※ 引述《kickTiger (老虎五)》之铭言： : 你自己不说明白魁北克独立相关问题， 在1998以後的法律变化 : 被我抓包了， 马上脸也不红出来反攻我? : 麻烦你再仔细读读我说的话: 再不允许.这种. (单方面的.独立公投)了 : 在修法前， 独立公投是单方面的。 但是1998以後， 尤其是2000 6月的The Clarity Act : 之後， 单方面的独立公投不再被允许！ 而是需要所有的省和加拿大政府一起来参与。 : 具体的说， 就是要修宪！ 反驳你的事什麽？ 是立法精神！ 既然要讨论，就看加拿大最高法院的全部原文吧： http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html Q1:1.Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? 最高法院对此问题回答非常长，不过其中： Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, t he federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities. The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole. A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community. 在此落落长的文件後面，加拿大最高法院针对"住民自决"有这麽一段： (b) The Right of a People to Self-determination 113 While international law generally regulates the conduct of nation states, it does, in some specific circumstances, also recognize the "rights" of entities other than nation states -- such as the right of a people to self-determination. 114 The existence of the right of a people to self-determination is now so widely recognized in international conventions that the principle has acquired a status beyond "convention" and is considered a general principle of international law. (A. Cassese, Self-determination of peoples: A legal reappraisal (1995), at pp. 171-72; K. Doehring, "Self-Determination", in B. Simma, ed., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994), at p. 70.) 所以加拿大最高法院对"住民自决"的态度写的清清楚楚， 关於住民自决加拿大最高法院的认知是： "人民自决已经变成「国际法的普遍原则」" a general principle of international law 我很遗憾的告诉你，你下面那一段还不算是原文， 我贴的那一段才是真正的原文， 标出个重点： The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal. 我只知道，加拿大最高法院认同住民自决这项大原则，而其他则属於法律技术细节， 加拿大其他各省及联邦政府无权阻止奎北克政府继续推动让大多数 奎北克人民认同独立的这个目标。 所以奎北克仍能继续推动、宣扬甚至是实践如何脱离联邦政府独立。 当初我把奎北克举出来就是做为住民自决的范例， 奎北克的确举办过独立公投，而加拿大最高法院也对此做出法律判决， 但也认同住民自决精神，至於讨论这种基本精神层面的东西 还要搬法律条文来咬文嚼字，而弃住民自决精神於不顾， 莫非中国网民实在对住民自决非常的畏惧而需要敬而远之？ 以奎北克为例，加国最高法院并未弃住民自决精神於不顾，你怎麽不敢提这点？ 我不仅支持台湾住民自决，我也支持西藏人民自决， 西藏东土运动如果能通过公投赞成，我也支持， 居住在这块土地上的人民，本来就有权利决定自己的政体、政府、独立与否， 这是普世价值，不过看来不包括中国人民与政府， 你们真的需要提升一下想法与看法。 同样的，台湾土地上也一堆人没有这种胸襟与想法， 推动住民自决的观念与想法，就是我们该做的事情， 而公投就是住民自决的直接民权的具体展现， 倒是想听听看你的想法，看看中国人是如何看待公投这个概念与想法。 : 你以为找来段加拿大法院判决的中文翻译， 就了不起了？ : 我告诉你吧， 你找来的这段翻译非常逊! 法院的精确文书， 居然在翻译时候夹带私货! : 加拿大最高法院原文如下: : The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that : the National Assembly, legislature or government : of Quebec do not have, either under Canadian law : or international law, the right to effect the : secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally. : However, the court also emphasized that the rest : of Canada would have a political obligation to : negotiate Quebec's separation if a clear majority : of that province's population voted in favour of it. 你这一段真的不是原文，请详查。 : 自己看看， 翻译时候多夹入了什麽吧。 : 而且这个 'negotiate ' 'cledar majority‘ 都有精确冗长的定义。 : 去阅读 the Clarity Act的原文吧。 : 多用功一点点。 感恩。 我想，我们一起用功吧，谢谢。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.135.7.165