Referandumla Ayrılma Konusunda Yüksek Mahkemenin Tutumu: Kanada-Quebec Örneği

Kanada federal hükümeti, Kanada Yüksek Mahkemesine Quebec’in Ayrılma Referansı ile ilgili üç soru yöneltmiştir: “İlk olarak, Kanada anayasası altında, Quebec Ulusal Meclisi, yasaması ya da hükümeti tek taraflı olarak Quebec’in Kanada’dan ayrılmasını tatbik edebilir mi? İkincisi, Uluslararası hukuk, Quebec Ulusal Meclisine, yasamasına ya da hükümetine tek taraflı olarak Quebec’in Kanada’dan ayrılmasını tatbik etme hakkını verir mi? Bu bakımdan, uluslararası hukukta Quebec Ulusal Meclisine, yasamasına ya da hükümetine tek taraflı olarak Quebec’in Kanada’dan ayrılması hakkını veren kendi kaderini tayin hakkı var mıdır? Üçüncü olarak, Quebec Ulusal Meclisine, yasamasına ya da hükümetine tek taraflı olarak Quebec’in Kanada’dan ayrılmasını tatbik etme hakkı üzerine yerel ve uluslararası hukuk arasında bir ihtilaf olması durumunda hangisi Kanada’da örnek olarak yer alacaktır?” Quebec’in tek taraflı olarak bağımsızlığını ilan edip edemeyeceği sorusuna karşın, Yüksek Mahkeme, Ayrılma Referansında oybirliğiyle, bu tür bir deklarasyonun hem Kanada anayasa hukukunca hem de uluslararası hukukça yasal olmadığını bildirmiştir. Ancak, anayasal bir değişiklik durumunda böyle bir ayrılmanın mümkün olabileceği sonucuna varmıştır.

Supreme Court's Attitude on Secession Via Referendum: Canada-Quebec Case

Federal Government submit three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada constituting the Supreme Court Reference re Secession of Quebec: “First, under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? Second, does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? Third, in the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?” Faced with the question of whether Quebec could make a unilateral declaration of independence, the Supreme Court declared unanimously in the Secession Reference that such a declaration would be unconstitutional both by Canadian constitutional law and international law. A constitutional amendment would, however, make such a secession possible. If a clear majority of Quebecers opts for secession, the federal government and the other provinces would have a constitutional duty to negotiate.

PDF

___

CAIRNS, Alan C. (1988), “The Supreme Court, The UDI reference and democracy,” Policy Options,September: 45-48.
CAIRNS, Alan C. (1997), “Why is it so difficult to talk each other?,” McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill, Vol. 42, No. 63: 63-90.
HOGG, Peter (1999), “The Duty to Negotiate,” Canada Watch, Vol. 7, No. 1-2: 34-35.
HOWE, Paul (1998), “Rationality and Sovereignty Support in Quebec,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.. XXXI, No. 1: 31-59.
Robert JACKSON, Robert (1999), “Introduction: Sovereignty at the Millennium,” JACKSON, Robert (ed.), Sovereignty at the Millennium (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers): 1-8.
KEATING, Michael (1997), “Stateless nation-building: Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland in the changing state system,” Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 3, No. 4: 689-717.
KREPTUL, Andrei (2003), “The Constitutional Right of Secession in Political Theory and History,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4: 39-100.
LAFOREST, Guy (2004), Pour la liberté d’un société distincte. Parcours d’un intelectuel engagé (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval).
LAJOIE, Andrée (1999), “Le sens de l’expression ‘question claire’ dans le Renvoie relatif à la sécession du Québec” (7 Aralık 1999), http://www.vigile.net/9912/lajoie-claire.html
LALONDE, Sazanne (2003), “Quebec’s Boundaires in the Event of Secession,” Macquarie Law Journal, Vol. 3.
LUBLIN, David / VOSS, D. Stephen (2002), “Context and Francophone Support for the Sovereignty of Quebec: An Ecological Analysis,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35,No.1: 75-101.
McROBERTS, Kenneth (1988), Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 3. Baskı).
MONAHAN, Patrick J. (2000), “Doing the Rules. An Assessment of the Federal Clarity Act in Light of the Quebec Secession Reference,” C.D. Howe Institute, No. 135: 1-39.
MONAHAN Patrick J. / BRYANT, Michael J. (Nancy C. Coté ile birlikte) (1996), “Coming to Terms with Plan B: Ten Principles Governing Secession,” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 83 (Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute).
NANDA, Ved P. (2003), “Self-determination and Secession Under International Law,” Denv. J. Int’l L. Pol’y, Vol.. 29, No. 4: 305-326.
PAMMETT, Jon H. / LEDUC, Lawrence (2001), “Sovereignty, leadership and voting in the Quebec referendums,” Electoral Studies, 20: 265-280.
Alain PELLET, Alain (1999), “Avis juridique sommaire sur le projet de loi donnant effet à l’exigence de clarté formulée par la cour suprême du Canada,” le Renvoi sur la sécession du Québec.
RADAN, Peter (2003), “‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want’: The Territorial Scope of an Independent Quebec,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4: 629-663.
DES ROSIERS, Nathalie (2000), “From Telling to Listening: A Therapeutic Analysis of the Role of Courts in Minority-Majority Conflicts,” Court Review, Spring: 54-62.
ROCHER, François / VERRELLI, Nadia (2003), “Questioning constitutional democracy in Canada: from the Canadian Supreme Court reference on Quebec secession to the Clarity Act,” GAGNON Alain G. / GUIBERNAU, Montserrat / ROCHER, François (eds.), The Conditions of Diversity in Multinational Democracies (Montreal: IRPP): 207-237.
RUSSELL, Peter / RYDER, Bruce (1997), “Ratifying a Postreferendum Agreement on Quebec Sovereignty,” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 97 (Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute).
RYAN, Claude (2000a), “Consequences of the Quebec Secession Reference. The Clarity Bill and Beyond,” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, No. 139: 1-32.
RYAN, Claude (2000b), “Le Dossier Constitutionnel: Perspectives de Changement,” Policy Options: 42-45.
SEYMOUR, Michel (2000), “Quebec and Canada at the crossroads: a nation within a nation,”Nations and Nationalism, Vol.. 6, No. 2: 227-255.
TIERNEY, Stephen (2003), “The Constituional Accommodation of National Minorities in the UK and Canada: Judicial Approaches to Diversity,” GAGNON, Alain G. / GUIBERNAU, Montserrat / ROCHER, François (ed.s), The Conditions of Diversity in Multinational Democracies (Montreal: IRPP): 169-205.
TOOPE, Stephen J. (1999), “Reference by Governor in Council Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada, 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No. 2: 519-525.
USHER, Dan (1999), “Profundity Rampant: Secession and the Court, II,” Policy Options,September: 44-49.
VAN DER VYVER, Johan D. (2000), “Self-determination of the peoples of Quebec under International Law,” J. Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1: 1-37.
WEBBER, Jeremy (1997), “The Legality of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence under Canadian Law,” McGill Law Journal, Vol. 42: 281-317.