To Secede or Not Secede? Is It Even Possible?

Introduction

Secession seems like a concept of the past. In our increasingly globalizing world, nationalism was growing archaic and halting progress. But secession has seen a surge in the last ten years. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008. The United Kingdom seceded from the European Union in the infamous "Brexit." And in 2017, Catalonia's grab for independence sparked the worst crisis in Spain since the days of Francisco Franco.¹ Alongside these high-profile secessions, smaller movements, which until now were simply brewing and bubbling, are becoming inspired. One such movement is "The South is My Country," a coalition of three southern Brazilian states that wish to secede from Brazil.

This paper will examine the Brazilian separatist movement. After introducing the movement and the history of modern Brazil in Part I, Part II will examine what Brazilian law has to say on secession with the Catalan crisis as a comparison. Part III will attempt to navigate the murky waters of international law to determine whether a group such as "The South is My Country" has a right to unilaterally secede.

I. Brazilian Background

A. Highlights of Modern Brazilian History

The past seventy years of Brazilian history are full of conflict, coups, and humanitarian issues. In 1954, the Vargas Era ended with Getúlio Vargas's suicide, and for the next ten years, the threat of a coup loomed over Brazil's leadership.² In 1964 that threat became a reality. Growing dissatisfaction with President João Goulart, a far leftist, prompted the military to take control of the government and create a dictatorship.³ From the military's perspective, it was finally correcting its recurring error of withdrawing troops before a coup created lasting change.⁴

Under the military-appointed presidents, the Brazilian government cracked down hard on leftism. The dictatorship was overtly anti-communist and treated prior left-leaning leaders as personae non gratae.⁵ The government preached undying loyalty, suspended habeas corpus, and institutionalized torture of political undesirables (with help from the United States, no less).⁶ The Brazilian Catholic Church uncovered details about the dictatorship's actions. They found that one-third of the people the government arrested were students, labor activists, clergymen, and journalists.⁷ And yet, many Brazilians were willing to put up with the dictatorship's abuses in exchange for the stability and economic gains it achieved.⁸

The dictatorship began to wane in the mid-1970s during the term of President General Ernesto Geisel.⁹ Frustrated by the difficulty of maintaining the dictatorship, the armed forces announced they would gradually restore civilian government. By 1985, civilians were fully in control of the government once more.¹⁰ The constitution that Brazil currently uses was created in 1988; however, this constitution has a dissonance between the ideals it sets for Brazil and the practical application of those ideals.

As Teresa Meade, author of A Brief History of Brazil, puts it, "On paper, the 1988 Constitution is one of the most far-reaching progressive documents passed by any government."¹¹ She has ample reason to think so. Article 5 of the constitution proclaims, among many other things: equality before the law, equal rights for men and women, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a right to privacy, and a right to be free from torture.¹² Articles 6 and 7 set out social and labor rights, including education and social security,¹³ paid maternity and paternity leave, and non-discrimination in wages.¹⁴ In general, the constitution weakened the executive branch while strengthening the legislative and judicial branches.¹⁵

However, in practice, this progressive constitution does not go very far. The constitution was written by 559 members of the Brazilian Congress and, as a result, is better at exhibiting diverse thought than it is at being an effective instrument of government.¹⁶ The variety of goals and opinions in Congress created fragmentation that crippled Congress's ability to implement the broad economic and social policies of the constitution; now, only the weakened executive can effectively carry those out.¹⁷ In addition, the constitution...