Experience of Legislative Regulation of Secessions in Three Countries: The USSR, China, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secession in the 20th-21st centuries have become subject to legal regulation at the level of current legislation issued on the basis of the provisions of the national Constitution. The paper analyzes three of the laws on secession. Two of them (the USSR and Canada) regulate the implementation of secession from the state, the third (China) prohibits secession. All the three acts are based on the interpretation of relevant constitutional norms. An analysis of these laws in terms of the purpose for their issuance, content, features, and the degree of achievement of the officially formulated goals shows a significant discrepancy between the officially set goals and the legal tools of legislative techniques used to achieve them. Despite the different names and officially stated goals for secession laws adoption, all the three laws are aimed at either preventing secession or significantly delaying the process. In the Soviet and Canadian laws that formally permit secession, the main role in the process of "delaying" the issue is assigned to the central authorities of the state, which are given broad powers and opportunities to recognize the results of a referendum held by the relevant region as invalid. Due to the nature of Taiwan’s status and its relationship with China the PRC law can hardly be seen as an attempt to create a legal mechanism of counteraction of secession. It is rather a political warning, made in the form of a legal act, of the inadmissibility, in the opinion of the PRC, the international legal formalization of the independence of Taiwan. The legislative regulation of secession issues does not yet contain new mechanisms that clearly ensure the democratic nature of state decision-making. However, no matter how weak the legislative regulation of secession issues is, it is a step forward in comparison with the use of force to solve regional problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".