Law professors should not be political prognosticators. That’s probably something on which we can all agree. Nonetheless, here’s my prediction: despite
the current buzz (see also,
this), California will not secede from the United States. Sorry,
Silicon Valley Hamiltons. However, the “
Yes California” movement, spurred on by a Trump presidential victory can be instructive on the law, psychology, and incentives behind more robust secessionist movements around the world.
As Julian mentioned in a post earlier today, the "#Calexit" movement is seeking a referendum on secession in 2019. The group’s website states:
"As the sixth largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. Point by point, California compares and competes with countries, not just the 49 other states.”
In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.
Although charity is part of our culture, when you consider that California’s infrastructure is falling apart, our public schools are ranked among the worst in the entire country, we have the highest number of homeless persons living without shelter and other basic necessities, poverty rates remain high, income inequality continues to expand, and we must often borrow money from the future to provide services for today, now is not the time for charity.
This statement, and much about the movement, is like a study in secessionist politics, albeit with a sun-kissed white wine and Jacuzzis twist. OK, that Jacuzzi quip may be snarky, but I wanted to attach an image to this idea: the yearning for Calexit, such as it is, is an example of a wish for a “secession of the successful” (to use a term political geographers John O’Loughlin, Gerard Toal, and Rebecca Chamberlain-Creanga used to describe the attempted Transnistrian secession from Moldova, actually). These types of separatist movements, in which the separating group wants to stop paying rents to the central government and/or keep resources within their own territory for themselves, are generally called “tax exits.”
The Transnistrian, Slovenian, and Croatian separations or or attempted secessions all had elements of tax exits. (See P. Collier & A. Hoeffler, ‘The Political Economy of Secession’, in H. Hannum & E. F. Babbitt (eds),
Negotiating Self Determination (2006), 46 (concerning Slovenia and Croatia)). This is not even a solely a phenomenon of nation-building. In the U.S., we have even had new
towns made up of wealthy neighborhoods that
separated themselves from existing municipalities over tax allocations.
Perhaps the best analogy, though, is Catalonia. Relatively wealthy,
a large export economy, and the hub of creative industries in Spain, Catalonia even looks like parts of California (or vice versa). A common complaint is that wealth generated in Catalonia is redistributed by the national government to regions that are economically weak.
Now,
here’s what the Calexiters argue:
Since 1987, California has been subsidizing the other states at a loss of tens and sometimes hundreds of billions of dollars in a single fiscal year. As a result, we are often forced to raise taxes and charge fees in California, and borrow money from the future to make up the difference. This is partly why California presently has some of the highest taxes in the country, and so much debt. Independence means that all of our taxes will be kept in California based on the priorities we set, and we will be able to do so while repaying our debts and phasing out the current state income tax.
You can’t state more clearly that a tax exit is a significant motivating factor for Calexit.
So, if a majority of Californians say “yes to California,” do they have a right to become their own country under domestic law or international law?
Julian answered the domestic law question in his post.
As for international law, the right to self-determination is described in Article 1 of both the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights Covenant and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
However, while Catalans, for example, can make a credible argument that they are a distinct people with their own language and culture and a heritage as a significant nation in European history, Calexiters are mainly upset about the recent election and would like to hang on to more tax revenues. Those are disputes over policy, but not claims of an independent national identity.
Regardless, since the birth of the United Nations, diplomats and jurists emphasized that a right of self-determination
does not provide a remedy of secession outside of the context of decolonization. A broad right to secession would have clashed with a cornerstone of the UN, the territorial integrity of states. Outside of the context of decolonization, the right of self-determination for communities that are within already existing states is understood as a right to “internal” self-determination: the pursuit of political, cultural, linguistic, and other rights within the existing state (in this case, the U.S.).
However, secession is not in and of itself illegal under international law (although it may be linked to an act that is breach in international law, such as a military intervention by another state: think
Russia invading Georgia to assist South Ossetia.)
While secession may be
neither a right nor illegal under international law, secessionist acts are usually illegal under domestic laws. Taken together, whether or not a secession is successful begins as a domestic political struggle, framed by the legal system of the pre-existing country and sometimes implicating international law due to intervention by other countries (or if the secession becomes a non-international armed conflict, but that's another story).
All this sounds quite exotic in the context of
some tech industry founders applying their credo of “disruption” to national politics. (I’m just waiting for the first Calexiter to say he or she aims to
“break shit.”) The short answer is that there is no
right for California to secede under either domestic or international law.
However,
the rhetoric of self-determination is enticing to would-be nation-builders and Calexiters make many of the same mistakes as other tax exit secessionists:
First, they assume there is a clear path to secession, when that is rarely the case. Talk to the Catalans about this. They have mustered hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in
