sovereignty secession
Is there any country which would allow one of its territories to declare sovereignty on its own?
<p>Usually when the question is whether a part of a sovereign state could form its own sovereign state, the answer is always that there is no such mechanism but if the currently sovereign state decided to allow it (through a constitutional amendment or whatever) then of course it's possible.</p>

<p>Is there any sovereign country which currently has a law which would allow an arbitrary (maybe with some restrictions like size or contiguity) part of its territory to declare independence on its own if a majority (maybe super majority) of that territory is in favor?</p>

<p>I don't mean cases where a country decided to give a specific territory a single vote on a specific time, I know those exist.</p>

<h1>Canada</h1>
<h3>Short version:</h3>
<p>In the mid-'90s, a Supreme Court decision and an Act of Parliament clarified the legal process under which a province could secede from Canada.  While unilateral secession need not be recognized, the Canadian government would be obliged to negotiate the secession of a province following a sufficiently clear referendum result.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Long version:</h3>
<p>Since around the mid-20th century, there has been an active sovereigntist movement in the province of Quebec, and a sovereigntist party (the <em>Parti Québecois</em>, or PQ) has formed the provincial government in Quebec a few times.  The PQ has twice held referendums on whether Quebec should separate from Canada.  The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Quebec_referendum" rel="nofollow noreferrer">first referendum, in 1980,</a> was soundly defeated;  but the second <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum" rel="nofollow noreferrer">referendum, in 1995,</a> was defeated by a margin of only about 1% of the votes cast.  The question in this second referendum was criticized by the federalist movement as being rather confusing and convoluted. It also later emerged that the PQ government at the time had planned to unilaterally declare independence if the sovereigntist option had won, even at a 50% + 1 level.</p>
<p>In response to these events, two major events occurred which greatly clarified the legal and political circumstances under which a province would be &quot;allowed&quot; to secede from Canada.  First, in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Secession_of_Quebec" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Reference re: Secession of Quebec</em>,</a> the Supreme Court of Canada found that according to principles of both Canadian and international law, a province does not have the right to unilaterally secede;  but they also found that the federal government is obliged to negotiate secession after a vote in favor of separation.  [As an aside, the discussion in the <em>Reference re: Secession of Quebec</em> concerning the various issues at play is broadly applicable to any separatist movement, and <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the decision</a> is worth reading if you want to delve into this more.]</p>
<p>Second, the Parliament of Canada passed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Clarity Act</a>, which more clearly laid out the conditions under which the government of Canada would recognize a secession vote.   The provisions of the Clarity Act are as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;</li>
<li>Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear;</li>
<li>Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;</li>
<li>Stating that all provinces and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations#Terminology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">First Nations</a> were to be part of the negotiations;</li>
<li>Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;</li>
<li>The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Taken together, the Supreme Court decision and the Clarity Act present a relatively clear legal &amp; political path by which a Canadian province could secede.  However, in the original question you ask</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is there any sovereign country which currently has a law which would allow an arbitrary part of its territory to declare independence <strong>on its own</strong> if a majority of that territory is in favor?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(bolding mine).  If by &quot;on its own&quot; you mean &quot;unilaterally, without negotiation&quot;, then strictly speaking this does not apply to Canada;  a negotiation process and a constitutional amendment would also be required in the wake of a secession vote.  <em>Reference re: Secession of Quebec</em> specifically bars a unilateral declaration of independence.</p>
<p>Ironically (or perhaps because of these measures), support for sovereignty in Quebec has fallen significantly since 1995, and multiple splinter parties have formed out of the PQ.  It therefore seems unlikely that the provisions of the Clarity Act will be tested in the near future.</p>

<p>Internationally speaking, it always takes two to gain sovreignty: the releasing and the new nation. This can be done by a bill and peacefully, or by war and a peace treaty. It is hard to judge all the countries, but there have been some cases in the recent past where it was tried and done in both ways.</p>
<h2>History</h2>
<p>It has been done in the past by the British Empire somewhat peacefully, and technically the laws that were used to do this were never repealed. Note that in the modern British Empire, the declaration of new sovereign nations was done by first establishing these as part of the empire, and have the fledgling states become ready for it. Then both signed a bill in Britain that both gave full sovereign powers as well as declare them independent at the same time.</p>
<ul>
<li>The Statute of Westminster of 1931 limits what British Governement can do to legislate in Dominions to almost nothing. This did in part declare the Union of South Africa (founded 1919) a sovereign Nation. It was signed (among the other Dominions) by representatives of the Union of South Africa.</li>
<li>The British Raj was dissolved in 1947 and instead, the Dominions of India and Pakistan created (bringing back the Statute of Westminster's effect!), which then became fully sovereign after a brief transitional period - by international acts signed by all sides involved.</li>
</ul>
<p>Another nation that had its overseas territories go their own way was France. They too still have the means to initiate the process - a national referendum. A large portion of Western Africa - in fact, most of it - was owned by France until 1960. The release of most of them was soft and after building up a state to follow up, but this was not the case for the last 3 stragglers then still part of France: Algeria, Comoros, and Djibouti were not decolonized in 1960. Only French Guyana and some islands remain with France as overseas territories. The last three to gain independence took different ways to gain sovereignty:</p>
<ul>
<li>Algeria was hip-deep in a bloody revolution against the French from 1954 to 1962. They had declared independence in 1954 and fought for it. In 1959, the rebellion had pretty much become a stalemate, and it was not released together with the other colonies in 1960. It took another year and a referendum, secret negotiations with the FLN (the rebels), and almost a year of official negotiations after the Algiers Putsch of 1961 to get peace - and sovereignty - for Algeria.</li>
<li>Comoros did wait. In 1961, they were granted Autonomy. In 1973, France and what was to become Comoros signed a treaty that after a referendum within 5 years, they would be independent if it said yes. They held this referendum in 1974 and got it nailed in the first go: Half a year later, all but one island (which remains French and where all but 70 votes for staying with France were cast) became a sovereign state of its own.</li>
<li>Djibouti was a harder sell. They held not one but three referendums for independence: 1958 they wanted to stay French. 1967, they wanted to stay French. 1977, future Djibouti finally decided it was time to go free with 99.8% for independence. They became a sovereign state the <em>same day</em>. Behind the scenes, the first vote would have been to become part of Somalia - and the Affars and Europeans living there didn't want that. The second vote had been rigged, by denying many Somalis living in nowadays Djibouti the right to vote. On the third election, only 199 did vote to stay French.</li>
<li>For French overseas territories, putting forth a referendum is still possible to work for their independence according to the doctrine of self-determination enforced by de Gaule when they started the 5th Republic during the Algerian War.</li>
</ul>
<p>And then there is the case of some rebels that felt unrepresented in 1775. They revolted against suddenly trying to enforce the already standing taxes or their replacements that were meant to pay for a war fought on behalf of the colony. They declared independence in 1776 and fought bloody until they forced a peace deal in 1783: Britain would accept the newly founded United States of America as a sovereign nation and no longer meddle in their affairs.</p>
