I want to add a part to my constitution about the ability to secede and so I was looking into places that have either tried to secede and failed, and then also places that explicitly allow for secession.
I learned about Catalonia’s quest for secession from Spain when I was there, and recently have been learning about the long-term attempt at secession in the proposed State of Jefferson (rural California and Oregon).
Apparently there are countries that explicitly allow for secession. Here’s what AI says:
Ethiopia
Yes — explicitly allowed in the constitution.
Article 39 of Ethiopia’s Constitution grants “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” the unconditional right to self-determination, including secession.
It requires:
A two-thirds vote in the regional council
A referendum
Federal government facilitation
This is the clearest constitutional right to secede in the world.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Yes — allowed for the island of Nevis.
Nevis can secede if:
A referendum passes with a two-thirds majority.
This provision exists because the federation was formed by two islands with some tension between them.
Nevis has held a referendum before (1998), but it narrowly failed to reach the required threshold.
United Kingdom
Not constitutionally guaranteed, but politically permitted.
The UK does not have a single written constitution. However:
The government allowed a legal referendum in:
Scotland (2014 independence referendum)
This was done through political agreement between the UK and Scottish governments.
So while not a constitutional right, negotiated secession is possible.
Canada
Conditional / negotiated possibility.
After Quebec independence debates:
The Supreme Court ruled (1998) that:
A clear referendum majority would require the federal government to negotiate secession.
Parliament later passed the Clarity Act to define conditions.
So secession isn’t automatic — but a clear democratic vote triggers negotiations.
China
Technically allows exit — but only for Hong Kong under special law (theoretically).
Under the Basic Law framework, some argue Hong Kong had theoretical autonomy mechanisms.
In practice, secession is criminalized under national security law.
So realistically, secession is not permitted.
Most Countries Explicitly Prohibit Secession
Examples include:
Spain (Constitution declares “indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation” — relevant to Catalonia)
France
United States (Supreme Court case Texas v. White ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional)
Contrary to that court case, the American Declaration of Indpendence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[4]
I do like that part, and that kind of language is one reason why Americans are still a bit rowdy and less tyrannically controllable than other countries.
But the vague-ness of it is why it has been legally ignored. There needs to be specific steps for which we as citizens can alter or abolish our govt, and institute a new govt. Because if there are no stated legal methods for achieving it, then it will be considered illegal, even though it is vaguely stated in the constitution.
In the thread “A citizens convention once every 10 years”, we discuss ways in which the average citizen can alter this new govt, and the method we discuss is akin to instituting a whole new govt (or subsystem). But the idea that some part of the new country might wish to secede is not addressed, so I am doing it here. And it’s not just for LL, as I want to write a constitution that could be adopted by a larger country too.
Should there be prerequisites for an area to secede?
Should the seceding area have to be large enough to provide fundamental law and order govt services to its citizens?
Should even a single parcel of land be allowed to secede? And if they do, then should it be the policy of the remaining country to ban free travel from the seceded area into the remaining country, and thus allowing but also punishing secession?
This is a tough question at its core. I think that if we are to have a centralized state at all, it must be indivisible (Liberland Constitution, Article 1, Section 4), and that changes to the state should occur through referendum or constitutional amendment. Since Liberland is structured as a jointly owned proprietary civic enterprise grounded in property rights, territorial secession would effectively remove part of the shared asset base without agreement of the whole. I think secession is incompatible with the current structure unless dissolved/radically changed through referendum.
I think for secession to occur under the system Liberland has setup there must be a referendum of the whole because to do so without it is removing one’s political right to have a say in such a matter.
I think you guys are probably right in what you are proposing for LL. Since I am only 20% focused on LL, and 80% focused on creating a system of governance that any territory can use, I will continue to think about secession (especially in regards to the US).
If we consider the Ethiopia model for secession, they basically only allow for a subunit of govt to secede from the larger govt. A “regional state’s legislative council” must pass a 2/3rds vote. And I see it as one of the requirements for secession that the seceding territory have a fully working govt.
It is too dangerous for the original country to allow for a single parcel or many parcels of land to secede. Since LL is basically a federal govt and local govt all-in-one, it cannot be subdivided any further and would thus be exempt from any secession possibility.
A seceding territory without a working govt has a very tiny chance of success (as we have seen with all the difficulties building LL from scratch). The original country cannot allow for the high likelihood of the seceding territory to turn into a den for criminals or terrorists. It would be too big of a burden to impose on their citizens to have terrorists as neighbors.
So if we put the requirement to secede as firstly having a currently working govt (as Jefferson county CA has), then next we have to think about who might come in from outside and subvert the secession ability. London and Dearborn Michigan provide the examples that immigrants can flow in from another country and self-group in one area and take over that areas govt. So even tho we now have the necessity of a working govt, immigrants could manipulate their way around that and seize their own country without a shot being fired.
Perhaps this immigrant invasion scenario could be blocked by strict immigration policies and not letting immigrants serve in govt.
In Ethiopia, after the “regional state’s legislative council” vote, there has to be a country-wide vote. A country-wide vote would probably stop the immigrant invasion scenario, but also probably stops all attempts at secession, as it effectively has in Ethiopia. Why would any country want to give up tax-payers?
So what method is more fair than a country-wide vote?
No matter how you look at it you have to have consent from some group, my question is though which group. Historically secession can be very decisive and deadly but that’s not always the case though. The velvet divorce that many people on here experienced firsthand including this Liberland’s president know it can be done but it was a consensual breakup and I think that is the key neither the Cezchs nor the Slovakians wanted a unified state but were forced to under communist rule.
Thats the main issue here in America the US Congress has the final say. You bring up California as an example did you know that California was to be split north/south by the Pico Act which was passed by California Legislature AND the voters in 1859? It was never brought up in the US Congress due to the start of the civil war otherwise California would be split in half along the straight line that marks the northern boundaries of San Bernardino, Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties.
I hadn’t heard of Pico, but the idea has been brought up recently in the Cal 3 proposal to split CA into 3 states. It actually qualified for the 2018 ballot, and then the state supreme court removed it because it “would cause significant disruption and require voter clarity on complex constitutional issues”. Sounds more like the court scammed voters out of an opportunity.
I just realized I have been calling everything secession, but we should clarify: secession should mean separating from the entire country, and separating from a state to create a new state or to join an existing state needs to be called partition/division/redistricting/etc.
Partition/division/redistricting/etc should definitely be allowed for and I will include it in my constitution. Part of a state joining a different state should be incredibly easy to do, and not the nightmare it currently is in the US.
As of now, I am planning to include the Ethiopian version of actual secession in my constitution.
It is amazing to me how much splitting up Cali has been brought up since Cali became a state. I’m sure you remember 6 Californias from about 10 years ago right?
Yeah it was the same guy, Tim Draper, that brought it up that time, and the state supreme court blocked it then too. CA needs to be split up; it is way too big and diverse to operate efficiently. It’s a lib stronghold right now with the most crooked voting in the union so they’re not going to give that up easily.
What do you think the outcome would be would the proposed states be blue, red or purple or some mix? I have no clue since I have never followed bizzaro world over there
2020 and prior may have been more balanced, slightly leaning red, but the 2024 election show a big swing in terms of CA counties turning red. First image below is 2020, and second image is 2024. At this point any breaking up of the state would produce major red states.
Ethiopia
Saint Kitts and Nevis
United Kingdom
Canada
China
Most Countries Explicitly Prohibit Secession
