Prof. Gonzalez writes: > I ask (of both the constitutional and international law folks): > What about Puerto Ricans? Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans are less a part of > the U.S. than the Basques are of Spain or the Quebecois are of Canada.
Comment: No. > Would international law recognize a right of Puerto Ricans to nullify its > current ties with the U.S.? Comment: Probably yes under international law. See UN Gen. Assembly Resolution 748(VIII). Section 9 of that resolution expressly recognized that further self-determination would take place in Puerto Rico "in the eventuality that EITHER of the parties to the mutually agreed association [between the US and PR) may desire any change in the terms of this association." (emphasis provided) But, I do not know if there have been any subsequent international law relevant to the issue. I also would argue that the Constitution's Territorial Clause should be construed in conformity with this above international law because the Constitution is a federal treaty. Furthermore, PR is not a party to the Constitution, and I believe that there is no previous international agreement between the US and PR prohibiting such independence; therefore, unlike the states, PR is not prohibited from demanding independence. >If tomorrow a strong majority of Puerto Ricans > voted in a plebicite to severe the current ties, but the U.S. government > opposed any change, what would be the result under international law? The > current U.S. position on PR is that in order to alter the current > relationship the U.S and PR the U.S. Congress must consent. The argument is > based on both the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constituion (giving Congres > plenary power over PR) and the PR Constitution (which represents the consent > of the people of PR to the current relationship). It would seem to me that > Puerto Ricans are a "people" and therefore do (or at least should) enjoy a > right of self determination. The hypothesized plebicite would nullify any > popuar sanction to the current relationship between the U.S. and PR and any > consent by the U.S. Congress would be deemed irrelevant. Any holes in this > argument (from the perspective of international law or U.S constitutional > law)? See above. > Another question: If Californians decided tomorrow to withdraw from the > union the obvious response of the other states would be that California > cannot withdraw without the consent of the other states (or perhaps a > constitutional amendment allowing the withdrawal). What result under > international law, however, if the people of California engaged in armed > revolt with the aim of withdrawal from the union? In other words, would > international law consider Californians and "people"? If so would > international law recognize armed revolution as a legitimate means for > effectuating the Peope of California's right to self determination? Although Californians could describe themselves as a people consistent with international law, I doubt that international law would allow the legitimacy of their insurrection because of the availability of peaceful political avenues for exercising their right to self-determination and the extension of Constitutional rights to Californians (unlike PR). But, I may be wrong. Francisco Forrest Martin
