(Mis)recognition in Catalunya and Quebec: The Politics of Judicial Containment

  • Elisenda Casanas Adam
  • François Rocher
Chapter
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

The issue of recognition of diversity in multinational states means that, in certain exceptional circumstances, political debates are transported into the judicial arena. The courts are thus required to define and circumscribe the political developments that are most able to maintain political stability while containing, to a certain extent, pressures from minority nations. In doing so, not only do they contribute to refocusing the debate on the conditions of acceptability of the claims of these minorities, but they also present, in a generally coherent way, the manner in which the majority group perceives itself. The recent Spanish Constitutional Court decision of June 2010, regarding the constitutionality of the Catalan Statute of Autonomy of 2006, has generated a serious crisis in the constitutional accommodation of Catalunya within Spain. The impact of this decision and the debates that have followed echo the significance of and discussion surrounding the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision on the Quebec secession reference in 1998, highlighting again the fundamental role of the Supreme/Constitutional Courts in the accommodation of national minorities in multinational polities.

Keywords

Political Community Autonomous Community National Minority Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Framework 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberti, Enoch. (2010). Concepto y fun ci on del Estatuto de Autonomîa en la Sentencia 31/2010, de28 de junio, sobre el Estatuto de Autonomîa de Cataluna, Special issue of the Revista catalana de dretpublic, pp. 81–85.Google Scholar
  2. Baicelo, Merce, Bernadî, Xavier and Vintro, Joan, (coords) (2010). Especial Sentencia 31/2010 del Tribunal Constitucional, sobre el Estatuto de Autonomîa de Cataluna de 2006, Special issue of the Revista catalana de drei public.Google Scholar
  3. BOUT dieu, Pierre. (1977). “Sur le pouvoir symbolique,” Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 32: 3, mai-juin, pp. 405–411.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, Piene. (1986). “La force du droit,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 64, septembre, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, Piene. (2012). Sur l’État Cours au Colláge de France 1989–1992 (Paris: Seuil).Google Scholar
  6. Brouillet, Eugénie and Yves Tanguay. (2011). “La légitimité de l’arbitrage constitutionnel en régime fédératif multinational. Le cas de la Cour suprême du Canada,” in Michel Seymour and Guy Laforest (eds), Le fédéralisme multinational. Un modále viable? (Bruxelles: P.I.E. Peter Lang), pp. 133–153.Google Scholar
  7. Canada, Clarity Act S.C. 2000 c. 26.Google Scholar
  8. Diaz, Francisco. (2011) “La tipologîa de los pronunciamientos en la STC 31/2010 y sus efectos sobre el Estatuto catalan y otras normas del ordenamiento vigente,” Revista catalana de dret public Vol. 43, pp. 53–86.Google Scholar
  9. Fossas, Enric. (2010). El Estatuto como norma y su funcion constitucional. Comentario a la Sentencia31/2010, Special issue of the Revista catalana de dret public pp. 91–95.Google Scholar
  10. Fossas, Enric. (2011). “El control de constitucionalitat dels Estatuts d’Autonomia,” Revista catalana de dret public Vol. 43, pp. 21–51.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira and Vanessa A. Baird. (1998). “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” American Political Science Review Vol. 92, pp. 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Institut D’Estudis Autonomies. (2011). Special issue “Especial sobre la Sentáncia de l’Estatut d’autonomia de Catalunya,” Revista d’Estudis Federals i Autonomies p. 12Google Scholar
  13. Knopff, Rainer, Dennis Baker and Sylvia LeRoy. (2009). “Courting Controversy: Strategic Judicial Decision Making,” in James Kelly and Christopher Manfredi (eds), Contested Constitutionalism (Vancouver: UBC Press), pp. 66–85.Google Scholar
  14. Lajoie, Andrée. (1997). Jugements de valeurs. Le discours judiciaire et le droit (Paris: Presses universitaires de France).Google Scholar
  15. Lajoie, Andrée. (2000). “La primauté du droit et la légitimité démocratique comme enjeux du Renvoi sur la sécession du Québec”, Politique et Sociétés Vol. 19, pp. 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leclair, Jean. (2000). “The Secession Reference: A Ruling in Search of a Nation”, Revue juridique Thémis Vol. 34, pp. 885–890.Google Scholar
  17. Mandel, Michael. (1999). “A Solomonic Judgment?”, Canada Watch Vol. 7, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  18. McFalls, Laurence. (2005). “L’Etat bâtard: illégitimité et légitimation chez Max Weber,” in Michel Coutu and Guy Rocher (eds), La légitimité de l’État et du droit Autour de Max Weber (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval), pp. 47–60.Google Scholar
  19. Millard, Gregory. (1999). “The Secession Reference and National Reconciliation: A Critical Note”, Canadian journal of Law and Society Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ocqueteau, Frédéric and Francine Soubiran-Paillet. (1996). “Champ juridique, juristes et rágles de droit: une sociologie entre disqualification et paradoxe”, Droit et société Vol. 32, pp. 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perelman, Chai’m. (1978). “La motivation des décisions de justice, essai de syntháse” in Chaïm Perelman & Paul Foriers (eds) La motivation des décisions de justice (Bruxelles: Emile Bruylant), pp. 415–426.Google Scholar
  22. Pinard, Maurice. (2000). Confusion and Misunderstanding Surrounding the Sovereignist Option (Brief submitted to the legislative committee of the House of Commons studying Bill C-20, 24 February).Google Scholar
  23. Radmilovic, Vuk. (2010). “Strategic Legitimacy Cultivation at the Supreme Court of Canada: Quebec Secession Reference and Beyond”, Canadian Journal of Political Science Vol. 43, No. 4, December, pp. 843–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rocher, François and Nadia Verrelli. (2003). “Questioning Constitutional Democracy in Canada: From the Canadian Supreme Court Reference on Quebec Secession to the Clarity Act”, in A.-G. Gagnon, Montserat Guibernau and F. Rocher (eds), The Institutional Accommodation of Diversity (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy), pp. 207–237.Google Scholar
  25. Supreme Court of Canada. (1998). Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.Google Scholar
  26. Thornhill, Chris. (2010). “Legality, Legitimacy and the Constitution: A Historical-Functionalist Approach”, in Chris Thomhill & Samantha Ashenden (eds), Legality and Legitimacy: Normative and Sociological Approaches (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 29–56.Google Scholar
  27. Tierney Stephen. (2003). “The Constitutional Accommodation of National Minorities in the UK and Canada: Judicial Approaches to Diversity”, in A.-G. Gagnon, Montserat Guibernau and F. Rocher (eds), The Institutional Accommodation of Diversity (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy), pp. 169–206.Google Scholar
  28. Tur, Rosario and Alvarez, Enrique. (2010). La consecuencias juridicas de la Sentencia 31/2010, de 28 dejunio, del Tribunal Constitucional sobre el Estatuto de Cataluna. La Sentencia de la perfecta Libertad (Cizur m enor: Aranzadi/Thomson Reuters).Google Scholar
  29. Viver, Carles. (2011). “El Tribunal Constitucional: Sempre, nomes.... i indis-cutible”? La funcio constitutional dels estauts en l’ambit de la distribucio de competencies scons la STC 31/20101, Revista d’Estudis Federals i Autonomics 12, pp. 363–402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elisenda Casanas Adam and François Rocher 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisenda Casanas Adam
  • François Rocher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations