21

Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states that states cannot secede from the U.S. through legal means.

However, some other countries allow legal secession. Why do some countries have rules in their constitutions that allow states to secede from the country through legal means? Is there any advantage in allowing such a thing?

Some examples of countries which have such provisions are (from comments):

  • Northern Ireland has the ability to leave (after a referendum in both it and Ireland) the UK and join Ireland.
  • The French Constitution provides for overseas territories to change their status by referendum.
  • The UK has no written constitution, but many of its former territories have become independent (or in at least two cases been ceded to another state).
  • The Saarland was transferred from France to Germany after a plebiscite.
  • Niue and the Cook Islands are in free association with New Zealand and can terminate or alter this should they wish.
Philipp
  • 76,766
  • 22
  • 234
  • 272
Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290
  • 41
    Article 4, section 3 gives the method by which states may be admitted. It doesn't say anything secession. – James K Jun 27 '21 at 04:20
  • 4
    Related: Do any countries have a procedure that allows a constituent part of that country to become independent unilaterally? – CDJB Jun 27 '21 at 06:49
  • 7
    Can you give an example of a country with a secession clause in its constitution? – Philipp Jun 27 '21 at 07:35
  • None of these countries you mention have states – Neil Meyer Jun 28 '21 at 17:45
  • 3
    A lot of these examples just wouldn't be "secession" as generally understood. The Saarland for example was a protectorate and not part of France proper, the British Empire was mostly colonies and dominions rather than states proper, etc. – TenthJustice Jun 29 '21 at 01:21
  • "The Saarland was transferred from France to Germany after a plebiscite." That's wrong. Saarland was a politically independent country, just was very closely tied to France (same economic area, same currency). But, e. g., we had a national soccer team which even participated at the World Championship 1954 and an own National Olympic Commitee. – glglgl Jun 29 '21 at 06:44
  • 3
    @Sayaman - since "Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution" doesn't preclude legal secession, can you provide another source? If not, perhaps just remove the first paragraph since it detracts from an otherwise worthwhile question. – Don Branson Jun 29 '21 at 17:17
  • 1
    To elaborate on what @DonBranson said, Article IV sec 3 guarantees that states retain their territory bounds when they enter the union and can only be joined with another state (never happened) or broken into smaller states (Has happened before, with Virginia having multiple breaks and Maine formerly being part of Mass.) without the consent of all state legislatures and congress. In short, it's protecting the state's right to manage breaking into two smaller states or say... "N. Dakota and S. Dakota uniting after finally resolving their differences." – hszmv Jun 29 '21 at 18:28
  • 2
    @DonBranson Texas v. White held that states cannot secede, so although the op citing article 4 may not be correct, their claim that unilateral secession is illegal in the US is the general opinion of most legal scholars, and more importantly the SC. – eps Jun 29 '21 at 18:51
  • 2
    @eps - that's what I'm looking for. – Don Branson Jun 29 '21 at 18:56
  • 1
    Key points of the decision: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.... And it was final." – eps Jun 29 '21 at 18:58

4 Answers4

69

Avoidance of conflict.

By allowing for a constitutional method for a region to leave a union, one avoids extraconstitutional methods: civil war.

James K
  • 120,320
  • 22
  • 366
  • 478
  • 2
    It isn't always something with civil war. Danish politicians have debated the independence of Greenland seriously for many years and I think that debate have been without fear of civil war. (And everybody assume full independence will be given when the time is right). – Thomas Koelle Jun 27 '21 at 07:04
  • 26
    Well, yes that is my point. By allowing Greenland a constitutional method for independence "when the time is right" and maintaining debate, Denmark has avoided civil war. If everybody assumed that independence would never be granted peacefully, then there may be a stratum in Greenlandic society that would try to achieve independence by other means. – James K Jun 27 '21 at 07:36
  • 6
    I doubt a civil war over Greenland is imminent even without a constitutional provision for secession. – chepner Jun 27 '21 at 18:03
  • 12
    @chepner It's probably not imminent, but if some group really wanted independence for Greenland, and there was truly no constitutional path to secession, where do you think things might go? – Tashus Jun 27 '21 at 21:42
  • 5
    @Tashus: A constitutional amendment? – Vikki Jun 28 '21 at 01:30
  • 1
    @Vikki: No, but if they got overwhelming local numbers, they just make themselves a thorn in Denmark's side until Denmark's had enough. Quite frankly, it'd be easier for Hawaii to break away from the US by that method than Greenland from Denmark though. In the US, a vastly unpopular law is all but unenforceable. – Joshua Jun 28 '21 at 03:59
  • 3
    There are forms of conflict significantly short of civil war that governments such as Denmark may also seek to avoid, such as street protests, political pressure, electoral losses, boycotts, and bad publicity or press coverage. For places where the issue of secession is controversial (such as Scotland or Catalonia), governments have more tolerance for these forms of conflict than in places where it is not. – James_pic Jun 28 '21 at 12:08
  • I get that you all seem to be using Greenland as an example; however, considering the resources of (under, actually) the island, it would not be in Denmark's long-term benefit to allow Greenland complete independence. – CGCampbell Jun 28 '21 at 14:24
31

The question implicitly assumes that a territory seceding from a country must be a loss for the country, and therefore that a country should avoid any risk of this happening.

This would be true from the point of view of a world seen as a zero-sum game of wealth and power, but this is a fallacy from the point of view of a world which tends towards freedom and democracy. The general principle in the latter view is that humankind as a whole is better off if people are free to choose what they want rather than if they are dominated by rules that they can't change, at least not within the bounds of legal and peaceful means. The assumption is that people being free leads to a better environment across the board: more peaceful societies, nurturing environment for better and faster social and technological progress, more cooperation and solidarity within and between communities, etc. It's important to realize that it's not because freedom to secede exists that it's going to be used. In turn this means that the society in a country allowing secession is willfully staying together.

To some extent allowing a territory to secede is comparable to laws allowing divorce. There is no direct "advantage" in a divorce, but it's preferable to acknowledge that an existing arrangement is not appropriate anymore and let the parties go their own way, rather than forcing them to stay together with all the resentment, anger and potential violence that this could lead to.

Erwan
  • 17,845
  • 7
  • 52
  • 88
  • 1
    It is always a loss for the population of both sides of the secession. If, say, the island of Kyushu seceded from Japan, a person living in Hokkaido would automatically loose a lot of rights regarding the "lost" island; usually without having a say in the matter. The same would apply to people in Kyushu, mind you, but those at least would presumably get to vote or something. – Diego Sánchez Jun 27 '21 at 16:29
  • 8
    @Diego Sánchez: Not necessarily so. The two could be politically different, while still maintaining open travel and economy. E.g. the European Union, or (until recent years) the US and Canada. – jamesqf Jun 27 '21 at 16:47
  • @jamesqf It will never be the same as full citizenship. People would loose citizenship on part of their former country, unless they agree to give full citizenship on both states for everyone and their descendants till the end of time. At some point, there must be a limit somewhere or it wouldn't be a secession. – Diego Sánchez Jun 27 '21 at 17:03
  • @jamesqf Your EU example if fitting: as a Spaniard I can freely move to the Balearic Islands "just because". If I want to move to Sardinia I need to fulfill some requirement or I can be expelled. – Diego Sánchez Jun 27 '21 at 17:05
  • 3
    @DiegoSánchez in the short term it's likely that secession is not an advantage for the country, but in the long term it could be: if a significant proportion of the population is unhappy, this would at least hinder progress in the society in general, possibly cause various political obstacles to making new laws, maybe even require more army/police resources to prevent or fight violent insurrection, etc. In the long term, maintaining a part of the population in the country against their will is a huge disadvantage. Letting them secede is comparatively a better option. – Erwan Jun 27 '21 at 17:43
  • @Erwan My point is that your first paragraph seems wrong, as a secession always implies a loss of rights for the population in both sides of the divide. Si I think it makes sense to frame a secession as a loss. – Diego Sánchez Jun 27 '21 at 17:51
  • 4
    @DiegoSánchez I disagree: a loss in the short term is not necessarily a loss in the long term. For example the two separated populations may end up with different sets of rights which better correspond to what they want as a society, whereas said rights would have been impossible to obtain without separation. – Erwan Jun 27 '21 at 19:00
  • 2
    Interesting conversation but I'm not sure what its application is to the question. If you don't have the right to secede then you have fewer rights than someone who does. As with any right, you need not exercise that right. And if you have a legal avenue to secession, how could you morally secede through other means? And while you could say that secession always implies a loss of rights for everyone, that outcome is amplified when violence is the tool of separation. – Mockman Jun 27 '21 at 19:47
  • @DiegoSánchez secession can also lead to a gain of rights. When Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom, they gained the right to avoid conscription into the British Army, without which Irish neutrality in the second world war would not have been allowed. – James_pic Jun 28 '21 at 12:25
  • This answer is problematic, because it's hard to draw a line. For example say California decides to secede from the US because they can't stand Trump getting elected in 2016, and say the rest of the US allows it. However some districts of California were staunchly pro-Trump, so suppose they decide to secede from California too, and suppose California allows it. But within these districts there will be people who voted for Clinton, and say they decide to secede ... etc. Pretty soon one would end up with nonsense. – Allure Jun 29 '21 at 05:49
  • This neglects Crimea. – Allure Jun 29 '21 at 05:50
  • 1
    @Allure this is an interesting point, indeed it's a problem which exists in the principle of self-determination: "[..] Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination". This difficulty probably happened a few times in the decolonization process, I'm aware at least of the example of Mayotte... – Erwan Jun 29 '21 at 08:23
  • 1
    ... But this problem doesn't invalidate the principle of self-determination, it would be absurd to say that nobody can claim independence because it's too much headache to deal with the details. – Erwan Jun 29 '21 at 08:26
  • @DiegoSánchez you are assuming a state that gives equal rights to all its citizens. To take your original example, if we imagine that people living on Kyushu were treated as second class citizens by the state of Japan, having fewer rights than their peers in other areas of the country, then by seceding they would only gain rights and not lose them. – terdon Jun 29 '21 at 16:27
  • "... a world which tends towards freedom and democracy." Well, sadly, I must disagree on this statement. It's true that after WWII and, later, after the fall USSR, many countries, especially in Europe, adopted a democratic system. However in the last two decades many countries are turning their back to democracy (e.g, I would call Russia, Turkey or Belarus democracies only formally) and even in the EU we have Hungary which is blatantly going against most of the ideals of the "EU founding fathers".... – LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike Jun 30 '21 at 11:11
  • ... Moreover, the "Arab spring" has mostly failed to bring democracy to those countries, Myanmar has fallen back to be a military regime. And even if we don't consider democracy but just freedom, I still fail to see this tendency. I'd really like someone to prove me wrong with hard data, though. – LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike Jun 30 '21 at 11:11
26

In order to get them in in the first place.

Independent states may be more willing to enter the union if they have a way back. As with any decision, not all effects are predictable.

fraxinus
  • 6,100
  • 11
  • 31
14

In some cases, it can provide another layer of checks and balances on the functioning of the state as a whole. In 2003, the constitution of Liechtenstein was reformed by a 'Princely Initiative' proposed by Prince Hans-Adam II and accepted in a nationwide referendum. The changes granted the Prince new powers, including the right to dismiss the government (Article 48) and to veto legislation (Article 65). However, these powers can be overridden by the population by holding a referendum.

In addition, the 2003 reform included a provision for individual municipalities to secede from the union if such action is supported by a majority of their population (Article 4), ensuring that the municipalities continue to be governed by consent, and reinforcing the state's commitment to federalism.

CDJB
  • 106,388
  • 31
  • 455
  • 516
  • 2
    On the either hand, what is a municipality that secedes from Lichtenstein supposed to do? It's not like we're talking about NYC or London here. – Azor Ahai -him- Jun 27 '21 at 14:45
  • 3
    @AzorAhai-him- Well that's true, a new country of Planken with its population of ~500 seems unlikely. It could, however, join Austria or Switzerland. – CDJB Jun 27 '21 at 14:48
  • 2
    @AzorAhai-him- Because Liechtenstein is already tightly integrated with Switzerland, most likely the municipality would join Switzerland or more exactly it would join a Swiss canton (which would make it part of Switzerland), probably St. Gallen or Chur. Maybe they would like the advantages of EU membership, then they would probably join Austria because tiny microstates currently can't easily join the EU. But tiny independent microstates can also get away with a lot of stuff so maybe they would prefer that. – Nobody Jun 27 '21 at 17:51
  • @nobody Still, without a guarantee to join either Switzerland or Austria I feel like this provision is kinda pointless – Azor Ahai -him- Jun 27 '21 at 20:09
  • 2
    @AzorAhai-him-: The entire population of Liechtenstein is less than 40k, so Liechtensteiners probably don't think it's essential to live in a country as big as NYC or London. (Also, one could conceive of multiple municipalities seceding together, if all agreed. For example, Vaduz and Schaan are neighbors, and together represent over one-quarter of the country.) – ruakh Jun 29 '21 at 05:24
  • @ruakh Well no, but Schaduz would be the one of the two smallest countries in the world and that's the best case scenario – Azor Ahai -him- Jun 30 '21 at 04:22