Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Journal of South Pacific Law |
THE ELEVATION
AND ISOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF NEW CALEDONIA: A CASE STUDY OF
FRENCH INTERIM CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Guillaume
P. Blanc*
Introduction
Constitutional reform is very often needed in order to
adapt constitutional rules which govern the distribution or decentralization
of
powers between different federal and federate entities in federal countries. However,
the relationship between constitutional
reform and decentralization is not only
relevant to federal countries. It can also be relevant to unified or
centralized countries
which do not have a constitutional federal status, such
as France, where sovereign executive as well as legislative powers can be
shared between the French central state and the French overseas dependencies.
Among these French overseas collectivities, New Caledonia
benefits from a special constitutional status and is vested with the most
extensive sovereign executive and legislative powers ever transferred from the
French state to a French decentralized territory.
Following the Noumea Accord of 5 May 1998, the constitutional and institutional status of
New Caledonia was entirely modified in order to resolve political
conflicts between the Kanak independence movement and New Caledonian political
forces opposed to any
secession of New Caledonia. This
reform resulted in the transfer of sovereign powers traditionally exercised by
the French state to the New Caledonian political
and administrative
authorities, in particular the government, the Parliament (�Congress�), and the
Provinces of New Caledonia.
The present paper will
demonstrate why the transfer of sovereign powers from the French state to the
decentralized New Caledonian
authorities needed this constitutional reform, and
how this reform operates as a progressive constitutional devolution process
(1).
This paper will also analyse
the originality and elevation of the new legal status of New Caledonia
enshrined in the French Constitution,
as opposed to the constitutional status of other legal classes of French
overseas dependencies. It will also explain why this
specific status remains
isolated and confined, in order to limit its possible systemic effects on the
overall constitutional structure
of the French Republic (2).
Finally, this paper will explain
the constitutional limits of the autonomy and sovereignty of New Caledonia as
long as access to
full independence from the French Republic is not achieved. In
particular, this paper will explain how French constitutional rules
and the
French Constitutional Court have not only limited, but also restricted the
scope of application of the sovereign powers
initially transferred to New
Caledonian authorities by the 1998 Noumea
Accord, making the status of New Caledonia even more hybrid and
transitional (3).
1.1 Constitutional
status of New Caledonia before the constitutional reform of 1998
In order to comprehend any
legal developments related to New Caledonia, which is one of the biggest
islands of
the Melanesian area in the South Pacific Ocean, it is essential to bring to mind the
particularities of the legal framework of this territory.
First, this territory was made a French possession in
1853 as a result of a colonial military campaign, and is therefore one of
territories where the rule of law had to be adapted to secure a possible
transition from colonization to decolonization.[1] Second,
as
part of the French Republic, New Caledonia is subject to the French legal
system and sources, particularly French superior legal
rules such as the French
Constitution. However, since 1946 the
French Constitution has always
provided for a specific set of rules for French overseas dependencies such as
New Caledonia, in order to achieve decolonization
via integration and not via
independence.[2]
From 1946 to 1998, and in
spite of multiple reforms of its local administrative government regime, New
Caledonia as an overseas
possession of France was vested with the specific
legal status of �Overseas Territory� (Territoire
d�Outre-Mer (T.O.M.)) as defined by the different Constitutions which were
promulgated in France, including the currently applicable Constitution of the 5th Republic, created in 1958.
Until 2003, according to the
French Constitution (Articles 72 and
73), France was subdivided in Departments and Territories (D�partements and Territoires),
including Overseas Departments and Overseas Territories. Other classes of
territories could be created by a specific law, as
it was the case for the
Overseas communities (Collectivit�s
Territoriales d�Outre-Mer).
Unlike the French Overseas
Departments,[3] New Caledonia as a
French Overseas Territory was not systematically subject to either legislative
or regulatory laws issued by
French authorities in the mainland territory of
France known as �metropolitan France� (France
m�tropolitaine). New Caledonia was only subject to the laws specially extended to this
territory in accordance with the principle of �speciality of
legislation� (sp�cialit� l�gislative).
Pursuant to Section 74 of the French Constitution of 4 October 1958 as
applicable until 2003, French Overseas Territories had �a distinctive
organization with consideration
to their own interests among all the
interests of the Republic�, which led to the following result in New
Caledonia: regulations
set out in New Caledonia originated either from specific
texts[4] or
from national texts which included a special reference rendering them
applicable in overseas territories.[5]
This specific constitutional
status not only guaranteed a certain level of autonomy compatible with the decolonization
claimed by
the New Caledonian population, but also protected the integration of
New Caledonia into the constitutional system of the French
Republic. This
process intended to achieve decolonization via integration and not via
immediate independence. At the international
level, New Caledonia was withdrawn
from the list of non-self-governing entities of the United Nations General
Assembly in 1947.[6] The
Territorial Assembly of the Overseas Territory of New Caledonia also voted on
17 December 1958 for the integration of New Caledonia
into France when the 5th
Republic of France was established, thus rejecting the independence of the
territory.[7]
However, during the following
decades, this level of autonomy and decentralization appeared increasingly
inadequate to satisfy the
political desires of New Caledonian authorities and
political forces, including the Kanak independence movement, which claimed in
the 1980s a specific law-making power incompatible with the status of Overseas
Territory.
After several years of
political troubles and conflicts between the Kanak movement and the other
movements controlled by French
settlers favoring French rules between 1980 and
1988,[8] which led to the
re-inclusion of New Caledonia in the United Nations General Assembly list of
non-self-governing territories in
1986,[9] the main
pro-independence coalition, the F.L.N.K.S,[10] on the one hand,
and the main loyalist party, the R.P.C.R,[11] on the other hand,
agreed on a new and transitional status for New Caledonia.
The first agreement made on 26
June 1988 and known as Matignon Accord
extended the decentralized powers of New Caledonian authorities but maintained
its �Overseas Territory� status and did not require
a substantial modification
of the French Constitution. This
agreement was subsequently amended by the Oudinot
Accord on 26 August 1988.
Amongst other provisions (such
as an amnesty for prisoners), the Matignon-Oudinot
Accords provided for the right of the New Caledonian population to vote on
the independence of the territory in 1998.[12]
During the ten-year period of
application of the Matignon-Oudinot Accords,
and in compliance with them, the French state provided economic and social aid,
and further decentralized the powers exercised
by three new Provinces of New
Caledonia, two of which were delineated so that they could be controlled by
Kanak pro-independence
forces.[13]
The autonomy and participation
of the Kanak population in local institutions were also facilitated by the employment
of Kanaks into
the public sector, investments into development projects in the
Kanak-controlled provinces,[14] and the
establishment of a Customary Senate comprised of representatives from eight
customary areas, having each its own customary
council.[15] Through their
control of the Provinces, and their representation in the Territorial Assembly,
the Kanaks were recognised representation
in both the legislature and the
executive, and benefited from territorial forms of autonomy.[16]
Associated with proportionality
electoral rules,[17] the main features
of this reform belong to the ethnic and consociational model, which is more and
more often used in post-conflict
states.[18]
However, the referendum on
independence was never arranged because the F.L.N.K.S was not confident in its
capacity to win a majority
vote in favor of the self-determination process,
given the minority position of the Kanaks among the overall population.[19] Instead of voting
on independence, the main political forces of New Caledonia[20] promoted a �consensual
solution�,[21] a new modification
of the status of the territory, as well as a deferral of the time limit for the
referendum on self-determination.
�
This led to a second political
agreement named the Noumea Accord,
which was signed on 5 May 1998 and was contemplated as a new and additional
step in the decentralization process modifying the
status of New Caledonia.[22]
1.2 The
Noumea Accord (5 May 1998) and the needed
constitutional reform of the status of New Caledonia
�
The Noumea Accord extends the measures already agreed under the terms
of the Matignon-Oudinot Accords, but,
in addition, strengthens the ethnic and consociational dimension of the status
of New Caledonia in the following different
areas such as the recognition of
the responsibilities of France in the colonization of the territory,[23] the legitimacy of
the decolonization of the territory, the recognition and promotion of the Kanak
culture[24] and identity[25] and the recognition
of a New Caledonian citizenship which attracts preferential employment and
voting rights.[26]
In terms of institutions, the Noumea Accord modifies the status of the
customary authorities, and, more importantly, proposes a staged irreversible devolution
of power from
the French state to decentralized New Caledonian institutions in
matters such as external trade, communications, employment, rules
for the
administration of the provinces, education, land ownership, property rights and
representation in international organizations.[27]
The last step of this
devolution process will follow the referendum on the final status of New
Caledonia, to be held between 2014
and 2018.[28] If the voters so
decide, New Caledonia will be given international full-responsibility status,
New Caledonian citizenship will
be converted into nationality and all powers
currently reserved for the French state will be transferred to New Caledonia
(including
justice, public order and security, defense, currency and
international affairs).[29]
To operate such a major
transformation of New Caledonia, a substantial constitutional reform was
required, even though this reform
remains an interim reform[30] as long as there
is not a referendum on the independence of this territory.[31]
�
Certainly, the Noumea Accord of 5 May 1998 appears to
be the first step of the constitutional elevation of the legal status of New
Caledonia insofar as it states
a different and single legal framework for New
Caledonia within the French Constitution.
The contribution of the Noumea Accord
to the constitutional definition and regime of New Caledonia was subsequently
confirmed in 1999 by the French Constitutional Court
(Conseil Constitutionnel), which ruled that the Noumea Accord is in itself an agreement of a constitutional nature
and thus is part of the French Constitutional principles.[32]
However, such a political
agreement as the Noumea Accord was
not contemplated in 1998 as sufficient to fix the legal status of New
Caledonia. It was rather a new step of a constitutional
reform process which had
already started and had to be followed by different steps and sequences.[33]
A substantial revision of the
content of the French Constitution of
4 October 1958 was required to provide New Caledonia with a new and �tailor-made�
status.[34] This revision was
implemented by the Loi Constitutionnelle
(Constitutional Act) No. 98-610 of 20
July 1998,[35] which provided for
a referendum on the Noumea Accord on
the one hand (Article 2), and allocated an entire new and single title in the
French Constitution to New Caledonia
(Article 1), on the other.
This allocation of an entirely
new title to New Caledonia in the French
Constitution (i.e. Title XIII, which grouped the new Articles 76 and 77
resulting from the Constitutional Act
of 20 July 1998) meant that the constitutional revision was aimed at vesting
New Caledonia with a constitutional status different
from the status of Overseas
Territory (T.O.M.) as governed by other titles (Title XII) and Articles (72,
74) of the French Constitution.
Subsequently, as the result of the approval of the Noumea Accord by a large majority of the population in the
referendum of 8 November 1998,[36] the
new and single constitutionally defined legal status of New Caledonia was to be
completed by several implementation laws.
Therefore, according to the newly
revised French Constitution, a Loi Organique (Organic Act) and a Loi Ordinaire (Ordinary Act) were
drafted to define and govern the steps needed to implement the Noumea Accord.[37]
The Organic Act (Loi Organique) No. 99-209 of 19 March
1999 was passed to implement the Noumea
Accord, particularly for the procedures and time schedule of the transfer
of major responsibilities from the French state to New Caledonian
local authorities.[38] This
was followed by a Loi Ordinaire (Ordinary
Act)[39],
and has also been revised several times since 1999.[40]
This chain of constitutional, organic and ordinary
laws, which were required to implement the new constitutional status of New
Caledonia,
and which have all a constitutional function, is typical of the
growing development of a �Constitution outside the Constitution�
as observed by
authors like Ernest Young or Tom Ginsburg.[41]
1.3 Effect of the constitutional reform on the
decentralization and transfer of sovereign powers from the French state
The new constitutional status
of New Caledonia is unique, specific and unprecedented in French constitutional
history.
1.3.1
New sharing of competence and sovereignty between the French state and local
authorities
The new
political and administrative structure of New Caledonia strengthens the
devolution of power by applying a fairly strict
limitation on French state
powers, which are reduced to the pillars of French sovereignty, and by widening
local normative and
executive powers, whilst awaiting a new consultation on
full emancipation expected to take place during the Congress session commencing
in 2014; or, in any event, before 2018.[42]
The new status of New
Caledonia is based on the principle of �shared sovereignty� (souverainet� partag�e).[43] This
implies that executive and law making sovereign powers can be �jointly shared�
between the French central state and New Caledonia,
and not simply distributed
or decentralized.
The powers reserved for the
French state are enumerated symetrically.
The devolution process is gradually arranged in
three distinct phases and on an irreversible basis.[44]
This gradual devolution process is typical of interim constitutional reforms,
which promote constitution making or revision as
�a process rather than a
once-and-for-all defining moment�,[45]
and gives enough time to �transform enemies into adversaries�, �find procedural
support for reconciliation� and enhance equality
and diversity among different
multicultural minorities.[46]
In respect of institutions, the Noumea
Accord and the Organic Act have
organized the devolution of both the executive and legislative powers in New
Caledonia.
The Haut
Commissaire de la R�publique (French Government�s Delegate or High
Commissioner) remains in office to exercise the powers of the French Republic
which are not
transferred to the New Caledonian authorities, and represents the
French government.
Executive power is transferred
to a collegial multi-party government, known as the Gouvernement de la Nouvelle Cal�donie (New Caledonia�s Government),
whose composition is decided by the Congress and to which the government is
responsible. This government
represents the executive branch and exercises all
executive powers that were previously exercised by the French Government�s
Delegate.
The President of the Government
promulgates the legislation and regulations issued by the New Caledonian
Congress, represents New
Caledonia in court and is the head of the civil
service of New Caledonia. The President of the Government is given new powers
in
respect of international relations since he or she can be authorised by the
French central government to negotiate and sign treaties
with Pacific states,
territories and regional organizations or specialised bodies of the United
Nations, or participate in these
negotiations and this signature, as a member
of the French delegation.[47]
The Congr�s (Congress)
is the local Parliament of New Caledonia. Members of Congress are elected for
five years. As the deliberative and representative
assembly of New Caledonia,
the Congress enacts laws for New Caledonia as a whole, which apply to the
entire territory and all the
Provinces
(Provinces).[48]
Indeed, this is the devolution of powers to the
Congress which informs the special essence of the new status of New Caledonia.
1.3.2 Devolution of the
law-making process
The Congress of New Caledonia is vested with
legislative power and operates as a parliamentary assembly in charge of law
making
for the entire territory, within the scope of its competence and the
powers transferred from the French state to the Congress, which
represent 12
major areas of intervention.[49]
According to the Loi
Organique (Organic Act) No 99-209 of 19 March 1999, it is for this new
parliamentary assembly to adopt local laws reserved for New Caledonia and
called �statutes
of the country� (lois du
pays), which are of a legislative force (see Article 107) though they
remain different from the laws issued in metropolitan France by
the French
Parliament.[50]
As such, parliamentary lois du pays are vested with a legislative status: they can only be
challenged by the Conseil Constitutionnel
(Constitutional
Court),[51] the French Constitutional
Supreme Court, which checks the compliance of all the parliamentary laws issued
in a French territory
with the French Constitution
and other constitutional rules.
In respect of the matters transferred to New Caledonia, New Caledonia�s
Congress is given the same powers as those which the French
Constitution gives to the French
Parliament exercising legislative power in France, even though the devolution
is arranged step-by-step.[52]
This also means that the New Caledonian Congress is
given substantial law-making powers. If the French state retains jurisdiction
in respect of foreign affairs, justice, defense, public order and treasury, the
New Caledonian Congress is empowered to legislate
in respect of all matters
already transferred to New Caledonia under the 1988 agreement, and also all new
matters enumerated in
the Organic Act No
99-209 of 19 March 1999 such as mining[53],
local employment[54] or
international relations.[55]
In addition to tax legislation[56],
the Congress of New Caledonia is also empowered to define and govern under its
own legislation the economic, social, commercial
and foreign investment policy
of New Caledonia,[57]
which entitles New Caledonia to govern its own future economic and social
development.[58]
In this respect, because the Congress was also
transferred quasi-exclusive authority in respect of mineral legislation,[59]
it is not surprising that one of the first pieces of legislation implemented by
the Congress was dedicated to the development of
foreign investments in the
mining sector of New Caledonia.[60]
The Congress enacted a new Mining Code in 2009, but started its
intervention in the mining sector legislation through the enactment of tax laws
specifically applicable
to the mining sector.[61]
In relation to employment
legislation, the Congress of New Caledonia is authorised to enact legislation
designed �to bolster and
promote local employment� to such an extent that it
can reserve employment for citizens of New Caledonia or residents who have been
residents during a minimum number of years in the territory.
1.3.3
Recognition of New Caledonian citizenship
There is recognition of New
Caledonian citizenship under Article 4 of the Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March 1999, which gives preferential
rights on the basis of the residency status[62]
in respect of employment or the right to vote when there is a consultation on
the full emancipation of the territory between 2014
and 2018.[63]
French citizenship is a condition of the granting of New Caledonian
citizenship, both citizenships being cumulated.[64]
By defining constitutionally
special citizenship, voting, employment and social rights for a specific part
of the population of
New Caledonia, the 1998 reform represents a considerable
innovation in French constitutional law[65]
in that traditionally, as explained by Dominique Custos, �French citizenship
pays attention only to an abstract individual and
limits enjoyment of
citizenship-based rights to civil rights (�) New Caledonia citizenship concerns
itself with the real environment
of its beneficiaries and accordingly also
grants social rights�.[66]
Because the regime of this new
New Caledonian citizenship is associated with primordialism and priority
employment rights, separate
electorate rolls, proportionality electoral rules
for the election of the Congress, the collegiality of the Government, and the
right to choose identity symbols for the territory,[67]
the status of New Caledonia meets most of the tests of a consociational model.[68]
These rules can be compared to
the affirmative action[69]
or black empowerment principles that have been enshrined in other
constitutional or organic/institutional documents in different
developing and
formerly colonised territories, which belong to �independence� or �ethnic�
constitutions.[70]
2. Elevated, isolated and transitional nature of the constitutional
status of New Caledonia
New Caledonia�s constitutional status has been not
only elevated, but also isolated and confined.
There is a �confinement� of the concept of shared
sovereignty to New Caledonia, such concept remaining accepted for New Caledonia
on an exceptional basis, in order to avoid the multiplication of potentially
concurrent sovereignties within the French constitutional
system.[71]
2.1 Lack of an explicit
constitutional definition of New Caledonia
Although New Caledonia has been vested with a new and
specific legal status of a constitutional nature, this status is not clearly
defined by explicit and specific provisions.
Following the Noumea
Accord and the amendment of the French Constitution
(see new Articles 76 and 77) by the Constitutional
Act of 20 July 1998,[72] New
Caledonia ceased to be a French Overseas Territory (T.O.M.) and became a single
and new type of French territory which is only
called �New Caledonia� (La Nouvelle-Cal�donie).[73] New
Caledonia is now a sui generis collectivity,
which benefits from specific institutions created for it alone.
New Caledonia remains different from the �Overseas
Departments� (D�partements d�Outre-Mer)
or the �Overseas Regions� (R�gions
d�Outre-Mer) which are governed by the principle of legislative
assimilation.[74]
It is also different from the category of
�Overseas Territories� (Territoires
d�Outre-Mer) which existed when the new constitutional status of New
Caledonia was promulgated, and it is still different from the �Overseas
Territorial
Units� (Collectivit�s Territoriales
d�Outre-Mer) which have replaced the �Overseas Territories� as a result of
a constitutional amendment of the French Constitution in 2003.
However,
there is no explicit definition of this sui
generis collectivity.
The
drafters of the Noumea Accord and the
Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March
1999 only referred to �New Caledonia� without any more qualifications.[75]
Even though there is a reference to New Caledonia as a �country�[76]
which can enact �statutes of the country� (lois
du pays), this concept of overseas �country� has not any constitutional
definition. [77]
New
Caledonia is classified as a Collectivit�
territoriale d�Outre-Mer � statut sp�cifique (literally, �Overseas
territorial collectivity with a specific status�), but this definition could also
be used for other French
communities located overseas and benefiting from a
specific status, particularly Collectivit�s Territoriales of French Polynesia,
Wallis
& Futuna and St-Barth�l�my.
Therefore,
the characterization of New Caledonia amongst all other French overseas
dependencies is more difficult now, as New Caledonia
is subject to a
tailor-made and single status that did not exist before the constitutional
revision of 1998.
2.2 Separation from other legal classes of
French overseas dependencies
The formal change in the
qualification of New Caledonia clearly means that the framers of the Noumea Accord and the Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March 1999
wanted to distinguish New Caledonia from the other usual categories of French
Overseas Territories (T.O.M.) which
applied at that time.
The Noumea Accord defines New Caledonia as an �overseas collectivity
provided with a specific status� (Collectivit�
territoriale d'Outre-Mer � statut sp�cifique) and never mentions the
concept of T.O.M.[78], even though New
Caledonia was precisely qualified as a T.O.M. until this agreement.
The French Constitution as revised by the Constitutional Act No 98-610 of 20 July
1998 mentioned above allocated an entire new title (Title XIII) to New
Caledonia, which means that New Caledonia was
provided with specific constitutional
provisions separate from the provisions then governing not only the Overseas
Territories
(Territoires d�Outre-Mer
(T.O.M.)) (Article 74) but also Overseas Departments (D�partements d�Outre-Mer) (Article 72) and Overseas Collectivities
(Collectivit�s Territoriales) (Article
72).
In addition, according to Article
222-IV-1o of the Organic Act No 99-209
of 19 March 1999 relating to New Caledonia, the existing and future legislative
or regulatory laws must no longer refer to the
�Territory� of New Caledonia but
only to �New Caledonia�, which clearly means that any confusion between �Overseas
Territory� or
T.O.M. and New Caledonia is prohibited.
According to the specialty of
legislation principle, which still applies to New Caledonia, it is necessary to
expressly provide
for the extension of any new law to �New Caledonia� for ensuring
the applicability of such new law in New Caledonia. Simply mentioning
�overseas
territory� or even �territory� is no longer sufficient.
Furthermore, pursuant to this
Constitutional special regime of New Caledonia, the French legislators clearly
and expressly rejected
all the usual terminological categories used for
classifying overseas territories when they drafted this Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March 1999.
Responding to an amendment
submitted by Simon Loueckhote (Representative of New Caledonia) within the
French Senate and aimed at
vesting New Caledonia with the status of a �Overseas
Collectivity� (Collectivit� Territoriale),[79] the French
Parliament and the French Government expressly rejected both the qualifications
of T.O.M. or Collectivit� Territoriale
for New Caledonia.[80] This exclusion was
also subsequently confirmed by the French courts.[81]
From a legal substantiation
perspective, regardless of the wording of the Noumea Accord of 1998, the French Constitution (Article 77) and the Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March 1999, one could consider that
such changes only had a formal and nominal impact and did not substantially
modify the
very nature of New Caledonia.
Instead of adhering to the
letters defining literally New Caledonia in the French constitutional, organic and
ordinary laws, one
could propose to go beyond the text of the French laws in
order to amalgamate New Caledonia with other overseas territorial units
by
considering all the following features of the French overseas territories or
territorial units that still exist in New Caledonia.
Firstly, looking at the nature
of the laws issued by New Caledonia and the other French overseas dependencies
which do not qualify
as Overseas Departments or Regions, one can conclude that
all such dependencies have in common their legal separation from laws
enacted
in metropolitan France; effectively, the constitutional revision of 1998 does
not affect the �specialty of legislation�
principle, which still applies to
both New Caledonia and the French overseas territorial units.
Secondly, the right to claim
for independence and secede from the French state is still conferred to both New
Caledonia and the
French overseas territorial units.
However, the very nature of
the legal status of New Caledonia is significantly different from that of any
other French overseas
territorial unit. It is also more elevated than the
status reserved for any other overseas dependency. As explained by Alan Berman,
�New Caledonia has been conferred a status that is short of a sovereign state
but more than an overseas territory�.[82]
2.3
Specific elevation of the constitutional status of New Caledonia
The legislative power of the
New Caledonian deliberative assembly (Congress of New Caledonia) clearly makes
New Caledonia very different
from all the other French overseas dependencies.
On the one hand, since the
specialty of legislation principle still applies to New Caledonia, New
Caledonia cannot be considered
as an Overseas Department (D�partement d�Outre-Mer) or an Overseas Region (Region d�Outre-Mer). On the other hand, since
New Caledonia can issue laws vested with a legislative and statutory value,[83] New Caledonia is
not equivalent to a French overseas territorial unit (Collectivit� Territoriale d�Outre-Mer), where a local deliberative
assembly can only issue laws that have a mere administrative or regulatory rank.[84]
Within the French overseas
territorial units, deliberative assemblies are only empowered to issue
regulatory measures like the D�lib�rations
territoriales issued by the Congress of New Caledonia until 1998, and such
measures are not vested with a legislative status. They are still subject
to a
validity control before the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d�Etat).[85]
To take the example of the �overseas
territorial unit� of French Polynesia, whose status was revised by the Organic Act No 2004-192 of 27 February
2004,[86] the statutes
promulgated by the French Polynesia assembly are also named lois du pays (�statutes of the country�),
but these statutes, like mere regulations, can be referred to the Conseil d�Etat, i.e. the French
Administrative Supreme Court, and not to the Conseil Constitutionnel or French Constitutional Court.[87]
Therefore, on the basis of the
various provisions of the French constitutional, organic and ordinary laws, the
respective positions
of the contracting parties of the Noumea Accord, and the positions of the French Parliament and
French academic doctrine, New Caledonia must be accepted as a new legal
subdivision
of the French Republic subject to a completely new and inaugural
legal status, which is hardly challengeable as it is constitutionally
protected.
Indeed, the status of New
Caledonia also remains original, if not �baroque�,[88] because the French
central political powers reluctantly accepted it and, after the integration of
the Noumea Accord into the French
constitutional system, tried to confine and isolate this status so that an
equivalent status or sovereignty devolution
process are not claimed by other
French overseas dependencies.
French legislators had to
contain this status because, as suggested by Dominique Custos, it represents in
many respects �a breach
of the foundations of the politico-administrative
architecture of the French Republic�,[89] by allowing the
implementation of a quasi-federal structure in New Caledonia.
2.4 Quasi-federal
nature of the constitutional status of New Caledonia
By allowing shared sovereignty
and decentralizing powers traditionally reserved for the French state, the
constitutional status
of New Caledonia has been rapidly compared with the
status of a federate or quasi-federate state. [90]
First, the devolution of
sovereign powers to New Caledonia is defined and protected under the terms of a
new title of the French
Constitution.
This new title (Article 76) refers to the Noumea
Accord which enumerates the powers reserved for the French state and the
powers to be transferred to or shared with New Caledonian authorities.[91] Second, the new Article
77 included in Title XIII of the French Constitution
makes this devolution of powers irreversible. For those devolved powers,
different dates of transfer apply to the different powers
transferred according
to a prescribed devolution schedule which remains to be adjusted by the New
Caledonian authorities themselves.[92]
In other words, those powers
must be transferred during a certain period, but the exact date of the transfer
is left to the discretion
of the New Caledonian authorities, which means that
such local authorities are vested with the power to define a part of the
devolution
process on their own. This power to define a part of the devolution
process at a decentralized level is certainly of a sovereign
nature and can be
compared to the right that federate states have to protect their own
jurisdiction from interference by the central
federal powers.[93]
Thirdly, the parliamentary
regime established at local level in New Caledonia, with the transfer of
legislative power to the Congress,
represents another feature of federalism.[94]
This federalist evolution may
be seen as inevitable, because, as explained by many specialists, federalism is
the appropriate constitutional
mechanism to �enable diverse communities to
participate in government�.[95]
2.5 Effect
of the status of New Caledonia on the principle of indivisibility of the French
Republic
The decentralization and
division of sovereign powers resulting from the reform of the constitutional
status of New Caledonia contradict
several fundamental principles of French
constitutional law, and in particular the principle of the indivisibility of
the French
Republic, its people, and the national sovereignty which belongs to
its unified people.[96]
This fundamental principle of
French constitutional law remains quite incompatible with the division of the
legislative power into
two Parliaments, i.e the Parliament of France and the
Congress of New Caledonia.[97] It also fractions French
citizens into French citizens who have one single national citizenship, on the
one hand, and French citizens
who cumulate the sub-national citizenship of New
Caledonia with French national citizenship, on the other.[98]
As explained by Nicholas R.L.
Haysom, �there has been a reluctance to constitutionalise difference in nation
states�, because this
may increase secession risks, �erode the limited national
identity or sens of common destiny� and entrench societies �within its
segregated identities�.[99]
2.6 Constitutional
systemic effects of the reform of the status of New Caledonia
Because it was inspired by
federalist models, the reform of the constitutional status of New Caledonia led
to constitutional innovations
which have affected the entire national
constitutional structure of France, and not only the constitutional status of
New Caledonia
or other French overseas dependencies.
As explained by Dominique
Custos, the new regime of �shared sovereignty�
opens a window into
constitutional change in a country conventionally portrayed as a land of
entrenched centralization (�) It is
an architecture torn between, on the one
hand, the conventional principle pertaining to the unitary and indivisible state,
and,
on the other hand, the revolutionary-in the French context-principle of
shared sovereignty. The first one is wide spread across
the French
institutional scheme; the second is limited to a single overseas subdivision.
The first one is permanent, the second
one is temporary. Pieced together, it
presents a self-contradiction.[100]
The integration of a hybrid,
semi-federal status[101] in the French
constitutional system for the purpose of appeasing political tensions in New
Caledonia does not in itself guarantee
a peaceful transition from
decolonization to independence. However, it has already had centrifugal effects
on the French overall
constitutional system, which will remain, whatever is the
outcome of the future referendum on the full emancipation of New Caledonia.
There is no doubt the
evolution of New Caledonia fuelled other claims for self-governance,
self-organization or further decentralization.[102]
Though it remains contained,
the status of New Caledonia inspired the revision of the very first article of
the French Constitution in 2003[103] which recognised
the decentralized basis of the organization of the French Republic,[104] and the revision
of the decentralization regime applicable to local governments within the
French Republic.
Following the revision of Article
72 of the French Constitution in 2003,
local governments part of mainland France have been granted a rulemaking power
and the right to experiment with derogations
from national statutes or
regulations. Because this right can be exercised by all decentralized
governments being part of the French
central state, it can be exercised by
Overseas Departments (Departements
d�Outre-Mer), narrowing the differences between the status of Overseas
Departments and the status of the Overseas territorial units which are
guaranteed the right to adopt �special legislation�.
In 2004, the revised status of
New Caledonia also inspired the reform of the status of French Polynesia to
such an extent that the
French Polynesia assembly was granted the right to
adopt laws named lois du pays like
the statutes adopted by the Congress of New Caledonia.[105]
In addition, the reform of the
status of New Caledonia probably inspired the reform of the special status of
Corsica,[106] and to another
extent, may have facilitated the approval by the French Parliament of the
transfer of sovereign powers to European
Union institutions at supra-national
level under the European Constitutional
Treaties of Nice and Lisbon.[107]
By borrowing principles of
federalism, the revised status of New Caledonia may facilitate the conversion
of the French Republic
to the European federal model which is actively promoted
by the European Union institutions.[108] In this respect,
the New Caledonian devolution process may have systemic effects not only in
France, but also within the European
Union, like movements such as the regionalisation
of Italy or the devolution and partition process in Scotland and Wales.[109]
Accordingly, the reform of the
status of New Caledonia shows an example of the possible modification of the
overall constitutional
system of a central state by a constitutional reform
limited to one single peripheral overseas dependency of this central state,
however specific and transitional this reform may appear in the first instance,
in particular if this state is an old nation-state.[110]
Though this status was reserved
for a peripheral territory owned by France, its effects are far from being
peripheral within the
French constitutional system.[111] The destabilization
of the French Constitution[112] which resulted
from the revision of this status may explain why the devolution or
decentralization of sovereign powers in favor
of New Caledonia has been
gradually limited, in particular by the French Constitutional Court.
3. Limitation of decentralized sovereign powers of New Caledonian
authorities by French constitutional rules and the French Constitutional
Court
On the one hand, and though they have been revised to
provide for a specific status for New Caledonia, French constitutional
provisions
still preserve the central role of the French central institutions
in the devolution process, to such an extent that there is no
real sovereignty
transferred to New Caledonia.
On the other hand, French courts have gradually
restricted the scope and the substance of the law-making powers transferred to
the
New Caledonian institutions, even if court intervention might modify the
balance of powers achieved by the Noumea
Accord.
3.1 No
sovereignty of New Caledonia in respect of its sovereign powers
The whole concept of �shared sovereignty� has been
questioned because unlike a true sovereign state, New Caledonia does not have
the sovereign power to define what is included in its sovereignty.
Even though the local institutions of New Caledonia
have been vested with executive or legislative powers, these powers are not
equally shared with the French state, but remain transferred by the French state
under the terms of constitutional and organic acts
which are exclusively
controlled by the French Parliament, not any New Caledonian parliamentary
assembly.
Even though the Congress of New Caledonia was
authorised to take decisions regarding the time schedule of the transfer of
certain
competences from the French state to New Caledonian authorities, it was
not given any pouvoir constituant, or
self-organizational powers, which it could use to modify the scope of its
executive or legislative powers. In other words,
New Caledonian institutions do
not have �the competence of the distribution of the competences�, which is
another translation of
pouvoir constituant
under French constitutional law or the Kompetenz-Kompetenz
principle under German constitutional law.[113]
The Noumea
Accord was negotiated by France and was integrated into the French Constitution after its approval by
referendum not only in New Caledonia[114]
but also in mainland France.[115]
It required a revision of the French Constitution
by a Constitutional Act and the promulgation of an Organic Act by the French
Parliament.
Because the entire pouvoir
constituant was reserved for French sovereign institutions, any new
modification of the constitutional status of New Caledonia would require
the
same procedure. The New Caledonian authorities would only be given the right to
express an advisory opinion.[116] This
limit to the level of sovereignty shared with the decentralized New Caledonian
institutions, combined with the mere advisory
role of the Customary Senate
representing the native Kanak tribes, have generated doubts about the sincerity
of the decolonization
language of the Noumea
Accord.[117]
Whatever the commitment of the French central
institutions to share, and not simply delegate, sovereign powers to New
Caledonia,
there is no doubt that the entire devolution process has never
contemplated any public participatory constitution revision regime
that would
authorise the New Caledonian population, including the indigenous Kanak people,
to participate in any modification of
the Noumea
Accord or other constitutional provisions which may define the current or
final constitutional status of New Caledonia, beyond the act
of voting.
Some authors have argued that direct participatory
constitution making or revision is not only a right, but a necessity to secure
a sustainable legitimacy of any constitutional reform.[118] Yet,
as explained, even New Caledonian institutions still do not have the right to
design or modify the constitutional status of
New Caledonia.
3.2 Lack of a
constitutional guarantee of New Caledonian powers
Because the pouvoir
constituant remains unshared between New Caledonian institutions and French
institutions, and reserved for these French institutions, the French
Parliament
can still amend, modify or change the constitutional status of New Caledonia
despite the irreversibility of the devolution
process mentioned as a general
principle of the Noumea Accord.[119]
Because the French Constitutional Court (Conseil Constitutionnel) authorizes the retroactivity of laws,
there is no constitutional prohibition of the retroactivity of constitutional
revision laws.[120]
The pouvoir
constituant is in itself a fully sovereign power and cannot be limited by
constitutional provisions it has created. Therefore, the conclusion
made by
David Marrani that �the progress towards independence seems definitive� must be
challenged.[121] Indeed,
there is no constitutional guarantee of the stability of the New Caledonian
powers and there is no mention in the Noumea
Accord of the key words of �self-determination� or �independence�.[122]
In respect of the final status of New Caledonia, the Noumea Accord contemplates different
options, including �associated statehood�, which is different from full
independence.[123] Given
this fact, there cannot be constitutional protection against constitutional
revision of the status of New Caledonia or even
�trespassing� initiated by the
French constitutional or parliamentary bodies in respect of competences
transferred to New Caledonia.
The New Caledonian authorities could not
challenge the validity of constitutional revisions initiated by the French
Parliament
which would modify the constitutional status of New Caledonia.[124]
Here again, sovereign powers are not shared equally. The
powers reserved for French institutions cannot be affected by adverse statutes
or regulations issued by New Caledonian institutions. On the contrary, statutes
or regulations of New Caledonia are subject to
administrative and judicial
review. As we will explain, the High Commissioner delegated by the French government
to represent the
French state is in charge of the administrative control of the
validity of both the regulations and the statutes or lois du pays, which he can refer to the competent French courts.[125]
3-3 - Interference
of the French Constitutional Court
The New
Caledonian authorities have been vested with executive and legislative powers
which they share with the French state, but
there is still no judiciary court
system exclusively controlled by New Caledonia. New Caledonia does not have a
local court system
of its own and all courts having jurisdiction in New
Caledonia are controlled by the French courts. In this respect, New Caledonia
does not have a status equivalent to that of a federate state.[126]
More
importantly, from a substantial legal point of view, the jurisdiction of French
courts, and in particular the jurisdiction
of the highest constitutional and
administrative courts of the Republic, has led to a limitation of the devolved
law-making powers
of the Congress of New Caledonia.
Because of the multiple controls exercised by French courts, the
substance of the New Caledonian legislation must comply with French
substantive
superior rules and principles.
With regard to the determination of its substance, the loi du pays must comply with principles
set down by overriding sources of law which take precedence such as the Constitution, international treaties
ratified by the French Parliament, organic[127]
and ordinary[128] laws
of the French Parliament extended to New Caledonia. In addition, the loi du pays must also be harmonized with
other principles of equal or competitive legal force such as the numerous
General Principles of Law[129]
given superior status under French constitutional as well as administrative law.[130]
All such overriding principles do not only limit the authority of the
Congress of New Caledonia in respect of its law-making power,
but also the
substance of the legislation it can draft and adopt. Any new law or loi du pays
must, before discussion by the New Caledonia�s Congress, be referred for
opinion to the Conseil d�Etat (Administrative
Court). Even though this court is involved as an advisory body, it can check
the compliance of administrative acts
with French laws[131]
and international conventions.[132]
Once
adopted by the Congress, but before its publication, the loi du pays may be referred to the Conseil Constitutionnel (Constitutional Council)[133],
which must then check its compliance with the French Constitution and all French constitutional principles. In the event of a referral to the Conseil
Constitutionnel, any constitutional restrictions may result in the
annulment of the loi du pays.
Referral
to the Conseil Constitutionnel is
available to the Republic�s High Commissioneer or Delegate of the French
Central Government[134], the President of the New
Caledonian Government, the Presidents of representative assemblies (Congress
and Provincial assemblies)
and to one-third only of Congress members.[135]
Furthermore, even in the event that there is no referral to the Conseil Constitutionnel prior to the
official publication of the loi du pays,
this law can still be subject to the control of the Conseil Constitutionnel if, during the course of valid legal
proceedings, a claimant alleges that it is unconstitutional and asks for the
opinion of the
Conseil Constitutionnel,
provided that such request is accepted by the competent court. This claimant
may be given the right to ask a priority question
of constitutionality (question prioritaire de constitutionnalit�
(QPC)) in respect of a loi du pays.[136] This right to question the constitutionality
of published and promulgated legislation directly results from a recent
revision of
the French Constitution
in 2008, which was extended to New Caledonia in 2009.[137]
�
As initially voted, the Organic
Act No 99-209 of 19 March 1999 excluded any possible legal action against a
loi du pays after its promulgation
and publication (see Article 107).
The new right to question to constitutionality of a loi du pays even after its publication
resulting from the 2008 revision of Article 61-1 of the French Constitution modifies completely the
legal status and stability of the loi du
pays, and, indirectly, the stability of the devolution process agreed under
the terms of the Noumea Accord.
Because the French Constitutional Court can now annul the New
Caledonian legislation that has already been promulgated, published
and
applied, it becomes apparent that the French Constitutional Court has a
permanent capacity to request the modification of the
law made by the Congress
of New Caledonia by invoking French constitutional principles.
What is more problematic, the French Constitutional Court may be in a
position to choose between competing contradictory constitutional
principles,
in particular between the constitutional principles derived from its own well
established case law and the innovative
principles of the Noumea Accord inspired by decolonization purposes which have been
given constitutional force.
Following a priority question of constitutionality, the Conseil Constitutionnel recently ruled
that a specific provision (Article Lp.311-2) of the Labour Code of New Caledonia was inconstitutional and had to be
repealed accordingly. [138]
This creates a precedent which may inspire future claims and requests
aimed at challenging the constitutionality of several other
specific and
tailor-made laws of New Caledonia, including lois du pays which have implemented or will implement the
principles of the Noumea Accord
dealing with New Caledonian citizenship, social rights and local employment.
Should these laws excessively restrict the rights of the French
citizens in New Caledonia as opposed to those of New Caledonian citizens,
or
should they create too many discriminations, however positive they may be for
decolonization purposes, their constitutionality
could be questioned even after
their publication, and even though the Conseil
Constitutionnel admitted in principle the constitutionality of the Noumea Accord.
This risk is material in that
the capacity of the Congress of New Caledonia to promote an affirmative action
or local employment
preferential policy was limited from the outset by the
French Constitutional Court. In its decision on the draft Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March 1999, the Conseil Constitutionnel indicated that the laws of the Congress or lois du pays must resort to rational and
objective criteria that must be strictly defined and tailored to the promotion
of local employment
when defining the positively discriminated residents.[139]
This risk is also material if we consider the legal proceedings before
the European Court of Human Rights that have been fuelled
by the limitations of
voting rights imposed by the Noumea
Accord in respect of the election of the Congress of New Caledonia.[140]
�
To take other examples in
other areas where the Congress of New Caledonia is vested with a sovereign
law-making power, one can also
expect a limitation of its sovereignty by
reference to French overriding constitutional principles. In respect of economic, commercial
and tax reforms, the content of the New Caledonian legislation the Congress can
adopt to promote
certain economic sectors or investments is limited by French substantive
constitutional principles, in particular the principles
which protect private
ownership, freedom of commerce, fair trade, non-discrimination, or equality and
parity between tax payers.[141]
In respect of tax reforms, and in particular tax exemptions, the
applicability of French tax constitutional principles limits the
capacity of
the Congress of New Caledonia to enact laws which would create too blatant or
excessive preferential tax treatments
between taxpayers, or would excessively
affect the principle of public contribution of all citizens to the public revenue.[142] Therefore,
tax legislation of New Caledonia allowing tax incentives must apply rational,
objective and adequate factors to the
definition of the scope of application of
those tax incentives and also the companies or other legal persons intended to
benefit.
The French constitutional principle of retroactivity of laws in certain
areas such as tax[143] can
also be invoked to challenge the validity of existing or future lois du pays which grant long-term and
rigid tax stability regimes, and therefore somewhere deprive the Congress of
New Caledonia of its sovereign
right to legislate in respect of tax matters.
Therefore, even though the New Caledonian tax legislation adopted
subsequent to the Noumea Accord and
the Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March
1999 has introduced tax stability regimes, such as the ones applicable to the
mining and metallurgical sectors, the
validity, scope and effect of such
regimes can be challenged under French constitutional principles, since the Conseil Constitutionnel has, on the
contrary, authorized the legislature to change tax legislation at any time for
both the future and the past.[144]
Accordingly, the
legal force of the tax stability regimes recently granted by lois du pays in New Caledonia should not
be overestimated because such regimes can be challengeable in French courts,
even after the publication
of the lois du
pays, in particular in case of a priority
question of constitutionality.
3.4 Remaining transitional
nature of the constitutional status of New Caledonia
The constitutional status of
New Caledonia remains transitional in many respects. Obviously, it is
necessarily transitional in that
it directly derives from an interim
constitutional reform, which did not intend to fix the final status of New
Caledonia. Title
XIII of the French Constitution
devoted to New Caledonia is expressly titled �transitory provisions relating to
New Caledonia� (dispositions transitoires
relatives � la Nouvelle-Cal�donie).
In accordance with Article 4
of the Preamble of the Noumea Accord,
New Caledonia shares sovereignty �in preparation for full sovereignty�[145], which clearly
reveals that there is a common understanding that the status of New Caledonia
remains an �in-between� solution intended
to move New Caledonia from
colonization to the final step of its decolonization.
But the status of New
Caledonia also remains transitional because of its sustance and its own
dynamics, which create conflicting
tensions between principles that it fails to
reconcile.
The status of New Caledonia as
conceptualised by the Noumea Accord cannot
be fully stabilised because it directly conflicts with public international law
either in relation to France�s right to
occupy this territory in the past or
France�s right to govern itself the emancipation process in the future.
Looking at the past, even if
the Noumea Accord provides New
Caledonia with a constitutional recognition of the colonial past, the Kanak
culture, identity and land, it also stipulates
that France took possession of
this territory in accordance with the conditions of international law
applicable at the time of
colonization,[146] which is
challengeable by reference to international legal principles governing the
native rights of colonised people.[147]
Looking at the future, even
though the Noumea Accord entitles New
Caledonia to exercise �shared sovereignty� with the French state, and the right
to proceed with a referendum on its
access to full sovereignty, it does not
provide any constitutional guarantee for the access of New Caledonia to
self-determination
or independence at a certain date,[148] which contradicts
the public international law principles governing self-determination.[149]
As explained by Alan Berman:
Even though France
acknowledges emancipation is appropriate (�) emancipation through full
sovereignty and the possibility of associated
statehood for all communities
living in New Caledonia is dramatically different from a guarantee of a
U.N.-sponsored referendum
in accordance with U.N. principles and practices on self-determination
or guaranteed full independence for New Caledonia at a certain
date.[150]
From a French constitutional
law perspective, the constitutional status of New Caledonia also remains of a
transitional and ambiguous
nature because of the contradicting interpretations
and case law decisions that have affected its definition and implementation,
and its blatant conflict with the most fundamental unitary and indivisibility
principles of French national sovereignty, which
we have described through our
analytical review of the nature of the sovereign powers transferred to New
Caledonia.
Following this analysis, it
becomes apparent that the injection of federalist dynamics in the unitary
overall structure of the French
Republic has destabilized the different
foundations of the French state and its different sub-national entities because
of its
systemic effects.
In return, the authorities
attached to the unity and stability of the French constitutional model and the
indivisibility of the
sovereignty of the French nation, and in particular the
French Constitutional Court, have not hesitated to limit the effects of
the
innovative and pro-decentralization provisions of the Noumea Accord, to such an extent it is the stability of the
political equilibrium achieved by this agreement that is now quite debatable.
Whereas the French and New
Caledonian political forces tried to adjust French constitutional law so that
it can be compatible with
the new decentralised and co-sovereign status of New
Caledonia, the French Constitutional Court reacted by limiting the scope and
effects of the political agreement underlying the Noumea Accord. As a result, the new constitutional status of New
Caledonia looks even more transitional than it was designed to be under the Noumea Accord.
This interim nature of the constitutional
status of New Caledonia also raises some fundamental theoretical questions of constitutional
law. It represents an additional example of the use of transitional or interim constitutional
documents for the purpose of resolving
a temporary political crisis, which
contradicts the theoretical assumption that a constitution should be a document
of a constitutive
and essential nature, participating into the long-term
foundations and the longevity of a political and legal system.
According to certain constitutional
law specialists, a constitution should not be modified for short-term political
purposes because
it qualifies as a Loi
Fondamentale (�Fundamental Law�).[151] In other words,
there is a contradiction in the terms �transitional� and �constitutional�, to
such an extent a constitutional provision
of a transitional nature may be
deprived from its constitutional force, from a substantive point of view, if it
is designed and
understood as transitional from the outset.
This theoretical comment may
be relevant to the specific case of New Caledonia in that the constitutional
status of New Caledonia
was not only originally defined as transitional, but
was also rapidly modified by the case law decisions of the French
Constitutional
Court, to such an extent it no longer has the stability that it
was supposed to guarantee, at least until the consultation on the
full
emancipation of the territory by 2018.
As noticed by some authors,
even the Organic Act No 99-209 of 19
March 1999 already departed on several points from the Noumea Accord.[152]
Subsequently, as we have
explained, the case law decisions of the French Constitutional Court
significantly impacted on the scope
of the legislation making powers of the New
Caledonian law making assembly (the Congress). The French Constitution was even revised again in 2007 in order to �freeze�
even more the New Caledonian electorate, and preserve the full applicability
of
the original principles the Noumea Accord.[153]
In this respect, however
defendable the �freezing� conditions applicable to citizenship, residency and
voting rights may be from
a decolonization perspective, they create some
rigidity and polarizing divisions between ethnic groups that may affect the
sustainability
of the current interim constitutional regime as well as the
final status to be adopted following the consultation on the emancipation
of
the territory.[154]
All these fluctuations show
that the constitutional status of New Caledonia became more rapidly
transitional that it intended to
be,[155] and show the
relevance of the suggestion made by Vivien Hart that constitution revision
processes should be understood as necessarily
transitional, conversational, continuing
and flexible instead of being conclusive settlements, so that the dialogue of
transition
can continue.[156]
As explained by Yash Ghai, longevity
is no longer neither the main goal nor the main feature of contemporary
constitutions, which
�are less final or definitive than older constitutions.
Constitutions deal with complex and mutating realities�.[157] Contemporary
constitutions, and in particular constitutional settlements of an interim
nature, �are not the solution of problems
but rather institutional instruments
of problem solving�.[158]
On the contrary, the status of
New Caledonia may also be considered as too constitutional from a different
perspective, in that
it had global systemic effects on fundamental principles
of the French Constitution, and the
status of other constitutional institutions, territories or rules of the French
Republic, which have been affected or
destabilized by the constitutional
innovations introduced as the result of the Noumea
Accord.
Looking at these systemic
effects, the new status of New Caledonia has had an impact of a constitutional
nature, on the foundations
of the French state, nation and sovereignty, within
France and within the European Union which go far beyond the normal impact we
can expect of a simple �transitional� political agreement limited to a remote
and peripheral territory.
Conclusion
The new constitutional status
of New Caledonia was designed to be transitional, because it derives from an
interim political agreement
having a short-term purpose. It also represents a
transition in the constitutional history of New Caledonia because of its
intrinsic
hybrid nature.[159]
The particular transitional, if
not equivoqual, political and constitutional status of New Caledonia reflects
the traditional tension
between peripheral overseas territories and central
former colonial powers.
From an historical
perspective, it reflects the difficulties old nation-states such as France face
when they need to adapt their
constitutional models, based on absolute,
indivisible and consolidated sovereignty, where self-determination is defined
against
other nation-states. This old model conflicts with a new generation of
constitutional models, in particular ethnic and consociational
ones, and the
dynamics of federalism which seem to be more appropriate to meet the challenges
raised by multicultural societies.[160]
As many other hybrid
constitutional construction, the current constitutional status of New Caledonia
is not likely to survive, and
a new political as well as constitutional status
is likely to emerge whatever is the outcome of the referendum on the full
emancipation
or independence of the territory, or even if there is not, at the
end of the time period contemplated by the Noumea
Accord, any consultation on this fundamental question.
* B.Sc.Pol, B.A, M.A, B.Civ.Law, M.Civ.Law, LLM, Postgrad.Dipl.International Business Law, Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England Wales and Avocat au Barreau de Paris.
[1] ��� For an historical introduction to the colonial past and decolonization of New Caledonia see Alan Berman, �Future Kanak Independence in New Caledonia: reality or illusion?� (1998) 34-2 Stanford Journal of International Law 287�346.
[2] ��� See Dominique Custos, �New Caledonia, a Case of Shared Sovereignty within the French Republic: Appearance or Reality?� (2007) 13(1) European Public Law 100.
[3] ��� As explained by Dominique Custos, �the �overseas department� status allowed for similar, albeit adapted, institutions and laws as the rest of the French �departments�, and has applied to Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Reunion�. Ibid 100.
[4] ��� �See for example the Decree on Forests of 18 March 1910 and the Decree on Forest Protection of 15 September 1943.
[5] ��� For example, Acts related to the water irrigation regulations of 29 April 1845 and 11 August 1847 and the Draining Act of 10 June 1854.
[6] ��� This decision also resulted from France�s refusal as admninistering power to provide information to the United Nations General Assembly, which was presented as a fait accompli to the UN. For an historical analysis of this evolution, see Jean-Marc Regnault, L�ONU, la France et les décolonisations tardives: L�exemple des terres françaises d�Océanie (2013); see also Alan Berman, above n 1, 287�289 and �The Noumea Accords: Emancipation or Colonial Harness?� (2001) 36 Texas International Law Journal 278.
[7] ��� See Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, �Nationality and citizenship in a devolution context: Australian and New Caledonian experiences� (2008) 27-2 University of Queensland Law Journal 200.
[8] ��� In this respect, the constitutional history of New Caledonia illustrates the following paradox described by John Elster: �the task of constitution-making generally emerges in conditions that are likely to work against good constitution-making. Being written for the indefinite future, constitutions ought to be adopted in maximally calm and undisturbed conditions� but �the public will to make major constitutional change is unlikely to be present unless a crisis is impending�. John Elster, �Forces and Mechanisms in the Constitution-Making Process� (1995) 45 Duke Law Journal 394.
[9] ��� See Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res 41/41A, UN GAOR, 41st sess, 92nd plen mtg, Supp No 53, UN Doc A/RES/41/41A (2 December 1986) 49.
[10] � F.L.N.K.S stands for Front de Lib�ration Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (�Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front�).
[11] � R.P.C.R stands for Rassemblement pour la Cal�donie dans la Republique (�Rally for New Caledonia within the Republic�).
[12] � In this respect, the ten-year transitional regime contemplated by the Matignon-Oudinot Accords provided a model for the constitutional reform process needed for conflict resolution in Bougainville at the same period, in which the constitutional law specialist Yash Ghai was involved. As he explains, �the Papua New Guinea settlement gives the people of Bougainville the option to raise the issue of secession after a suitable period when the new autonomy arrangements have been given a chance�. Yash Ghai, �A journey around constitutions: reflections on contemporary constitutions� (2005) 122 South African Law Journal 824.
[13] � Which was a condition for ending the troubles in Kanak-controlled areas. As explained by Donald L. Horowitz, �there is no doubt that a key claim in settlement negotiations to end secessionist warfare will be that the rebels or regional politicians who succeed them control the putative secessionist region and be allowed to rule it autonomously�. Donald L. Horowitz, �Conciliatory Institutions and Constitutional Processes in Post-conflict States� (2008) 49 William and Mary Law Review 1238.
[14] � The focus on local development was key in the Matignon-Oudinot Accords, so that the
Kanak people can not only improve their political and administrative autonomy,
but also their financial autonomy.
As explained by Nicholas R.L Haysom:
�in many developing countries there are simply
no economic sector and no economic opportunities to speak outside the state
itself.
The economy is the polity (�) When this is combined with the
group-based politics of divided societies, the necessary implication
is that
minorities are destined to be perpetual losers both economically and
politically. Not surprisingly, the temptation for
such minorities is to choose
to opt out of the constitutional framework, and to demand a separate existence
within, or secession
from, the new state.
�Constitution Making and Nation Builing� in Raoul Blindenbacher and Arnold Koller (eds), Federalism in a Changing World: Learning from each other (2002) 221.
[15] � For an analysis of the history of this transition, see Alan Berman, above n 6, 278�280; Fran�ois Luchaire, Le statut constitutionnel de la Nouvelle-Cal�donie (2000) 30�50; Jean-Yves Faberon, �Nouvelle-Cal�donie et Constitution: la r�vision constitutionnelle du 20 juillet 1998� (1999) Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et � l�Etranger 113�130.
[16] � The Kanak population is in a position to control majority in two of the three Provinces of New Caledonia because the geographical boundaries of these Provinces have been mainly designed along the geographical boundaries of the local ethnicities. As explained by Lauren E. Miller, this type of policy of ethnic separation may increase inter-cultural potential conflict instead of reducing it. �Designing Constitution-Making Processes� in Laurel E.Miller (ed), Framing the State in Times of Transition (2010) 601�665.
[17] � As explained by Thomas Fleiner et al, in multicultural states which need to guarantee equality for majorities as well as minorities, �a political compromise has to be found between a cultural majority having enough power to define a majority regime on the one hand, and cultural minorities seeking recognition in the constitutional framework and participation in political decision making on the other. The institutional equilibrium is always compromise between a majority regime and institutional forms of minority protection and power sharing�. �Federalism, Decentralisation and Conflict Management in Multicultural States�, in Raoul Blindenbacher and Arnold Koller (eds), Federalism in a Changing World: Learning from each other (2002) 208.
[18] � As explained by Yash Ghai, �central to this framework is the constitutional recognition of communities as corporate groups and the bearers of political entitlements�; see above n 12, 818; see also Donald L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1215�1216; and Arendt Lijphart, �Constitutional Design for Divided Societies� (2004) 15(2) Journal of Democracy 96�109.
[19] � The inconvenience of the majority rule often explains the need for further strengthening of consociational democracy, as agreed in the case of the Noumea Accord. See Donald L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1215�1216. The reference to the risks of a negative vote on the conflictual issue of self-determination was naturally used by the political forces opposed to the secession of New Caledonia in order to reach an agreement with the pro-independence movement, which also illustrates the role of threat-based bargaining in constitutional reforms. As explained by John Elster, threat-based bargaining can operate �as a mechanism of aggregation. Vote trading may of course also be considered in this perspective, with the threat being that of with-holding one�s vote on an issue of vital importance to the opponent�. John Elster, above n 8, 390�395.
[20] � Like the Matignon-Oudinot
Accords, the Noumea Accord was
designed and structured only on existing dominant party lines, and were not
designed on the basis of a full participatory constitution
revision process.
These
Accords were peace negotiations as well as institutional arrangements, which
ideally would have required separate processes.
As explained by Nicholas R.L
Haysom, above n 14, 233:
�when
the processes are conflated, the constitution making process is unlikely to be
transparent, inclusive or popular. Peace negotiations
typically take place
between the principal protagonists-government/military junta and insurgent
leaders-in secret. They exclude
significant players such as internal opposition
parties, or other ethnic nationalities. This poses risks to the long-term or
broader
constitutional acceptability of any arrangements agreed to.
On the contrary, participatory constitution making and revision processes such as the ones experimented in Canada, South Africa, Nicaragua or Rwanda may include the establishment of elected constitutional reform commissions, training and sensitization of the population about the Constitution, consultation of the population on the content of the draft Constitution prior to its negotiation, validation of the draft Constitution, approval of the final text of the Constitution by referendum, review of the Constitution even after its implementation, or other innovations. For an analysis of these techniques, which were not used in New Caledonia apart from the approval referendum, see Vivien Hart, �Democratic Constitution Making�, in U.N Institute for Peace Special Report 107 (July 2003) 455�458.
[21] � The replacement of majoritarian democracy by consensual democracy is typical of consociational constitutional arrangements. See Daniel L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1216.
[22] � 27 May 1998, 8039�8044 [hereinafter Noumea Accord]. For a general review see Alan Berman, above n 6, 277�297; Jean-Yves Faberon, above n 15, 113�130; Olivier Gohin, �L��volution institutionnelle du statut de la Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (1999) Actualit� Juridique Droit Administratif (AJDA) 51; G. Rossinyol, �Les accords de Noum�a du 5 mai 1998: un nouveau statut pour la Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (2000) Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et � l�Etranger 445�486.
[23] � In this respect, the origin of the Noumea Accord may be characterised as �historic revenge for lost self-determination, past discrimination, or other past wrongs�, to follow the typology proposed for the �causes of conflict within multicultural states� by Thomas Fleiner et al, above n 17, 202.
[24] � Combined with the French state�s undertaking to finance a Cultural Memorial of the Kanak Culture, the different obligations and transfers of powers accepted by the French state in order to promote the Kanak culture and traditions have introduced in the constitutional reform a strong emotional element, which confirms that passion plays a role in constitution making and reform. As explained by John Elster, above n 8, 364�396, feelings like self-love, amour propre or community pride charge the language of constitution with emotional concepts. As he explains, �we find [passion] both in the framers and in the assumption they make about the framed (�) the call for a new constitution usually arises in turbulent circumstances, which tend to foster passion rather than reason�. On the relationship between Constitution and culture, see also Gunter Frankenberg, �Comparing Constitution: Ideas, ideals, and ideology � toward a layered narrative� (2006) 3 International Journal of Constitutional Law 439�459.
[25] � Hence the establishment of Kanak customary
authorities (autorit�s coutumi�res)
and special land status for customary lands (terres coutumi�res). The 1998 reform was needed because of the
incapacity of the French traditional constitutional model to address the
questions
raised by cultural or ethnic minorities, in particular the question
of �who should govern whom�, as analysed by Thomas Fleiner et
al, above n 17,
199�201. As explained by these authors, France remains an old nation-state,
where
nation is made by the Constitution (�) held together by political values (�) it can incorporate other cultures as long as no political recognition is claimed for them (�) This implies that individuals are conceived as rational human beings who ignore their cultural roots (...) Their cultural identity is of no political value (�) Cultures that consider themselves excluded, and in particular those that previously inhabited the territory, may not find the ideology of the melting pot acceptable, and to that extent may threaten the legitimacy of the state.
[26] � Even though this new local citizenship status is not defined by reference to ethnic conditions, but by residence conditions, as we will explain later, the Noumea Accord reflects the dynamics of ethnic politics in that it is based on a clear separation of the Kanaks from the rest of the New Caledonian population. To a certain extent, the Kanak identity is also defined by opposition to the rest of the local population. Furthermore, the Noumea Accord of 1998 also recognises the Kanak people as a �people� (peuple), i.e. a nation-in-waiting, rather than a minority �population� (population). This recognition of a people that would be distinct from the French people, and therefore the French nation, is unprecedented in French constitutional law, because of the indivisibility of the French nation stated under Article 3 of the Constitution of the French Republic. This terminology implies that the Kanaks qualify as a colonised people rather than an ethnic minority, which opens new Kanak perspectives for a decolonisation process that would be based on UN principles and practice rather than French constitutional law. As explained by Ulrich Preuss, �ethnic politics involves a �re-naturalization� politics in that �ascriptive� properties determine the perception of oneself, of others, and of society at large�. See Ulrich Preuss, �Rule-making and policy actors in the transition and the issue of the strategy of transformation� (2001) 53 Studies in East European Thought 193.
[27] � For a complete review of the complete devolution process in respect of these different matters, see Jean-Yves Faberon, above n 15, 113�130; Jean-Yves Faberon and Guy Agniel, La souverainet� partag�e en Nouvelle-Cal�donie et en droit compar� (2000); Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 51; Philippe Portet, �Le nouveau statut de la Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (1999) 3 Revue de la Recherche Juridique 938; Fran�ois Luchaire, above n 15; Mathias Chauchat, �Transferts de comp�tence et avenir de la Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (2007) Actualit� Juridique Droit Administratif (AJDA) 2243�2247.
[28] � Following the ten-year transitional period contemplated by the Matignon-Oudinot Accords, the new transitional phase reserved by the Noumea Accord for the preparation of the referendum on the emancipation of New Caledonia confirms that �important design and process elements can add tens of years to constitutional lives, perhaps allowing the charters to survive even these intense shocks� as noticed by Tom Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins and James Melton, The Lifespan of Written Constitutions (2007) 3. However, a time-limit for the transition is also necessary because, as explained by John Elster, �if people find themselves with all the time they need to find a good solution, no solution at all may emerge�. Above n 8, 395. For contrary examples that do not validate this statement, such as the latest Polish constitutional reform, see Laurel E. Miller, above n 16, 638�639.
[29] � See Noumea Accord, Paragraphs 3.3 and 5.
[30] � As explained by Laurel E. Miller, above n 16,
625, an interim constitutional arrangement
may take a variery of forms, including a fully elaborated but explicitly temporary constitution, a statute that serves in place of a constitution, or a political agreement among conflicting parties who intend to engage in constitution making. Whatever the form, two main aspects of such arrangements relevant to constitution-making processes are, first, the provision of operative transitional measures intended to serve as a constitutional placeholder, and, second, the specification of fundamental principles to guide the future�
[31] � This major constitutional reform was a condition of the political stabilization of New Caledonia required by the deferral of the referendum on the independence of the territory for an additional period of ten years. It illustrates �the role that negotiations over a constitution play in resolving conflict, rather than making a constitution after conflict has ended�, as explained by Yash Ghai, above n 12, 824. In this respect the experience of New Caledonia offers some similarities with the interim constitutional arrangements used in South Africa in 1993, which were �intermediate reforms made for a transitional period where there is a need for immediate compromises not suited for a constitution that is meant to endure, and where it is not feasible to craft those compromises in a democratic and transparent forum�, as described by Laurel E. Miller, above n 16, 625.
[32] � Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no 99-409 DC, 15 March 1999, on New Caledonia, NOR CSCL 9903472S and NOR CSCL 9903473S. Here again the case study of New Caledonia offers some similarities with the 1993 constitutional reform process in South Africa, where the Constitutional Court also protected the constitutional rank of the initial constitutional arrangement, even though this document was agreed on an interim basis. For an analysis of the South African constitutional reform, see Laurel E. Miller, above n 16, 626�627.
[33] � Because of this sequencing, and the articulation of its different steps, and its intention to rebuild a new social contract of government in New Caledonia, the language of the Noumea Accord reflects more a constitution-building process than a simple constitution-making process. On the distinction between constitution building and constitution making, see IDEA Report (2011).
[34] � As explained by Alan Berman, above n 6, 282, �France was forced to revise its constitution to allow for a change in the territorial status of New Caledonia within the French Republic�.
[35] � Loi Constitutionnelle no 98-610 du 20 juillet 1998 [Constitutional Act] (France) JO, 21 July 1998, 1143. This Constitutional Act was subsequently revised by the Loi Constitutionnelle no 2007-237 du 23 f�vrier 2007 [Constitutional Act] (France) JO, 24 February 2007, 3354. For a critical review of this Act, see Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 51; Jean-Yves Faberon, above n 15, 113�130.
[36] � Pursuant to Article 2 of Loi Constitutionnelle no 98-610 du 20 juillet 1998 [Constitutional Act] (France) JO, 21 July 1998 concerning New Caledonia. For a full description of the approval process, see Jean-Yves Faberon, above n 15, 113�130.
[37] � Under French constitutional law, statutes can be promulgated in two forms: ordinary statutes or organic/institutional statutes. Institutional or organic statutes are designed to implement the Constitution as they further provide for the organization of powers or entities of a constitutional nature.
[38] � See Loi Organique no 99-209 du 19 mars 1999 [Organic or Institutional Act] (France) JO 21 March 1999, 4197. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitutional Act No 98-610 of 20 July 1998 relating to New Caledonia, the purpose of this act of enforcement was to �ensure the development of New Caledonia with full respect of the orientation set down by the [Noumea Accord] and in compliance with the procedures required in respect of the same, the transfer of State power to the institutions of New Caledonia, timing and procedures for these transfers, and the sharing of the resulting costs�.
[39] � Loi Ordinaire no 99-210 du 19 mars 1999 [Ordinary Act] (France) JO, 21 March 1999, 4226 (relating to New Caledonia).
[40] � It was modified by the Loi Organique no 2007-223 du 21 f�vrier 2007 (France) JO, 14 April 2007, 6818; the Loi Organique no 2009-969 du 3 ao�t 2009 (France) JO, 6 August 2009,13095; the Loi Organique no 2009-1523 du 10 d�cembre 2009 (France) JO, 11 December 2009, 21379; the Loi Organique no 2011-333 du 29 mars 2011 (France) JO, 30 March 2011, 5497; the Loi Organique no 2011-410 du 14 avril 2011 (France) JO, 19 April 2011, 6826; the Loi Organique no 2011-870 du 25 juillet 2011 (France) JO, 26 July 2011, 12705; the Loi Organique no 2013-906 du 11 octobre 2013 (France) JO, 12 October 2013, 16824; the Loi Organique no 2013-1027 du 15 novembre 2013 (France) JO, 16 November 2013, 18616; and the Loi Organique no 2015-987 du 5 ao�t 2015 (France) JO, 6 August 2015, 13481. We refer here to the consolidated and updated version of the Organic Act No 99-209 of 19 March 2009 [hereinafter Organic Act No 99-209] as available from the French official legislation website, www.legifrance.fr. For a review of the recent evolution of the status of New Caledonia see Mathias Chauchat, above n 27, 2243�2247; Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 193; Laurence Henry, �La Nouvelle Cal�donie est-elle encore une collectivit� territoriale de la R�publique?� (2008) Revue de la Recherche Juridique: Droit Prospectif 2135�2149.
[41] � See Ernest A. Young, �The Constitution Outside the Constitution� (2008) 117 Yale Law Journal 100; see also Tom Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins and Justin Blount, �Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter?� (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 201.
[42] The purpose of the Noumea Accord was supposed to �ensure the development of New Caledonia with full respect of the orientation set down by this agreement and in compliance with the procedures required in respect of same, the transfer of State power to the institutions of New Caledonia, timing and procedures for these transfers, and the sharing of resulting costs�. Article 3, Loi Constitutionnelle n� 98-610 du 20 juillet 1998 concerning New Caledonia.
[43] As
explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 99,
this term refers to the transitional partitioning of powers between the French Republic and one of its territories in the Pacific in which the indigenous Melanesian people have been fighting for independence and have been opposed to descendants of French settlers advocating French rule. Under such �shared sovereignty�, henceforth inscribed in a specific title (Title XIII) of transitional provisions of the 1958 Constitution, the powers of the central government are enumerated.
[44] � In accordance with Paragraph 3 of the Preamble of the Noumea Accord, there is immediate devolution of powers in the area of employment regulation, trade, natural resources and primary education, postal and telecommunication services, shipping services, administration of the Provinces and customary mediation in sentencing. During the second and third five-year Congressional terms of office, other powers are transferred to New Caledonia, including: policing and security regulations for domestic air and sea traffic; rules for civil defense; accounting and financial regulations for Territorial local administration entities; civil and commercial law; land ownership, real property rights; rules for administration of communes (municipal districts); administrative control over local administration entities and their controlled entities and secondary education. For more details see Fran�ois Luchaire, above n 15, 35.
[45] � As explained by Vivien Hart, above n 20, 449. As she suggests, ��interim� or �transitional� constitutions that include guarantees for a continuing, open and inclusive process for the longer term offer one solution to urgent needs for a framework of governance in new, divided, or war-torn nations�.
[46] � Which are all techniques and policies that can be used by multicultural states to meet the challenge of multiculturalism according to Thomas Fleiner et al, above n 17, 204�205.
[47] � See Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Organic Act No 99-209. In accordance with Article 28 of this Act, the President of the Government can negotiate international treaties and accords in respect of matters which are relevant to the New Caledonian authorities, provided that the French central government authorises this negotiation and delegates the power to sign. On such international powers see Cameron Diver, �La Nouvelle-Cal�donie dans l�exercice des ses relations internationales: l�Accord de Si�ge entre le Gouvernement de la R�publique Fran�aise et la Communaut� du Pacifique� (2004) 3(1) Revue Juridique, Politique et Economique de la Nouvelle Caledonie 10�13.
[48] � As a result of the 1998 reform, New Caledonia is also divided in three different Provinces: the North Province, the South Province (including Kuni� Island) and the Province of Loyalty (Loyaut�) Islands (Ouv�a, Lifou, Tiga and Mar�). For further definitions, see Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 51; Jean-Yves Faberon and Guy Agniel, above n 27; Fran�ois Luchaire, above n 15.
[49] � In
accordance with Article 99 of the Organic Act No 99-209 the New Caledonian
Congress has legislative competence for essential matters, including:
2�-��� Regulations concerning the calculation base
and collection of all taxes duties or levies whatsoever;
3�-��� Basic principles of labor law, trade union
law and social security law;
4�-��� Regulations relating to foreign worker
access to the job market; (�)
6�-��� Rules relating to hydrocarbons, nickel,
chrome, cobalt and rare earth elements; (�)
����� 8�-��� Rules concerning
access to employment; (�)
����� 10�-� Underlying principles concerning ownership, real property rights and civil and commercial obligations.
[50] � See also Article 2.1.3 of the Noumea Accord. The legislative nature of the lois du pays has been acknowledged by most of French constitutional law specialists; for instance, see Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 51; R�gis Fraisse, �La hi�rarchie des normes applicables en Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (2000) 16-1 Revue Fran�aise de Droit Administratif 81.
[51] � This condition was included in the Noumea Accord itself (Article 2.1.3) in order to guarantee a maximum legal force of the loi du pays against any potentially conflicting rule, except Constitutional rules. In accordance with Article 73 of the Organic Act No 99-209, the draft lois du pays can be initiated either by the Government of New Caledonia or directly by the Congress of New Caledonia.
[52] � This allocation of competence and �shared
sovereignty� to the New Caledonian Congress is a direct consequence of the
intention of
the French public authorities to grant genuine legislative power
to this representative assembly, identical to those exercised by
the mainland
French Parliament. As explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 115:
these local institutions are the national ones in miniature (�) Until shared sovereignty, as an Overseas Territory, New Caledonia�s Congress could only issue administrative acts subject to judicial review by administrative courts. Under shared sovereignty, in addition to its rulemaking powers, as an �Overseas country�, New Caledonia�s Congress may vote statutes, which are called statutes of the country, in enumerated areas. It is symptomatic that the procedural provisions regarding the formation of these local statutes mirror those applicable to the only statutes known in French law until then, i.e those adopted by the national parliament.
[53] � See arts 39�42 of the Organic Act No 99-209.
[54] � See ibid art 24.
[55] � See ibid arts 28�33.
[56] � This competence also derives from Article
22-1o of the Organic Act No 99-209,
which situplates that the New Caledonian authorities have jurisdiction in
respect of the following matters:
taxes, duties and levies collected for the benefit of New Caledonia; creation or allocation of taxes, levies and duties for the benefit of funds reserved for local municipalities, public establishments or organisations vested with public service responsabilities; creation of taxes, duties and levies for the benefit of the Provinces, the Communes, and public establishments of cooperation between the Communes�
[57] � In accordance with Articles 22 and 99 of the Organic Act No 99-209.
[58] � In this respect, this constitutional design is also intended to prevent political conflicts by enabling an acceleration of economic development at local level. As explained by Thomas Fleiner et al, above n 17, 210, �decentralised forms of government help to dilute potential conflicts by giving some political power and some control over economic resources to all parts of the population, including minorities�.
[59] � Article 99-6 of the Organic Act No 99-209 explicitly included one specific provision in this purpose, in order to authorise the Congress of New Caledonia to legislate in respect of �hydrocarbons, nickel, chrome, cobalt and rare earth elements�. This competence was extended to rare earth elements under the last revision of the Organic Act No 99-209 by the Organic Act No 2013-1027 of 15 November 2013 (see Loi Organique No 2013-1027 du 15 novembre 2013 (France) JO, 16 November 2013, 18616).
[60] � The Congress of New Caledonia is empowered to enact tax laws as well as mineral laws, in accordance with Article 99-1 and 6 of the Organic Act No 99-209. The French territory of New Caledonia is part of a group of countries which have the largest nickel deposits of the world, which may be estimated at some 40 million tonnes, representing one quarter of the world�s known nickel resources. Nickel represents the principal source of export earnings. For further details and references on nickel mining in New Caledonia, see Guillaume P. Blanc, �Environmental regulations and mining industry in New Caledonia� (1999) Mining Journal, Mining Environmental Management supplement 17�18; Elsa Faugere and Isabelle Merle, La Nouvelle-Cal�donie, vers un destin commun? (2010).
[61] � For an overview of the competence of the Congress of New Caledonia in respect of mining, see Guillaume P. Blanc, �Recent changes in the Institutional and Legal Framework for the Mining Industry in New Caledonia� (2002) 6 International Energy Law and Taxation Review 146�152.
[62] � This citizenship was defined by reference to
residency in order to avoid any reference to ethnic or racial conditions, which
would
have created discriminations totally incompatible with French constitutional
law. In this respect, the 1998 constitutional reform
used an inclusive method
by which the democracy can function in a more
inclusive manner, granting greater benefits for minorities, a stake holding and
ownership
of the system without recourse to the explicit constitutionalisation
of ethnic categories (�) By choosing not to constitutionalise
an ethnic basis
of representation, it allows the society to move towards interest-based
politics, and the impact of other cross-cutting
identities (e.g.class, region,
occupation) to blur the raw ethnic dyamic encouraged by opportunistic elites.
Nicholas R.L. Haysom, above n 14, 225.
[63] � For an analysis of this citizenship from a comparative Australian-New Caledonian perspective, see Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 193.
[64] � As explained by Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, �while a New Caledonian citizenship was created in 1998 by agreement between the French and New Caledonian representatives, this local status is superimposed on the French citizenship that New Caledonians possess and therefore is concurrently held with their French nationality�. Ibid 193.
[65] � This innovation reveals that �constitutional frameworks, whether inherited or long entrenched, appear incapable of managing the increasing assertiveness of identity politics� where �conflicts are about the very sense of who the protagonists are, and about the survival or recognition of their identity (�) Whether there is little or no shared concept of the �nation�, only the group identities matter�. Nicholas R.L. Haysom, above n 14, 216�218.
[66] � See above n 2, 120.
[67] � In accordance with the Noumea Accord, the Congress of New Caledonia voted in 2010 a loi du pays which defines three new �identity symbols� (signes identitaires) for New Caledonia, including a new anthem and new symbols on New Caledonian bank notes. See loi du pays no 2010-11 du 9 septembre 2010 (New Caledonia) JONC N� 8537, 8264. With the consociational model, as explained by Donald L. Horowitz, above 13, 1215�1216, �the underlying principles are proportional inclusion, mutual group vetoes on major issues and group cultural autonomy�; see also Arendt Lijphart, above n 18, 96�109.
[68] � The restrictive rules governing access to New Caledonian citizenship, the New Caledonian electorate and the electorate allowed to vote on the emancipation of the territory are designed to secure a possible majority position to the Kanak voters in respect of key elections related to matters of major concern for them, i.e. Provincial elections and the future consultation on self-determination. These provisions have been sharply contested by the 23,000 French citizens who are not able to vote in elections for the three provincial assemblies and Congress. However, a succession of international bodies has recognised that these alleged �discriminatory� laws are valid in the context of a decolonisation process. An appeal to the UN Human Rights Committee was rejected in July 2002, and the January 2005 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Py v. France (European Court of Human Rights, Application No 66289/01, 6 June 2005), rejected claims that restricting voting rights for French nationals in assembly elections was discriminatory. For further details, see Nic Maclellan, �Under a new flag? Defining citizenship in New Caledonia� (SSGM Discussion paper 2010/2, State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Project, ANU, Canberra, 2010).
[69] � This policy is typical of affirmative action models which promote equality for all communities. As explained by Thomas Fleiner et al, above n 17, 204, �some states may go beyond tolerance by extending it not only to individuals but also to their communities, through a policy of affirmative action, falling short of collective rights. Affirmative action is directed to individuals who have unequal opportunities because they belong to a minority against which there is or has been discrimination�.
[70] � As classified by Yash Ghai. The constitutional reform of New Caledonia belongs to both generations of constitutions. It integrates some of the features of an independence constitution because it intends to achieve the decolonization process, but it also innovates with constitutional asymmetries and consociational rules in order to do justice to the native ethnic group of the Kanaks. As Yash Ghai explains, in independence constitutions �the structures of the state were redesigned to introduce democratic forms of representation based on a new concept of citizenship, not always equal or universal and also qualified by differentiation and inequality explicit in customary laws�; see above n 12, 817�819; see also Donald L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1213.
[71] � As explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 99: �Evaluated against the backdrop of the evolution of the French constitutional system, the status of New Caledonia appears to be a transitional and isolated regime in the overall constitutional scheme on which it has already produced some systemic effects�.
[72] � This reform was implemented by the Organic Act No 99-509 dated March 19, 1999.
[73] � New Caledonia is now subject to new Sections 76 and 77 of the French Constitution and is excluded from the scope of application of sections of the Title XII of the French Constitution that are entirely devoted to Overseas Territories (Sections 73�74).
[74] � See Article 74 of the French Constitution.
[75] � As explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 127, �it constitutes a third category of French overseas sub-national units which currently, under the constitution, has no specific name�.
[76] � See Article 1.5 of the Preamble of the Noumea Accord.
[77] � See Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 52; for a dissenting opinion, see Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 193.
[78] � See Noumea Accord (France) JO, 27 May 1998, 8039�8044.
[79] � For a description of the different categories of overseas territorial units see Fran�ois Luchaire, above n 15; and also Jean Gicquel et Jean-�ric Gicquel, Droit constitutionnel et institutions politiques (2009); see also Michel de Guillenchmidt, Droit constitutionnel et institutions politiques (2008).
[80] � As
it is expressly declared by the French Parliament: �Although New Caledonia is a
collectivity, it has such a specific status that
it is governed by a reserved
title of the French Constitution. It is no longer a territoire d�outre-mer (TOM),
and it is not a collectivit�
territoriale de la R�publique as governed by article 72 of the French
Constitution�. See Parliamentary
debates on the draft Organic Law relating to the legal status of New Caledonia,
(France) JO Senat CR, 3 February
1999, 651 (Amendment n� 233 submitted by
Senator Simon Loueckhote).
As one of the leading Magistrates of the Administrative Court of Noumea (Tribunal Administratif de Noum�a) noticed, �New Caledonia is no longer neither a T.O.M. nor a Collectivit� Territoriale de la R�publique like Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Mayotte.� Regis Fraisse, above n 50, 77.
[81] � The Conseil d�Etat, i.e. the French highest administrative court, ruled in 2006 that New Caledonia cannot qualify as an �Overseas Territorial Collectivity� (Collectivit� Territoriale d�Outre-Mer) as defined under Article 72 of Title XII of the French Constitution. See Conseil d�Etat [French Administrative Court], Section du Contentieux, 13 December 2006 [2006] Rec Lebon (case law decision 279323, M.Genelle), also published in Actualit� Juridique-Droit Administratif (AJDA) 363 (commentaries by F. Lenica and J. Boucher). See also Stephane Verclytte, �La Nouvelle-Caledonie n�est plus une collectivite territoriale� (2007) Revue fran�aise de droit administratif 18�26. See also comments of Mathias Chauchat, above n 27, 2243.
[82] � See above n 6, 282.
[83] � See Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 51.
[84] � Ibid 507.
[85] � Conseil d�Etat [French Administrative Court] 27 February 1970 reported in [1970] Said Ali Tourqui Rec Lebon 138, also published in Actualit� Juridique Droit Administratif (AJDA) (1970) 220, with commentaries of Renaud Denoix de Saint-Marc (available at http://legimobile.fr/fr/jp/a/ce/as/1970/2/27/77577/).
[86] � (France) JO, 2 March 2004, 4183.
[87] � Regarding a comparative analysis of both the status of New Caledonia and French Polynesia, see Philippe Portet, �Le nouveau statut de la Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (1999) 3 Revue de la Recherche Juridique 938; Yves Brard, �Nouvelle-Cal�donie et Polyn�sie fran�aise: les lois du pays� (2001) 112 Petites Affiches 11.
[88] � According to Mathias Chauchat, the status of New Caledonia is even an alien construction (�tranget�) from a French law perspective. See above n 27, 2243.
[89] � Dominique Custos, above n 2, 128.
[90] � As explained by Dominique Custos, �in the case of France, habitually considered the epitome of centralization this choice of technique is particularly significant as it denotes a certain balance between a centre and a periphery which equally have the ability to exercise powers�. Ibid 104.
[91] � As explained by Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 201, this methodology �follows the US and Australian federal models: it enumerates the Caledonian powers (like the Commonwealth powers) and leaves all unlisted powers to the �Provinces� (like the States in Australia)�.
[92] � In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Noumea Accord. According to some authors, this transfer of powers is irreversible and effective by the prescribed time limit under the constitutional provisions of the Noumea Accord, even though no legislation is enacted by the Congress of New Caledonia to schedule it. See Mathias Chauchat, above n 27, 2243�2247. Contra Olivier Gohin, �Comment d�panner l�Accord de Noum�a?� (2008) Actualit� Juridique �Droit Administratif (AJDA), 291.
[93] � The dynamics of federalism also often derive from the consociational goals of constitutional arrangements aimed at strengthening autonomy and power-sharing, if not self-determination, as it is the case in New Caledonia. As noticed by Donald L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1218, �Consociationalists see federalism as a device to foster group autonomy in homogeneous regions or provinces�.
[94] � As
explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 116:
First the partition of the statutory power among different levels of government is in conflict with the classical politico-administrative organization of a unitary state such as France. In such a state, the expression of the general will is monopolized by the national parliament, consequently, local assemblies are confined to delegated legislation. The recognition of a New Caledonian source of statutory law (�) reflects a distribution of the expression of sovereignty among the different levels of government. To this extent, the sovereignty is shared and the legislative power is an undeniable asset of the co-sovereign status of New Caledonia. Thus such a feature provides a tangible power with which New Caledonia satisfies an important element of the autonomy requirement of the federate state.
[95] � As explained by Thomas Fleiner et al, above n
17, 206�207:
Decentralisation gives communities limited autonomy and thus self-government. But central power continues to be exercised in accordance with the majority principle, and the decision as to what minority should have how much governmental power continues to depend on the majority. Only a balance between self-rule and shared rule can give communities the opportunity to promote their cultures within their territories.Only on this basis is it possible to provide the necessary base for the balanced development of all communities, together with the majority of the citizens and the people. Such a result can be constitutionally achieved only through a federal design.
[96] � As mentioned in the very first article of the French Constitution: �France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic�. Article 3 further provides that �national sovereignty shall belong to the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum. No section of the people, nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof�.
[97] � As explained by certain constitutionalists, France has always been �a unitary state, mono-constitutional and mono-legislative�. Olivier Gohin, above n 92, 291.
[98] � See Dominique Custos, above n 2, 117. According to Thomas Fleiner et al, above n 17, 201, an old nation-state �is unable to accommodate a fragmented political identity (�). Either the minorities must be integrated within the majority culture, destroying their original cultural roots, or they must be denied the opportunity to enhance their cultural identity through political means. A fragmented political identity is rejected as a solution, because of is threat to the unity, homogeneity, and the very roots of the state�s existence�. Although this evolution conflicts with French constitutional law, it remains quite compatible with public international law, in particular UN principles and practice of decolonisation, which recognises the specific rights of colonised peoples to claim their right to self-determination in a non-self-governing territory.
[99] � See above n 14, 224�225.
[100] See Dominique Custos, above n 2, 105 and 129.
[101] The status of New Caledonia still does not meet all the conditions of a federate state, in particular because of the lack of constitutional guarantees which protect the authority of the different New Caledonian powers, the lack of financial guarantees regarding the adequate provision of resources to the New Caledonian authorities, the existence of New Caledonian citizenship which creates an inequality incompatible with the equality of all citizens in a federal state, or the right to secede reserved for New Caledonian citizens. As explained by Nicholas R.L Haysom, �federal units do not usually have the right to secede as matter of conventional practice or even under international law�, above n 14, 228. For other differences between the New Caledonian status and the federal model, see Dominique Custos, above n 2, 128�129.
[102] As explained by David Marrani, �it is obvious that France has probably forgotten, for many reasons, to take into consideration the specificities of its overseas populations and sometimes the reality of the French population itself�. David Marrani, �Will New Caledonia be another Tokelau?� (2006) 31-2 Alternative Law Journal 103.
[103] Even though this reform does not apply to New Caledonia. See Mathias Chauchat, above n 27, 2244.
[104] In accordance with the new Article 1 of the French Constitution resulting from the amendment of 28 March 2003, France �shall be organized on a decentralized basis�.
[105] Although, as explained, such statutes of the French Polynesia do not have legislative force, unlike the lois du pays voted by the Congress of New Caledonia. See Yves Brard, above n 87, 11; Dominique Custos, above n 2, 97.
[106] Dominique Custos, above n 2, 131.
[107] There are also similarities between the European Union citizenship and the New Caledonian citizenship. The status of New Caledonia was influenced by the debates about European Union citizenship, and, in return, may have influenced the evolution of French constitutional law in respect of the applicability in France of both the European and French citizenships. According to Mathias Chauchat, and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 199, �reference to the European evolution could not have been ignored by the negotiators of the Noumea Agreement�.
[108] In this respect, the evolution of the New Caledonian status has sub-national as well as supra-national effects, which reflect the dynamics affecting the national levels of government in different old nation-states like France. As explained by Vivien Hart, �Nation-states, defined by established boundaries and the sole possession of sovereignty, have been challenged from inside by claims for self-determination or secession, and from without by the proliferation of transnational political or economic treaties and powers with global reach�. Vivien Hart, above n 20, 451. For similar comments, see Yash Ghai, above n 12, 808.
[109] For a comparison between the New Caledonian devolution process and the UK devolution process, see David Marrani, above n 102, 102�103.
[110] As explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 131, �whether it is analysed as an apparent or a real albeit partial partition of sovereignty, the Franco-Caledonian shared sovereignty emerges as an institutional laboratory whose catalytic effects run from the Pacific to the mainland and overseas France�.
[111] According to certain constitutionalists, the Noumea Accord generated a form of New Caledonian Constitution artificially inserted into the French Constitution through the creation of a new and isolated Title, i.e. Title XIII. It has been argued that this Title is so �heretic� compared to the rest of the French Constitution that it creates another Constitution rather than amends the existing one. See Mathias Chauchat, above n 27, 2244; Olivier Gohin, above n 92, 291.
[112] For certain constitutionalists, it is the entire French public law that is destabilized by the constitutional reform of the status of New Caledonia. See Olivier Gohin, above n 92, 291.
[113] See Dominique Custos, above n 2, 131�133.
[114] Held on 8 November 1998.
[115] Held on 20 July 1998.
[116] See Article 90 of the Organic Act No 99-209.
[117] For a critical review of the Noumea Accord as a simple disguisement of post-colonial tactics, see Alan Berman, above n 6, 277�297. Contra Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 193.
[118] According to Vivien Hart, above n 20, 454�458, public
participatory constitutionalism is based on the idea that
citizens
also participate directly in the conduct of public affairs when they choose or
change their constitution (�) �participation
is now promoted as both a right
and a necessity. The right is established in international declarations and
conventions adopted
by most nations, as well as in many recent national
constitutions. The necessity stems in part from the forceful advocacy of
democracy
as the sole model for legitimate governance in a would-be �new world
order�. Ironically, older nations in the western liberal tradition
from which
such calls have come have not often themselves extended the idea of democratic
governance to constitution making.
France clearly belongs to this tradition, whereas there is international legal recognition of the right of the population, specially native tribes, to participate into constitution making or reform beyond the act of voting, as explained by Vivien Hart by reference to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights (UNHCR) Marshall v. Canada ruling (Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 205/1986, 43rd sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/43/D/205/1986 (4 November 1991) and the UNHCR General Comment on Article 25 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 25: Article 25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote), The Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right of Equal Access to Public Service, 57th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7 (12 July 1996). See Vivien Hart, above n 20, 454�458.
[119] If this transfer is defined as irreversible, the document which defines this transfer as irreversible, is not itself irreversible, in spite of its constitutional nature, because French constitutional law is not irreversible. See Olivier Gohin, above n 92, 293.
[120] Conseil Constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision DC N�82-142, 27 July 1982 reported in JO, 29 July 1982, 2424. The Conseil Constitutionnel has held that �the legislator cannot bind itself, as a law may always and with no conditions whether or not implicit, be repealed or amended by a subsequent law�.
[121] See above n 102, 103.
[122] See Alan Berman, above n 6, 292; Dominique Custos, above n 2, 124.
[123] The associated statehood option has been considered multiple times, even by the Kanak pro-independence F.L.N.K.S movement, before and after the Noumea Accord, and even more recently in 2006 during its 37th Congress. In addition, this solution would be compatible with UN international rules since the UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 declares that a non self-governing territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by emergence as a sovereign independent State, free association with an independent State, or integration with an independent State. See Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 205.
[124] As explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 125, �such an imbalance in respective means of protection of their jurisdiction between France and New Caledonia is indicative of mechanisms of control of sub-national governments within a unitary state and greatly contradicts the reciprocity of constitutional guarantee of respective jurisdictions in a federal state�.
[125] See Articles 200 and 204 of the Organic Act No 99-209.
[126] See Dominique Custos, above n 2, 122.
[127] The precedence of Organic Acts, and in particular the Organic Act No 99-209, was confirmed in the first case law decision of the Conseil Constitutionnel issued in respect of a loi de pays on 27 January 2000. Decision n� 2000-1 LP, 20 March 2000, on the loi du pays of New Caledonia concerning the introduction of a general tax on services, as published in [2000] Actualit� Juridique Droit Administratif (AJDA), 252, with commentaries of Eric Schoettl and Olivier Gohin.
[128] See Conseil Constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision n� 95-364 DC, 8 February 1995, RJC-I, 637.
[129] For an example of applicability of a General Law Principle in New Caledonia, see Michel Joyau, �Libert�s m�dicales, principes g�n�raux du droit et Nouvelle-Cal�donie (� propos de l�arret du Conseil d�Etat du 18 f�vrier 1998 Section locale du Pacifique Sud de l�Ordre des M�decins� (1999) 15 Revue Fran�aise de Droit Administratif 67�76.
[130] For a more detailed review of the legal status and regime of the loi du pays in general under New Caledonian and French law, see the Ph.D. thesis of Carine Gindre David, Essai sur la loi du pays cal�donienne, la dualit� de la source l�gislative dans l�Etat unitaire fran�ais (2009). See also Regis Fraisse, above n 50, 81; and Claire Marliac-Negrier, �Du particularisme l�gislatif: � propos de la nouvelle cat�gorie juridique des lois du pays en Nouvelle-Cal�donie� (2003) 57 Revue Juridique et Politique des Etats Francophones 173�211.
[131] In accordance with Article 100 of the Organic Act No 99-209 concerning New
Caledonia, the prior review by the Conseil
d�Etat applies in any circumstances, whether or not the draft loi du pays is initiated by the
Government of New Caledonia or directly by the Congress of New Caledonia.
����� The
Conseil d�Etat will quite obviously
apply the principles which it has itself set down for the purposes of its
jurdisction over administrative
acts referred to it for examination in the
event of disputes. Its opinion N� 364083 of 23 November 1999 on the loi du pays of 7 December 1999
reintroducing the general tax on services, confirms this interpretation: for
commentators, the Conseil d�Etat did
not only exercise its control a priori,
in line with its checking of the legal basis of the framework of disputes. It
also anticipated a future constitutionality check
by verifying the validity of
legal provisions with regard to higher constitutional principles. See comments
made by Olivier Gohin
(2000) Actualite
Juridique Droit Administratif 256.
����� As a result, the Government of New Caledonia immediately rewrote the law to comply with the objections of the Conseil d�Etat (see comments of Olivier Gohin, ibid 256). Because of the preventive control exercised by the Conseil d�Etat, there have not been many referrals of lois du pays to the Conseil Constitutionnel.
[132] In its opinion, the Conseil d�Etat can therefore check the compliance of the loi du pays with constitutional principles as well as international conventions, including international tax treaties. See Conseil d�Etat [French Administrative Court], Assembly, 5 March 1999, Rouquette, reported in [1999] Revue Fran�aise de Droit Administratif 357, with conclusions from Christine Maug��.
[133] See Article 104 of the Organic Act No 99-209 concerning New Caledonia.
[134] The executive powers reserved for the Delegate of the French Central Goverment enable the French state to exercise preventive controls in respect of the legislation contemplated by the Congress of New Caledonia, through this referral process, but also through the participation of the Delegate or High-Commissioneer into various Consultative Committees which must be consulted on draft laws of the Congress of New Caledonia in certain areas of particular importance for the economy of the territory, such as the Conseil des Mines (Mining Council), which is the specific Consultative authority in charge of all draft laws dealing with mineral resources and investments in the mineral sector in New Caledonia. The French Government�s Delegate (Haut-Commissaire de la R�publique Fran�aise) is the President of the Mining Council. Article 42-I-�.1 of the Organic Act No 99-209.
[135] See Article 104 of the Organic Act No 99-209 concerning New Caledonia. A referral of a loi du pays to the Conseil Constitutionnel was rejected because it had not been signed by a sufficient number of Congress Members. See Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no 2006-2-LP, 5 avril 2006 reported in JO, 11 April 2006, 5439.
[136] Regarding the �question of constitutionality� see Louis Favoreu, Droit constitutionnel (2009) 99.
[137] Which modified Article 61-1 of the French Constitution under the terms of Article 29 of the Loi Constitutionnelle (Constitutional Act) No 2008-724 of 20 July 2008. This major reform was extended to New Caledonia by the Organic Act No 2009-1523 of 10 December 2009 which modified Article 107 of the Organic Act No 99-209 relating to the jurisdiction of the Conseil Constitutionnel in respect of lois du pays.
[138] See Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no 2011-205 QPC, 9 December 2011 reported in JO, 10 December 2011, 20991. Following this decision, some New Caledonian associations and companies tried to challenge the constitutionality of different lois du pays, including the Mining Code of New Caledonia (though without any success). See Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no 2013-308 QPC, 26 April 2013 reported in JO, 28 April 2013, 7401; see also Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no 2012-258 QPC, 22 June 2012 reported in JO, 23 June 2012, 10356.
[139] See Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no 99-409, 15 March 1999 reported in JO, 21 March 1999, 4234, s. 17.
[140] For a review of such complaints and the relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, see Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 203.
[141] For a more detailed analysis of the tax status of New Caledonian lois du pays, see Guillaume P. Blanc, �Une norme fiscale singuli�re en Nouvelle-Cal�donie: la loi du pays� (2003) Revue du Droit Fiscal 2.
[142] Principle set down by Article 14 of the Declaration of Human Rights of 26 August 1789, which has constitutional force.
[143] In accordance with constitutional case law, tax laws can have retroactive effect. See Conseil constitutionnel [French Constitutional Court], decision no DC 84-384, 29 December 1984 reported in JO, 30 December 1984, 4167; Decision no DC 95-369 of 28 December 1995 reported in JO, 31 December 1995, 19099; Decision no DC 88-250, 29 December 1988 reported in JO, 30 December 1988, 16700, and in Recueil des D�cisions du Conseil Constitutionnel, 267. See also Decision no DC 91-298, 24 July 1991 reported in JO, 26 July 1991, 9920, and in Recueil des D�cisions du Conseil Constitutionnel, 82.
[144] In particular, certain authors have underlined the possible inconstitutional nature of the loi du pays No 2002-018 of 16 April 2002 relating to tax stability of companies of the mining and metallurgical sector, according to which �the exoneration of duties, taxes and levies cannot be withdrawn during the entire application period of the tax ruling� granted under the terms of Article L-45-bis �5-I of the New Caledonian Tax Code resulting from the loi du pays No 2001-009 of 17 July 2001. See Mathias Chauchat, �Recr�er une fiscalit� mini�re� (Paper presented at the Exploitation et politique mini�res dans le Pacifique, Histoire, enjeux et perspectives conference, Noumea, New Caledonia, 22�25 November 2011) 7.
[145] As explained by Alan Berman, above n 6, 284, �under the Noumea Accords, the process of decolonization is slated to take place in stages, beginning with jointly-shared sovereignty with France over New Caledonia as a preparatory phase in the progression toward full sovereignty�.
[146] See Paragraph 1 of the Preamble of the Noumea Accord.
[147] In particular because the laws of the colonised people were not acknowledged or respected by the French colonial army and administration when France took possession of New Caledonia in 1853. For an analysis of this contradiction, see Alan Berman, above n 6, 283; see also Nehad Bhuta, �New Modes and Orders: The Difficulties of a Jus Post Bellum of Constitutional Transformation� (2010) University of Toronto Law Journal 12. According to Bhuta, a colonial power which qualifies as illegal occupier cannot either continue to exercise sovereign rights in the colonized territory, or design a new constitution for the colonized territory. As he explains, �even if the occupier could entrench the entire legal order, it is not authorised to devise the means of replacing it�; therefore, should France qualify as an illegal occupier of New Caledonia from the beginning of the colonization of this territory, which is suggested by Alan Berman, it should not only be obliged to withdraw from New Caledonia. It should also be prevented from exercising any role in the design of the final status of New Caledonia and its accession to �full-sovereignty� or independence.
[148] The Congress of New Caledonia is given the right to choose the date of the referendum, which must be held between 2014 and 2018, and the formulation of the question, but such decisions require a majority of three-fifths of the Members of the Congress. If that majority cannot be obtained, the French state itself (and not the Congress) will submit the question for referendum. See Paragraph 5 of the Noumea Accord and comments by Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 204. It must be noted that the Organic Act No 99-209 was recently modified by the Organic Act No 2015-987 of 5 August 2015 ((France) JO, 6 August 2015, 13481), in order to secure the right for the Congress to organise up to three successive consultations on accession to �full-sovereignty�, during the term of the Congress commencing in 2014, and better define the organisation of such consultation, which shows the intention of the French state to push the Congress to act and avoid a new deferral of this type of referendum.
[149] The right of all peoples to self-determination is part of international human rights law and customary international law and has been enshrined in the UN Charter and other international treaties ratified by France. See Articles 1(2) and 55 of the UN Charter. See also Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. See also the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res 1514 (XV), 15th sess, 947th plen mtg (14 December 1960).
[150] See above n 6, 293. This statement must be qualified in that the Noumea Accord accepts that �the way of emancipation shall be brought to the attention of the United Nations� (Paragraph 3.2.1). For certain authors, this shows that �the Noumea Accords provides guarantees to the United Nations�. Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 201 and nn 96 and 124. It must be also mentioned that the elected Territorial Assembly of New Caledonia already exercised its right to vote on the independence of New Caledonia, which it rejected on 17 December 1958.
[151] See Olivier Gohin, above n 22, 51.
[152] See Jean-Yves Faberon and Guy Agniel, above n 27, 275 and 282�284.
[153] See Loi Constitutionnelle no 2007-237 du 23 f�vrier 2007 (France) JO, 23 February 2007, 3354 and comments by Mathias Chauchat and Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz, above n 7, 199.
[154] As explained by Vivien Hart, above n 20, 451,
traditional
constitution making as a conclusion of conflict and codification of a
settlement that intends permanence and stability
can seem to threaten rather
than reassure. Citizens who actively reject a final act of closure seek instead
assurances that constitution
making will not freeze the present distribution of
power into place for the long term, nor exclude the possibility of new
participants
and different outcomes �(�) We used to think of a constitution as
a contract, negotiated by appropriate representatives, concluded,
signed, and
observed. The constitution of new constitutionalism is, in contrast, a
conversation, conducted by all concerned, open
to new entrants and issues,
seeking a workable formula that will be sustainable rather than assuredly
stable.
On the polarizing dangers of consociationalist arrangements, see also Donald L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1221�1223.
[155] Which also illustrates the weakness of consociationalist constitutional models. According to Donald L. Horowitz, above n 13, 1220, �Civil wars (�) can sometimes be brought to an end with consociational arrangements, but the desirability and durability of such agreements are often in doubt�.
[156] See in this respect her analysis of the South Africa interim constitutional reform, above n 20, 455�458.
[157] See above n 12, 824; see also for similar comments Tom Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins and James Melton, above n 28.
[158] And �they are, as has been said, �possibility-engendering (Holmes) rather than devices that aim at the consolidation of a particular policy as willed by the people in a particular situation under particular conditions�. Ulrich Preuss, above n 26, 190.
[159] As explained by Dominique Custos, above n 2, 126, �New Caledonia�s regime does not quite fit any ideal type, as it exhibits a specific mix of unitary, regional and federal institutional features, it is hybrid�.
[160] Referring himself to the case of New Caledonia,
Yash Ghai, above n 12, 804, explains that
�today�s constitutions are based on what has been called internal self-determination, and aim to disaggregate state sovereignty into distinct packages (not merely in the form of federalism, but also other complex forms of dividing and sharing power (�) The skill required for contemporary constitution-making is to diffuse (or perhaps obfuscate) sovereignty�. As he explains, �indeed, some recent settlements have been possible only by keeping open the option of sovereignty: in French New Caledonia and in Papua New Guinea (�) a group has reserved or been granted (the formulation depending on who you are) the entitlement to exercise the right of external self-determination (that is to say, secession and separate sovereignty) after a suitable period.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/journals/JSPL/2015/8.html