. (2004). Estonia. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 54–58). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  96. Schmitt, C. ([1928] 2008). In J. Seitzer (Ed.), Constitutional theory (trans: Seitzer, J.]. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Schwarze, J. (2001). The birth of a European constitutional order. In J. Schwarze (Ed.), The birth of a European constitutional order: The interaction of national and European constitutional law (pp.463-568). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  98. Seaward, P., & Silk, P. (2003). The house of commons. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), The British constitution in the twentieth century (pp. 139–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Sparrow, B. H. (2006). The insular cases and the emergence of the American Empire. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  100. Suksi, M. (1993). Bringing in the people. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  101. Suksi, M. (1996). Finland: Referendum as a dormant feature. In M. Gallagher & P. V. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe. Macmillan/Stjames: London/New York.Google Scholar
  102. Svensson, P. (1996). Denmark: The referendum as minority protection. In M. Gallagher & P. V. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe (pp. 33–50). Houndmills, e.t.c.: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  103. Taaffe, D. (2004). Ireland. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 70–73). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  104. Tierney, S. (2007). ‘We the Peoples’: Constituent power and constitutionalism in plurinational states in the paradox of constitutionalism. In M. Loughlin & N. Walker (Eds.), Constituent power and constituent form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Usacka, A. (2001). Techniques and procedures for popular votes. In A. Auer & M. Bützer (Eds.), Direct democracy: The eastern and central European experience (pp. 255–263). Aldershot, e.t.c.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  106. Valach, M. (2004). Czech Republic. In B. Kaufmann & M. Dane Waters (Eds.), Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe (pp. 48–51). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  107. Vile, J. R. (1997). A companion to the United States constitution and its amendments. Westport: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  108. Wambaugh, S. (1920). A monograph on plebiscites (with a collection of official documents). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Willens, H. P., & Siemer, D. C. (1977). The constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands: Constitutional principles and innovation in a Pacific setting. The Georgetown Law Journal, 65(6), (1373-1379).Google Scholar
  110. Wyller, T. C. (1996). Norway: Six exceptions to the rule. In M. Gallagher & P. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe (pp. 139–152). London: Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • İlker Gökhan Şen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawAnadolu UniversityEskisehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations