Contested Sovereignty and Asymmetric Autonomy: A Comparative Study of Subnational Movements and State Responses
Abstract
This article explores the complex dynamics of contested sovereignty and subnational autonomy through a comparative analysis of seven cases: Québec (Canada), Catalonia (Spain), Kosovo (Serbia), Hong Kong (China), Greenland (Denmark), Taiwan (China), and Hong Kong (China). These cases represent a spectrum of independence and autonomy claims, ranging from peaceful referendums within democratic frameworks to geopolitical confrontations with authoritarian regimes. Through legal, political, and strategic comparison, the study highlights how states manage demands for self-determination and how international recognition and domestic legitimacy intersect in shaping outcomes.
1. Introduction
The issue of contested sovereignty remains a prominent challenge in international politics. While the principle of self-determination is enshrined in international law, its application is often mediated by constitutional frameworks, power asymmetries, and geopolitical interests. This article compares seven contemporary cases, each representing distinct models of autonomy, secessionism, and state response. It particularly draws out parallels and contrasts with the Taiwan–China and Hong Kong–China relationships, providing a wider analytical lens through which to understand the politics of recognition, legitimacy, and control.
2. Constitutional and Legal Frameworks
2.1 Québec and Canada
Québec’s independence debate is constitutionally embedded within Canada’s federal democratic structure. Referendums held in 1980 and 1995 were legally sanctioned; the latter failed narrowly (49.4% in favour). The Clarity Act (2000) mandates that any future referendum must present a clear question and garner a clear majority, thereby ensuring procedural legitimacy. The Canadian model is notable for its legal accommodation and institutional respect for dissent.
2.2 Catalonia and Spain
In contrast, Catalonia’s 2017 independence referendum was declared unconstitutional by Spain’s Constitutional Court. The central government invoked Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution to suspend Catalonia’s autonomy, initiating legal prosecutions against regional leaders. The Spanish model prioritises constitutional indivisibility over negotiated federalism, resulting in heightened political polarisation.
2.3 Kosovo and Serbia
Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008, following a decade of international administration after the NATO intervention in 1999. Although the International Court of Justice (2010) found no breach of international law, Serbia, along with Russia, China, and several EU members, continues to deny recognition. The case underscores the tension between legal sovereignty and geopolitical recognition.
2.4 Hong Kong and China
Hong Kong’s autonomy was constitutionally enshrined under the Basic Law following the 1997 handover from Britain to China. The “One Country, Two Systems” framework was designed to protect freedoms for 50 years. However, the 2020 National Security Law, imposed unilaterally by Beijing, marked a significant erosion of legal autonomy, shifting Hong Kong closer to mainland governance structures.
2.5 Greenland and Denmark
Greenland enjoys extensive constitutional autonomy under the Self-Government Act (2009), including control over most domestic policy areas. While still formally under Danish sovereignty, Denmark recognises Greenland’s right to declare independence through democratic means, positioning it as a consensual model of self-determination.
3. Political Mobilisation and State Responses
3.1 Peaceful Referenda and Legal Accommodation
Québec and Greenland represent peaceful, negotiated approaches to autonomy and potential independence. Canada and Denmark have responded with dialogue and legal frameworks that respect regional aspirations while maintaining constitutional unity.
3.2 Suppression and Centralised Enforcement
Spain and China have adopted more centralised and coercive responses. In Catalonia and Hong Kong, referenda and mass protests were met with legal sanctions, police force, and institutional restructuring. These approaches highlight the limits of autonomy within unitary or authoritarian systems when faced with demands for separation or democratic reform.
3.3 Military and Diplomatic Stalemate
Kosovo and Taiwan both represent cases of contested sovereignty wherein central states (Serbia and China) refuse to relinquish claims. Taiwan, though functioning as a de facto state with democratic institutions and a market economy, faces diplomatic exclusion and military threats from Beijing. Kosovo’s partial recognition reflects similar obstacles to full international integration.
4. International Recognition and Geopolitical Considerations
4.1 Recognition and International Law
Taiwan and Kosovo operate under the shadow of limited or contested recognition. While both meet the Montevideo criteria for statehood (territory, population, government, capacity for relations), geopolitical interests—especially those of China and Russia—prevent universal recognition. Greenland, by contrast, is likely to receive broad international recognition should it pursue full independence.
4.2 Strategic Relevance and External Influence
Hong Kong and Taiwan hold strategic importance for China’s national identity and security doctrine. Hong Kong’s integration is symbolic of national rejuvenation, while Taiwan represents a red line in cross-Strait relations. Kosovo, similarly, remains a symbolic issue for Serbia’s territorial integrity and for Russian opposition to Western-led secessionist precedents.
4.3 Western Alignments vs. Authoritarian Opposition
Western support for Taiwan and Kosovo contrasts sharply with the alignment of China and Russia in opposing both. In the EU context, internal division on Catalonia and Kosovo highlights the dilemma of maintaining unity while respecting self-determination.
5. Comparative Overview
| Case | Sovereignty Claim | Legal Basis | State Response | International Recognition | Conflict Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Québec–Canada | Referendum-based | Legal under Clarity Act | Permissive and negotiated | Not applicable (internal) | Peaceful |
| Catalonia–Spain | Referendum (2017) | Ruled unconstitutional | Legal suppression | Not recognised | Legal-political crisis |
| Kosovo–Serbia | Unilateral declaration (2008) | ICJ ruled not illegal | Rejection and non-recognition | Partial (over 100 countries) | Post-conflict stalemate |
| Hong Kong–China | Autonomy under Basic Law | One Country, Two Systems | Legal restructuring, security law | Recognised as part of China | Suppressive |
| Greenland–Denmark | Gradual autonomy | Self-Government Act | Supportive and cooperative | Not yet applicable | Peaceful |
| Taiwan–China | De facto independence | Republic of China continuity | Diplomatic and military pressure | Limited recognition | Militarised deterrence |
6. Conclusion
The varied experiences of Québec, Catalonia, Kosovo, Hong Kong, Greenland, and Taiwan demonstrate that sovereignty disputes are shaped by the interplay of domestic law, political culture, international recognition, and geopolitical alignment. Peaceful transitions such as Greenland’s coexist alongside contested and coercive models seen in Hong Kong and Catalonia. Taiwan and Kosovo illustrate the enduring challenges of recognition and legitimacy in a divided international system. Ultimately, the management of self-determination claims requires legal clarity, political dialogue, and international norms that balance state sovereignty with democratic expression.