Abstract
This chapter reviews the reception in Spain of the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Canada on the secession of territories. The legal and political interest for the Reference of 1998 dates back to the moment it was issued. The existence of territorial tensions, the attempts at changing the constitutional status of the Basque Country and, above all, the secessionist crisis in Catalonia are among the main reasons of this glance at the Canadian case. It is, in general, a laudatory reception, uncritical, but often selective or partial, of those aspects that may provide support to the thesis advanced by those who invoke it in the internal debate. Sometimes, references to the Reference of SCC are mixed up and confused with different ones from the Clarity Act (especially among those who hold “constitutionalist” positions). Catalan nationalism has used the Reference to delegitimize the Spanish response to secessionist demands.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.
- 2.
Fossas, Enric, “Una decisión ejemplar”, El País, 3 September 1998. The Autonomous University of Barcelona professor provided an assessment of the Reference which set the tone of what eventually became the majority opinion on the ruling among Spanish Constitutional Law scholars. Thus, he began the article by showing his admiration for the decision: “Canada never ceases to surprise and amaze for its political forms. The judgment (sentencia, sic) issued by the Supreme Court on August 20 represents a new display this country’s capacity to address its ‘national question’ peacefully and democratically through a political debate presided by tolerance and fairness.” Fossas underscores how jurists will “find a small treatise on Constitutional Law in the reflections laid out by the Court on federalism , democracy , constitutionalism , rule of law, and respect for minority rights. Reading is absolutely advisable and it will certainly contribute to ensuring that these legal and political concepts, subjected today to confusion and trivialization, keep meaning something.” Contrary to opinions that reduce the Reference to a condemnation of secession , he sees the ruling as a “Solomonic decision that attempts to articulate the principle of constitutionality, which demands the subjection of all powers to the Constitution, with the democratic principle, which ‘would demand that considerable weight be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada.’” Finally, Fossas concludes that the main lesson from the ruling lies in “the Court’s abstention from imposing concrete solutions and in the proclamation of a constitutional obligation to negotiate by means of a process ‘which would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities.’ In short, a model decision because it opts for dialogue, negotiation, consensus, compromise, and agreement. In other words, for constitutionalism , democracy , and federalism .”
- 3.
As pointed out by Biglino Campos (2016: 453), the need for a clear majority to a clear question “has already become part of the constitutional patrimony in the field of secession .”
- 4.
The author, while thanking the Court for its efforts and the substantial contributions, points out a shortcoming: from the “perspective of democratic theory, not all of the implications and suggestions that have been considered have been addressed fully or fairly” (López Aguilar 1999: 34).
- 5.
The author underscores not only the rigour and the legal skill of the Canadian decision, but also the balanced position (equidistancia) between the debated positions (Pérez Tremps 2004: 32–33).
- 6.
The author holds the advisory opinion as an “exemplary” judicial ruling, which has become an “unavoidable universal benchmark” in the debate on secession because of its “convincing and thorough arguments” (Sáiz Arnáiz 2007: 46).
- 7.
Requejo highlights the fact that the Reference supports the legitimacy of the “peoples” in a plurinational federation to start a constitutional change which may lead to secession , as long as certain conditions are met. Thus, the Court gives legitimacy to the right of self-determination from a federal, rather than a nationalist, standpoint. In doing so, it creates a “new form of constitutionalism ” in which the right to self-determination represents an expression of the collective freedom of national groups (2003: 121–122). See also Caminal (2002: 117–118, footnote 157).
- 8.
López Basaguren warns of a “mechanistic interpretation” put forward by many in Spain regarding the Clarity Act . The author correctly distinguishes between what he calls “the clarity theory,” laid out by the SCC, and the “Clarity Act ”, which is an interpretation of the former “that is debatable and which has indeed been debated” (by the National Assembly of Quebec, for example) (2016: 165–166). Calonge also draws a distinction between the Reference of the SCC and its legislative concretion, both at a federal level and by the Assembly of Quebec (2013: 117 et seq.). The author rejects simplistic readings of the Canadian case and shows a certain skepticism on whether the situation in Quebec has been resolved (ibidem 2013: 123).
- 9.
We would like to highlight, given the relevance of its author and the influence it has had on the Spanish public debate, the article by Francisco Rubio Llorente, “Un referéndum para Cataluña,” El País, 8 October 2012. In this article, Professor Rubio invoked the decision of the SCC as a suitable solution to the Catalan case. More precisely, he calls for a referendum to “find out the reality and strength” of the desire for independence in a territorialized minority, before a constitutional reform. In disagreement with the Reference, according to Rubio a clear question “need not be a single one.” In fact, it is the Clarity Act that specifies this aspect. See also the article by Agustín Ruiz Robledo, “El federalismo de la reconciliación,” El País, 9 August 2017. With the perspective provided by the events in Catalonia over these years, the lesson the author draws from the Canadian experience is the necessity of a combined use by the Government of the State of legal and political instruments to oppose the independence of Catalonia .
- 10.
According to this author, “[f]rom any standpoint, either legal or political, in order to solve grave political conflicts that affect the unity of the State it seems preferable to refer to the guidance of the Canadian Supreme Court, based on the principles of democracy and federalism , through a political negotiation for both the definition of a possible vote (the referendum envisaged in Article 92 of the Spanish Constitution may be valid if its terms have been agreed upon beforehand) and the specification of its effects” (Aja 2014: 367). It should be borne in mind that the SCC also mentions the principles of constitutionality, rule of law and respect for minorities. See also Ruiz-Rico (2016: 331).
- 11.
See also Tudela Aranda (2016: 494).
- 12.
In his opinion, supported by the case law of the Constitutional Court, “A mere appeal to the democratic principle in the terms of the Supreme Court of Canada is not sufficient to develop this third way in Spain through interpretation, given that the normative consequences of such principle are determined by the Spanish Constitution itself, and they do not include the attribution to the territorial entities of powers or faculties not envisaged by our legal system” (Alaez 2015: 149–150).
- 13.
Later Woehrling (2006: 146–148).
- 14.
The book includes a speech by Dion given in Ottawa on 20 August 1998, “Declaration as a reaction to the decision of the Supreme Court” (ibidem: 351–355). Later, Dion has intervened on several occasions in the Spanish territorial debate, offering his point of view on how the Clarity Act has decisively contributed to the fact that no more referendums have been held in Quebec since 1995. See Dion (2013).
- 15.
These authors compare the treatment given by the central governments of Canada and Spain, and underscore the “intolerance” and “intransigence” of the Spanish government “regarding autonomist and pro-independence Catalans,” while, at the same time pointing out, as regards the judgement, “the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada could inform and provide with arguments autonomist and pro-independence Catalans”; namely: “by imposing the need to act in good faith and with respect for constitutional principles, as well as the obligation to negotiate the secession in response to the expression of a clear majority in favour of it, the Supreme Court laid out cardinal principles that may provide strong arguments in Catalonia regarding to the exercise of democracy ” (ibidem: 26–27. UQAM political scientist A. Gagnon received the 2006 Vilaseca Price of the Institute of Autonomic Studies of the Government of Catalonia for his Au-delà de la nation unificatrice: Plaidoyer pour le fédéralisme multinational, 2007).
- 16.
Juan José Solozábal, “Los independentistas de Quebec,” El Imparcial, 25 June 2014.
- 17.
Sentencia, in the original version of the text.
- 18.
This volume includes the writings of Quebecois Constitutional Law scholars Pelletier, Turp and Woehrling.
- 19.
In his speech before Congress, Ibarretxe mentioned, among others, the case of Quebec: “… we propose modern legal and political instruments, not from the 19th century, but rather from the 21st century, in order to develop the right to decide and the obligation to reach an agreement, as it is being proposed nowadays in advanced societies like Canada, Quebec, Ireland, Flanders, Wallonia, etc.” (1 February 2005). See http://paralalibertad.org/discurso-de-juan-jose-ibarretxe-en-el-congreso-el-122005/ (retrieved 9 August 2018).
- 20.
Among the claims of the Basque Parliament before the Constitutional Court, the Clarity Act is mentioned as a similar case to what the Basque popular consultation would represent, whose “… starting point is not the right to self-determination , but rather a context which demands solutions, like the one represented by the Canadian Clarity Act , that address the problem of structural minorities within a sovereign political community” (see Case History (5c) STC 103/2008).
- 21.
According to the Constitutional Court, there is room for the right to self-determination in the Spanish legal order, as long as the Constitution is reformed. According to Fernández Manjón and Torrado, this is the reason why a Clarity Act is not necessary in Spain, as it is in Canada (2009: 283).
- 22.
Thus, Vintró mentions twice the 1998 Reference of the SCC (2013).
- 23.
López Basaguren criticizes the biased reading of the Canadian case in the reports: “the Council’s pretension to justify its position on the grounds of the Advisory opinion of the SC of Canada is unsustainable, as it not only simplifies the complexity of the arguments developed by that Court to the point of making a caricature of them, but it also takes as indisputable certain interpretations that contradict literal statements present in its doctrinal construction” (2016: 183–184).
- 24.
Resolution 479/X, of 16 January 2014, of the Parliament of Catalonia . Congress rejected this proposal.
- 25.
See https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/09/opinion/1507565032_310252.html (retrieved on 9 August 2018). On November 28th, Professors Albertí, Vintró (UB) and Barceló (UAB) responded with another manifesto in which they invoked Comparative Law as well: “the current crisis contrasts vividly with the way in which other countries in our vicinity have solved similar territorial conflicts, like Canada in relation to Quebec, and the United Kingdom in relation to Scotland . Although there are naturally some differences, basic similarities also exist which allow for a comparison. The main one, that the Constitutions of both countries (written in Canada, unwritten in Britain) allowed for a path towards a solution by means of a popular vote before they explicitly envisaged it. In any event, the great question that we all, as Constitutional Law scholars, have before us, is whether the current Spanish Constitution is able to provide a solution to this conflict.”
- 26.
See Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, paragraphs 100, 101
- 27.
Especially along the same lines as the interpretation of Bill 99, consistent with the Constitution, recently provided by the Superior Court of Quebec (Henderson c. Procureure générale du Québec) in its decision of 18 April 2018.
References
Aja, Eliseo (2014), Estado autonómico y reforma federal, Alianza, Madrid.
Aláez Corral, Benito (2015), “Constitucionalizar la secesión para armonizar la legalidad constitucional y el principio democrático en estados territorialmente descentralizados como España”, in Revista d’Estudis Autonòmics i Federals (22), 136–183.
Bayona Rocamora, Antoni (2017), “El futur politic de Catalunya: el paper del Parlament”, in Revista Catalana de Dret Públic (54), 1–23.
Biglino Campos, Paloma (2016), “Cataluña, federalismo y pluralismo político”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 449–460.
Calonge Velázquez, Antonio (2013), “El derecho de secesión en Canadá: una regulación jurídica completa y un problema político sin resolver”, in Revista de Derecho de la Unión Europea (25), 107–124.
Caminal, Miquel (2002), El federalismo pluralista: Del federalismo nacional al federalismo plurinacional, Paidós, Barcelona.
Castellà Andreu, Josep Maria (2014), “Secesión y referéndum sobre el ‘derecho a decidir’ en Cataluña. Una aproximación desde el derecho constitucional”, in Joan Oliver (ed.), El futuro territorial del Estado español, Tirant lo blanch, Valencia, 451–490.
Castellà Andreu, Josep Maria (2016), “Tribunal Constitucional y proceso secesionista catalán: respuestas jurídico-constitucionales a un conflicto político-constitucional”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 561–592.
Chacón, Carmen and Ruiz Robledo, Agustín (1998), “El dictamen del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá sobre el derecho a la secesión de Quebec”, Translation, in Cuadernos Constitucionales de la Cátedra Fadrique Furió Ceriol (24), 129–180.
Consell Assessor per a la Transició Nacional (2013), The Consultation on the Political Future of Catalonia, First Report, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.
Consell Assessor per a la Transició Nacional (2014), The Constituent process, 10th Report, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.
Dion, Stéphane (2005), La política de la claridad: Discursos y escritos sobre la unidad canadiense, Alianza, Madrid.
Dion, Stéphane (2013), “Secesión y democracia: una perspectiva canadiense”, Real Instituto Elcano, 11 de abril 2013, http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_es/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_es/zonas_es/stephane-dion-secesion-democracia-secession-democracy-canada. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
Elkarri (2002), Quebec: La obligación constitucional de negociar, Ed. Elkarri, Donostia.
Fernández Manjón, Desiderio and Torrado Sancho, Julián (2009), “Autodeterminación en sistemas democráticos. El caso de la consulta en Euskadi”, in Revista Vasca de Administración Pública (83), 281–314.
Ferreres Comella, Victor (2016), “Cataluña y el derecho a decidir”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 461–476.
Fossas Espadaler, Enric (2014), “Interpretar la política. Comentario a la STC 42/2014, de 25 de marzo, sobre la Declaración de soberanía y el derecho a decidir del pueblo de Cataluña”, in Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional (101), 273–300.
Gaudreault DesBiens, Jean François (2016), “Algunos de los desafíos legales y políticos que debe afrontar el movimiento de independencia de Quebec”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 135–162 (see in this volume).
Guénette, Dave and Gagnon, Alain (2017), “Del referéndum a la secesión – El proceso quebequense de acceso a la soberanía y las lecciones aprendidas con respecto a la autodeterminación”, in Eunomía. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad (13), 9–30. Also published in French in la RCDP de l’Escola d’Administració Pública catalana (54), 2017.
Laforest, Guy (2013), “Trust and Mistrust Between Harper and Québec”, in Alberto López Basaguren y Leire Escajedo (Eds.), The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain, Volume II, Springer, Heidelberg, 341–358.
López Aguilar, Juan Fernando (1998), “Reflexiones a propósito de la reciente Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo (TS) de Canadá acerca de la secesión de la provincia de Quebec”, in Repertorio Aranzadi del Tribunal Constitucional (4), 519–526.
López Aguilar, Juan Fernando (1999), “Canadá y España: Una comparación desde el federalismo contractual”, Autonomies (25), 7–36.
López Basaguren, Alberto (2013), “La secesión de territorios en la Constitución española”, in Revista de Derecho de la Unión Europea (25), 87–106.
López Basaguren, Alberto (2016), “Demanda de secesión en Cataluña y sistema democrático. El procés a la luz de la experiencia comparada”, Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 163–185.
Pérez Tremps, Pablo (2004), El marco (a)constitucional del debate sobre la secesión de Quebec, Fundació Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona.
Requejo, Ferran (2003), Federalisme plurinacional i estat de les autonomies. Aspectes teòrics i aplicats, Proa, Barcelona.
Ruiz Rico, Gerardo (2016), “La reinvención constitucional del modelo territorial español y la propuesta soberanista en Cataluña”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 309–346.
Ruiz Robledo, Agustín and Chacón, Carmen (1999), “Comentario del dictamen del Tribunal Supremo canadiense de 20 de agosto de 1998 sobre la secesión de Quebec”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (3), 275–284.
Sáiz Arnáiz, Alejandro (2007), “Constitución y secesión”, in Parlamento y Constitución. Anuario (10), 33–56.
Tudela Aranda, José (2016), “El derecho a decidir y el principio democrático”, in Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (37), 477–498.
Vintró Castells, Joan (2013), “La declaració de sobirania i el dret a decidir del poble de Catalunya. Un apunt jurídic”, Blog Revista Catalana de Dret Públic, 7 February 2013.
Woehrling, José (1999), “El juicio del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá sobre la eventual secesión de Quebec”, in Revista Vasca de Administración Pública (54), 405–436.
Woehrling, José (2006), “Una introducció al sistema federal canadenc”, in L’Abast de l’autonomia política del Quebec, Parlament de Catalunya, Barcelona, 112–151.
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the project funded by MINECO DER2015-68160-C3-3-P, as well as of the activities developed by the Group of Studies on Democracy and Constitutionalism (GEDECO). I would like to thank Juan Tello for his assistance in the compilation of bibliography and Roger Boada for the translation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Castellà Andreu, J.M. (2019). The Reception in Spain of the Reference of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Secession of Quebec. In: Delledonne, G., Martinico, G. (eds) The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03469-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03469-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03468-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03469-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)