Acceso usuarios
Louis Massicotte, Antoine Yoshinaka
By world standards, the search for an amending formula in Canada, and the debates thereon, have been exceptionally long-lasting and intense. Minimal consideration has been given to the amending procedures in force in other federations. Following a review of the literature, seven normative assumptions as to what a federal amending procedure should include have been identified. This paper checks whether federations actually comply with these assumptions.
Constitutional amendment procedures are found to differ widely among federations. The principle that central governments should not be excluded from the process is the only one that is almost universally respected. The idea that States should be involved in one way or another is challenged by almost one-third of federations. While all central governments are endowed with the right to initiate amendments, States are in only half of federations. Referendums are found to be compulsory in less than one-quarter of federations. Three frequently advocated techniques for protecting particular States – unanimity, personal vetoes and opting-out – are very rarely found as part of the standard procedure, even in heterogeneous federations. Free and democratic federations do not differ markedly from more authoritarian ones, except by the greater incidence of referendums.
