魁北克獨立問題之諮詢意見

An Analysis of Reference re Secession of Quebec by the Supreme Court of Canada

加拿大魁北克省分別於1980年與1995年舉行獨立公投，魁獨勢力雖然暫時挫敗，但是獨立聲浪仍方興未艾。加拿大總督依據最高法院法第五十三條，就魁北克脫離聯邦有關之三項疑義，向最高法院提請求裁定諮詢意見：（1）依據憲法，魁北克是否有片面脫離聯邦之權？（2）依據國際法，魁北克是否有片面脫離加拿大之權？（3）上開二項權利是否衝突？加拿大憲法雖無相關規定，但最高法院依據憲政基本原則，認為無論依據國內法或國際法，魁北克省均無片面脫離加拿大聯邦權利。最高法院指出，依據加拿大四項憲政基本原則：（1）聯邦制度、（2）民主制度、（3）憲政法治、（4）保護少數，魁北克人民之明確多數就明確問題，循民主程序所表達之脫離聯邦意願，聯邦政府與其他各省應予尊重，在魁北克公民複決之後，四項憲政基本原則賦予所有聯邦成員「協商」憲法增修之義務。憲法增修顯屬政治決策，不屬司法裁判範圍，最高法院僅說協商所依附之法律結構表示意見。

Quebec held a referendum for secession in 1980 and 1995 respectively. Both time, it turned out in disfavor of sovereign Quebecers. In 1996 Governor in Council, in pursuant to section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for advisory opinion on three questions concerning the secession of Quebec from Canada: (1) Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? (2) Does International law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? (3) In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which one takes precedent? Based on the four fundamental principles of the Constitution, including the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province would give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to the Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. The reconciliation of the various legitimate constitutional interests is necessarily confined to the political rather than the judicial realm, precisely because the reconciliation can only be achieved through the give and take of the negotiating process. Having established the legal framework, it would be for the democratically elected leadership of the various participants to resolve their difference.