Hacker News Reader

Self-determination of peoples is a jus cogens law and a cardinal principle in international law. It's part of the UN's Charter and it's enshrined in many international treaties subscribed by Spain and by the European Union.

The Spanish constitution recognizes the right to self-determination inasmuch as it explicitly enshrines the international treaties that define it.

Spain has always defended that this right to self-determination is confined to colonies because it would otherwise conflict with the also very important principle of territorial integrity. However, the International Court of Justice explained in its Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 regarding the case of Kosovo that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”. Thus, even unilateral declarations of independence do not conflict with the aforementioned principle: “general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence“.

But the truth is self-determination is for nations and colonies.

In this case, the right for self-determination is for Spain, not for a part of Spain.

I suppose the Spanish government didn't do a good enough job of convincing the Catalonian people that they are part of Spain.

The majority of catalans don't want independence.

The political parties promoting independence represent less citizens than the political parties that want Catalonia to be part of Spain.

So really, the Spanish government should just have let the referendum go ahead peacefully, and thereby have had that fact publicly demonstrated.

Self-determination for some, miniature Spanish flags for others!

> The right to vote means nothing without liberal freedoms or without the indivisibility of the territory.

Woah now, that's an absolutely insane statement you just made. Actually, it's two absolutely insane statements.

There is nothing that says you have to have one particular set of rights before it counts as "democracy". The EU goes nowhere near as far as the US on some "liberal freedoms" (try supporting the Nazi Party in Germany and see where it gets you - being the most obvious example). They go much farther than the US does on some other ones. Which one of us is not a democracy in this situation?

Also, there's nothing that says a territory must necessarily be indivisible. Scotland independence, Puerto Rico independence (or statehood), and Catalan independence are all perennial issues. Hell, we literally just had the whole Brexit vote a year ago. There is no reason that any particular unit of government has a self-evident right to exist. They exist to serve their people! And in fact it would probably be better if we rearranged them more often - the US states are very unbalanced in many respects and it might be better if we rearranged them into equal populations and geographies that made a little more sense (this will never happen of course).

Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, and nothing else. If it doesn't work, there should absolutely be a right to dissolve it and reform another government. Or in other words: "when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

>>> Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, and nothing else.

Fan-bloody-tastic

This is lame reasoning. If that was the case democracy is just a dictatorship of the majority. Or a husband have a word when the wife wants to divorce.

You are just saying that if Catalonia wants independence they have to go to war and win it, because the Constitutions says the country is indivisible. Maybe you want the USA reintegrated into the UK, because british citizens didn't vote for the secession.

No, as he says Spain can vote to split amicably or they can go to war. The US isn't apart of the UK because they won the war. Virginia is a part of the US because the south lost the war. For an amicable split you would see something like India and the UK.

How long did it take to change the sacrosanct constitution in response to Euro Crisis?

> The right to vote means nothing without liberal freedoms or without the indivisibility of the territory.

I see the point of liberal freedoms, but care to explain, why the right to vote means nothing, if there is independence?

And if so, why is the Guardia Civil not in Western Sahara, if indivisibility such a supreme good?

You are so strict with your definition of democracy and so loose with your definition of war declaration...

The indivisibility of a nation was overruled when the EU nations ( sans Spain, Greece and Cyprus ) rushed to recognise the UDI of Kosovo.

At the time that was warned to be a dangerous precedent, and here we are.

Then I suppose you don't know or understand the history of every modern state in existence (including the United States).

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

The word "referendum" is vague in English, but it's the only term for the least-binding question a government can ask of its citizens. I am not familiar with the Spanish system of autonomies, but in federal systems like the US, small bodies regularly pass referendums, resolutions, and even laws concerning how they will interact with larger ones. Usually without such direct violence, even when the laws conflict.

On a purely practical level, by cracking down on the vote, they only ensure its outcome. See if it passes and then strike down the resulting legal structure in a higher court, at the very least. The constitution of every divided country has measures to deal with these, and the first step is never "cracking skulls."

This is not so simple. Most european countries were formed by conquering neighbour countries by the strongest one. So this is the Constitution written by conquerors. Not everyone might be happy with it.

If the constitution and the courts have deemed the ref illegal and any outcome invalid what else do you need to prove that independentist have no legal ground to proceed? The war declaration is from the police and who controls them. Catalans may be playing referendum but that's their call. Are you going to shoot the first person who declares independence?

The value of freedom of speech is very weak in spain...

How do you think countries are created and absorbed? through legality and democratic negotiation? Power and powerful allies is what matters. In any case throwing the police against your country citizens (which are the powerless), just seems the worst possible strategy. How many people changed their minds today to a pro united Spain stance?

Yeah well. Constitution aren't that sacred https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Belgium?wpro...

Is this opposition to secession retroactive?