Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:41:27.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Secession’ and ‘Withdrawal’ from the European Union as Constitutional Expressions - Carlos Closa (ed.): Secession from a Member State and Withdrawal from the European Union: Troubled Membership (Cambridge University Press2017) 299 pp., ISBN: 978-1-316-62336-7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2018

Pekka Pohjankoski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 845 - 854
Copyright
© 2018 The Authors 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Mag. iur. (Helsinki), LL.M. (Harvard), Esq. (N.Y.), Legal Secretary (référendaire) at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The views expressed are personal.

References

1 See e.g. Singh, N., Termination of Membership in International Organisations (Stevens & Sons 1958) p. 23Google Scholar (‘Withdrawal is the most well-known device resorted to by States for terminating their membership in international organisations …’). For a recent example, see ‘United States Gives Notice of Withdrawal from UNESCO, Citing Anti-Israel Bias’, 112 American Journal of International Law (2018) p. 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, to this effect, e.g. Dugard, J., ‘A Legal Basis for Secession – Relevant Principles and Rules’, in J. Dahlitz (ed.), Secession and International Law: Conflict Avoidance – Regional Appraisals (United Nations/T.M.C. Asser Press 2003)Google Scholar.

3 For an overview of these debates, see Wyrozumska, A., ‘Article 50 [Voluntary Withdrawal from the Union]’, in H.-J. Blanke and S. Mangiameli (eds.), The Treaty on the European Union (TEU): A Commentary (Springer 2013) p. 1385Google Scholar at p. 1402–1406.

4 BVerfG (Second Senate) 30 June 2009, 2 BvE 2/08 et al., Dr. G. v German Bundestag, para. 233. An English-language version of the judgment is available at <www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en>, visited 22 October 2018.

5 For deliberate use this vocabulary, see e.g. Friel, R.J., ‘Secession from the European Union: Checking Out the Proverbial “Cockroach Motel”’, 27 Fordham International Law Journal (2003) p. 590Google Scholar at p. 592.

6 Jackson, V.C., ‘Secession, Transnational Precedents, and Constitutional Silences’, in S. Levinson (ed.), Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) p. 314Google Scholar at p. 316.

7 See e.g. Eeckhout, P. and Frantziou, E., ‘Brexit and Article 50 TEU: A Constitutionalist Reading’, 54 CMLR (2017) p. 695Google Scholar at p. 732 (characterising Art. 50 TEU’s context as ‘one of constitutionalisation’), and Hillion, C., ‘Withdrawal under Article 50 TEU: An Integration-Friendly Process’, 55 CMLR (2018) p. 29Google Scholar at p. 49 (describing withdrawal process as ‘a vigorous (re)affirmation of core constitutional principles of the EU’).

8 According to Art. 50(2) TEU, the withdrawal agreement shall be concluded ‘on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament’. See also Herbst, J., ‘Observations on the Right to Withdraw from the European Union: Who are the “Masters of the Treaties”?’, 6 German Law Journal (2005) p. 1755Google Scholar at p. 1758.

9 On the legal significance of the loss of citizenship in the EU sphere, see ECJ 2 March 2010, Case C-135/08, Janko Rottman v Freistaat Bayern (requiring proportionality analysis in case of individual decision to deprive EU citizen of Member State nationality), and ECJ Case C-221/17, M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (OJEU C 239, 24.7.2017, p. 26), currently pending.

10 Harbo, F., ‘Secession Right – an Anti-Federal Principle? Comparative Study of Federal States and the EU’, 1 Journal of Politics and Law (2008) p. 132CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See, most famously, Supreme Court of Canada 20 August 1998, 2 S.C.R. Reference re Secession of Quebec, p. 217 at p. 220 (holding that right of each participant in federation to initiate constitutional change implies duty on other participants to ‘engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative’ on secession).

12 See Elkins, Z., ‘The Logic and Design of a Low-Commitment Constitution (Or, How to Stop Worrying About the Right to Secede)’, in S. Levinson (ed.), Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) p. 294Google Scholar at p. 310 (describing right to secession as ‘flagship component of a low-commitment constitution’).

13 See Art. 4(2) TEU. On a comparative note, in the United States, the secession of states from the union is generally considered contrary to the US Constitution, while the (un)constitutionality of forming new states within existing states seems less clear. See, on secession of states, US Supreme Court 12 April 1869, 74 U.S., Texas v White, p. 700 at p. 725 (‘The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states’). The Alaskan Supreme Court has even gone so far as to consider on this basis that states are precluded from holding a referendum on secession. See Supreme Court of Alaska 17 November 2006, 147 P. 3d, Kohlhaas v Alaska, p. 714. On the partitioning of existing states, see US Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3. The proper construction of this provision appears to elude consensus, see Kesavan, V. and Paulsen, M. Stokes, ‘Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?’, 90 California Law Review (2002) p. 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 332 ff. On the recent debate concerning dividing up California, see e.g. Bomboy, S., ‘California three-state plan faces major legal, political hurdles’, Constitution Daily (13 June 2018), available at <constitutioncenter.org/blog/california-three-state-plan-faces-major-legal-political-hurdles>, visited 22 October 2018Google Scholar.

14 Rosas, A. and Armati, L., EU Constitutional Law: An Introduction (Hart 2018) p. 32Google Scholar.

15 R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 5, at para. 86.

16 ‘Thousands rally for Moldova to become part of Romania’, Politico, 25 March 2018, available at <www.politico.eu/article/moldova-romania-thousands-rally-to-become-part>, visited 22 October 2018,+visited+22+October+2018>Google Scholar.

17 Zimmermann, A., ‘State Succession in Treaties’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2015) paras. 4 and 9Google Scholar. See also ECJ 21 December 2011, Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America et al v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, para. 101 (holding customary international law is binding upon EU institutions).

18 See Art. 15(b) of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1978) 1946 UNTS, p. 3.

19 See Protocol on German Internal Trade and Connected Problems, annexed to the 1957 EEC Treaty. See also Jacqué, J.-P., ‘German Unification and the European Community’, 2 European Journal of International Law (1991) p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See, in particular, ‘“Time to get out” Will Poland leave the EU? Third of Poles demand EU Polexit’, Express, 22 March 2018, <www.express.co.uk/news/world/935620/Poland-EU-exit-Polexit-will-Poland-leave-European-Union>, visited 22 October 2018,+visited+22+October+2018>Google Scholar.

21 ‘Exclude Hungary from EU, says Luxembourg’s Asselborn’, BBC News, 13 September 2016, <www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37347352>, visited 22 October 2018,+visited+22+October+2018>Google Scholar.