Suchergebnisse

This article analyzes possible procedures for political secession. After a literature review of theories of secession, the article presents the main arguments against & for secession. Than, on the basis of "no-fault" theory, this article proposes a procedure for secession. Furthermore, this procedure is empirically tested through analyses of secessions from former Yugoslavia. The main hypothesis is that secession is justified in two cases: first, when secession occurs as a result of consensus of all the main actors, including central government, &, second, when at least two-third majority of population supports secession. References. Adapted from the source document.

The controversial issue of secession has received little attention from experts of federalism. The best federal studies either evade it or dismiss it in a few lines. However, the issue of secession has been present throughout the history of federations. This book is one of the first to explore the complex relationship between federalism and secession. The authors whose work is presented here recognize the potential of federalism as a way to organize relations between several different states, peoples, nations or territories under the same government. However, they are not naïve or idealist about the ability of the federal idea to succeed in the complex situations in which it is applied. In some cases success seems assured (the United States, Switzerland, Germany, etc.), and the merits of federalism can be showcased. But there are also failures (the former Yugoslavia, or more recently Brexit) and semi-failures that have generated turbulence in recent years in devolutive systems (Scotland in the United Kingdom, Catalonia in Spain) or federative systems (Québec in Canada). This book provides a nuanced portrait of the issue of secession in federal contexts and lays the groundwork for questioning the still too fragile legacy of the great thinkers of federalism.

Webb reviews 'Theories of Secession' edited by Percy B. Lehning.

                                   TEXITLast June, the Convention of the Republican Party of Texas met in Houston and unanimously approved a Resolution that urges the state legislature that will be elected this November to call a referendum for secession from the United States within a year. At such a screeching purpose, some in Washington muttered, "Again...?"Texas' independence has a history. The first secession was from Mexico, in 1836, and established the Republic of Texas with the Lone Star, which lasted only nine years, but is still remembered and celebrated. For an entertaining version of this episode, look for the movie Lone Star (1952), in which the ravishing editor of the local newspaper, Ava Gardner, oscillates between the Republic of her lover and state senator, buxom Broderick Crawford, and the envoy of Washington to annex it to the Union, handsome Clark Gable. It goes without saying who wins the game.The second secession was, therefore, from the United States, as part of the southern and slave-holder Confederation in the Civil War of 1861-1865. Coming from Spain, one wonders how long the traumatic memory of a civil war can survive or relive. There is no one left alive today who would have known someone who had seen a slave. However, the historical reference continues to be active in many political disputes.Since the late 19th century, Texas governors and congressional majorities were from the Democratic Party, the loser of the Civil War. Republicans only began to gain ground after the federal anti-segregation and racial exclusion laws promoted by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, including the Voting Rights Act that Republican Texans would now like to repeal. Richard Nixon then launched the "Southern Strategy" to attract racists to the Republican party. Its dominance has been consolidated since the 1990s when George W. Bush was elected governor before becoming president by the grace of the Supreme Court. The Democrats maintain positions in the capital, Austin, which is having a great boom, cities such as Houston and San Antonio, and the border area with Mexico. But Texas, which had been the largest and richest state in the Confederacy, was also the largest of those that gave victory to Donald Trump. Of all the things that I have learned living in the United States, the one that I least expected is its high territorial fragmentation. The country is not only divided politically and morally but also territorially. In some ways, it is the Disunited States of America.That is why I always insist that, because of its enormous size and diversity, the United States cannot be compared with any European country, as is often done by referring to variables such as crime rates, relative poverty, or inequality. To hold, for example, that the United States should have a welfare system like Denmark, as Senator Bernie Sanders said, is nonsense because there is room for fifty denmarks in the United States. The appropriate comparison is between the United States and the European Union, which is also a large and diverse imperial-type unit, in a process of unification, but which still maintains and will surely always maintain great differences between the member states, as occurs in the United States.In some eras, tourist propaganda proclaimed: "Texas. It's Like A Whole Other Country." The pro-indepes argue that, if it were independent, it would be the ninth country in the world in (nominal) GDP. Texit is based on a sentence of the Supreme Court after the Civil War in which the unilateral secession of the states that had formed the Confederation was annulled. The Union was considered indissoluble and could not be revoked, "except through consent of the States."In fact, in Puerto Rico there have been six legal referendums in which it has been possible to vote for independence, the most recent two years ago. In almost all of them there have been three alternatives: one, to stay as it is: a territory subject to the authority of Congress in Washington; two, to become a state of the Union; and three, independence, which has always obtained single-digit percentages of the vote.The Republican National Committee does not, of course, support the Texas secession referendum. But also the American political parties are diverse and fragmented. In practice, the two national parties are large umbrellas for the state and local parties and, outside of Congress, they only function at the national level for the presidential election campaign every four years.Federal midterm elections this November coincide with the election of several governors and state legislatures, including those in Texas. The current Governor, Republican Greg Abbott, has campaigned against massive border crossings from Mexico by sending buses carrying thousands of illegal immigrants to Washington, New York, and Chicago, cities governed by Democrats. According to his party's platform, Joe Biden is the "acting" president since his election was illegitimate; any limitation of the purchase of weapons, even to minors, is a violation of the Constitution and God-given rights; homosexuality is an "abnormal lifestyle choice"; and the United States should leave the UN.His Democratic opponent is a very spirited young man, Beto O'Rourke, who is focused on gun control after the recent Uvalde massacre and advocates for gun-free zones near schools.For now, the polls give an advantage to Abbott, the one who should validate the secession referendum.LA VANGUARDIA, 10 de octubre de 2022