Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter challenges us to rethink our most basic understanding of constitutionalism. In reality, just like authoritarian regimes, the majority of democracies worldwide adopt a militant approach to combat the threat of secession. In this struggle, militant democracies deploy the most potent, unconventional constitutional weapons. Their arsenals include both bans on political parties and constitutional eternity clauses. To understand states’ motivation for this all-out war against secession, we must reconceptualize popular sovereignty as a territorial concept – composed of citizens plus territory. Secession redefines the identity of the constitution-making body – “We the Territorial People”. Thus, it can’t be legitimized from within the constitutional system. This, in turn, explains why secession typically requires a revolutionary constitutional beginning, and may not be achieved via a constitutional amendment. This chapter thus argues that the American post–Civil War Texas v. White decision is more representative of comparative constitutional law on the subject, than Canada’s Reference re Secession of Quebec decision. The chapter discusses the following questions: (1) What is secession for constitutional law purposes? (2) How is the secessionist struggle affected by and framed within a global discourse of rights? (3) How do constitutions treat secession? (4) Why did the literature miss the prevalence of anti-secession constitutionalism? (5) Why do constitutions include a total ban on secession? (6) What processes may legitimize secession? (7) How does international law cooperate with constitutional law to discourage secession? And, finally, (8) what are the lessons for comparative constitutional law?
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".