Is there any country which would allow one of its territories to declare sovereignty on its own? Usually when the question is whether a part of a sovereign state could form its own sovereign state, the answer is always that there is no such mechanism but if the currently sovereign state decided to allow it (through a constitutional amendment or whatever) then of course it's possible. Is there any sovereign country which currently has a law which would allow an arbitrary (maybe with some restrictions like size or contiguity) part of its territory to declare independence on its own if a majority (maybe super majority) of that territory is in favor? I don't mean cases where a country decided to give a specific territory a single vote on a specific time, I know those exist.
Canada Short version: In the mid-'90s, a Supreme Court decision and an Act of Parliament clarified the legal process under which a province could secede from Canada. While unilateral secession need not be recognized, the Canadian government would be obliged to negotiate the secession of a province following a sufficiently clear referendum result. Long version: Since around the mid-20th century, there has been an active sovereigntist movement in the province of Quebec, and a sovereigntist party (the Parti Québecois, or PQ) has formed the provincial government in Quebec a few times. The PQ has twice held referendums on whether Quebec should separate from Canada. The first referendum, in 1980, was soundly defeated; but the second referendum, in 1995, was defeated by a margin of only about 1% of the votes cast. The question in this second referendum was criticized by the federalist movement as being rather confusing and convoluted. It also later emerged that the PQ government at the time had planned to unilaterally declare independence if the sovereigntist option had won, even at a 50% + 1 level. In response to these events, two major events occurred which greatly clarified the legal and political circumstances under which a province would be &quot;allowed&quot; to secede from Canada. First, in Reference re: Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada found that according to principles of both Canadian and international law, a province does not have the right to unilaterally secede; but they also found that the federal government is obliged to negotiate secession after a vote in favor of separation. [As an aside, the discussion in the Reference re: Secession of Quebec concerning the various issues at play is broadly applicable to any separatist movement, and the decision is worth reading if you want to delve into this more.] Second, the Parliament of Canada passed the Clarity Act, which more clearly laid out the conditions under which the government of Canada would recognize a secession vote. The provisions of the Clarity Act are as follows: Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote; Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear; Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself following any referendum vote, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success; Stating that all provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations; Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act; The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. Taken together, the Supreme Court decision and the Clarity Act present a relatively clear legal &amp; political path by which a Canadian province could secede. However, in the original question you ask Is there any sovereign country which currently has a law which would allow an arbitrary part of its territory to declare independence on its own if a majority of that territory is in favor? (bolding mine). If by &quot;on its own&quot; you mean &quot;unilaterally, without negotiation&quot;, then strictly speaking this does not apply to Canada; a negotiation process and a constitutional amendment would also be required in the wake of a secession vote. Reference re: Secession of Quebec specifically bars a unilateral declaration of independence. Ironically (or perhaps because of these measures), support for sovereignty in Quebec has fallen significantly since 1995, and multiple splinter parties have formed out of the PQ. It therefore seems unlikely that the provisions of the Clarity Act will be tested in the near future.
Yes, for most of them. Article 42.7 TEU If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. The &quot;specific character&quot; for &quot;certain Member States&quot; refers to states with a traditional military neutrality, notably Austria, Ireland, and Sweden. Those EU states which are also NATO members would not have that excuse since they agreed, in principle, to use military force to protect others, so they cannot say they are constitutionally incapable of doing so in the EU case. This is why the EU does not, generally, admit members with open territorial conflicts. Probably no, for the rest of NATO Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. This is in a way weaker than the EU clause, &quot;such action as it deems necessary&quot; might allow individual countries to do less than going to war if that is unnecessary. Also, NATO-but-not-EU countries might claim that a Russian attack on EU forces in an EU-but-not-NATO country does not constitute an attack in the treaty area: Article 6 For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, [...] How to interpret a Russian counter-counter-attack on NATO countries after those counter-attack Russia in accordance with collective defense after a Russian attack on a non-NATO country would become a political issue. As pointed out in the comments, the practical application of either TEU 42.7 or NATO Article 5 would be intensely political, not just in the &quot;indirect&quot; case but also where it seems to be clear-cut. Nations might rally to the flag or drag their feet, depending on the details. Or even depending on totally unrelated issues where they want to get concessions. Or they might alert their forces and deploy them on different flanks than the one under attack, because that flank feels exposed.
The Queen doesn't need legal rights, she is the law! As per Dale M's answer, Her Majesty doesn't meet the requirements to be a citizen of Australia under the Citizenship Act, nor has she ever been granted that status. Someone else will need to fill in the legal reasons as to whether or not a law like the Migration Act could be enforced against Her Majesty personally. I suspect there is an argument in there about the Crown generally not being bound by statutes. In practice, I can't imagine anybody at the Department of Immigration trying to turn Her Majesty back at the border (although this would be an interesting step towards a republic...). In any case the Royal Family and members of its entourage have the special status of not needing a visa when they visit Australia: Migration Regulations 1994, reg 2.40.
I suspect that US voting records would fall under Article 2(2)(a): Article 2 Material Scope ... This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: (a) in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law; I doubt it would be possible to argue successfully that a foreign election is anything other than &quot;an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law.&quot; Even the territorial scope could be questioned. This is set forth in the next article, on &quot;territorial scope,&quot; the second item of which says: This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. It is probably arguable whether processing absentee ballots from EU residents constitutes &quot;offering services to data subjects in the Union,&quot; but in this case it's likely to be more difficult to resolve that question than to determine whether the activity falls outside the scope of Union law.
The way "with intent to lose citizenship" works in US law is extremely demanding; it is very hard to establish it by doing anything short of appearing before a consular officer and formally renouncing citizenship. Other ways include serving in the military of a country at war with the US, being convicted of treason for committing one of the specified potentially expatriating acts (serving in an army at war with the US is sort of a trial-less special case of that, because engaging in a war against the US is treason), or serving in a "policy-level position" in a foreign government. The State Department says as much in the link. Obtaining citizenship is listed as a case where the administrative premise applies; so is swearing allegiance to a foreign state, serving in the military of a state at peace with the US, and serving in lower-level government posts of a foreign state. In those cases, the person retains US citizenship but at some point in the future may be asked by the State Department if they wanted to renounce it. Intent to renounce citizenship is established only by explicit declaration if you've only obtained citizenship in another country. With "policy-level posts" the premise doesn't apply, but then the State Department just decides on a case-by-case basis. You may well lose US citizenship (although the King of Thailand was born in the US, and I'm not sure if he's considered to have lost citizenship), but it's not automatic. Your senior ministers may lose citizenship, but it is likewise not automatic. But the normal citizens? The link explicitly says that the administrative premise covers that.
united-states What is the process for an ordinary citizen to get a national referendum on the ballot? It can't be done. There are no national referendums in the United States and there is no means by which they can be held. Many states individually provide for state initiatives, referendums, and recall votes (and sometimes even local ones), but this doesn't exist at the national level. On rare occasions, Congress passes a law calling for a referendum on terms of its choosing in territory outside of any U.S. state, usually on the issue of whether that state shall become a state or otherwise change its legal status. The most recent one was in Puerto Rico. These also cannot be proposed or placed on the ballot by ordinary citizens, and are sometimes binding, but sometimes only advisory in nature. Can ordinary citizens propose national referendums? No. Is there any history of ordinary citizens getting national referendums on the ballot? No.
Yes. Arbitration is a private, voluntary process, so two parties can agree to arbitrate virtually any dispute. However, because it is voluntary, Country B generally has no obligation to participate in the process once you've inititated it.
Currently, there is no recourse The Russian state is sovereign. This means the Russian government has to tell the Russian courts that they allow people to sue Russia for specific, enumerated things. If the Kremlin has not done so, then Russia has total, sovereign immunity from such claims. In the united-states, the FTCA regulates how and when you can sue the USA or federal institutions for torts, while FSIA regulates how or when you can sue other countries in the USA. In russia, the Federal Law No. 297-FZ of November 3, 2015 &quot;On Jurisdictional Immunities of a Foreign State and Property of a Foreign State in the Russian Federation&quot; seems to be a very similar law to FSIA. I could not determine if an equivalent to the FTCA exists. Reparations would be handled by a peace treaty with Ukraine Besides a law that allows claims against Russia, a Ukrainian-Russian peace treaty might contain a passus about reparations. There are three very traditional ways how such handle reparations: In one case, such a treaty could establish that Russia pays the reparations to Ukraine, and then claims against Russia are paid out by Ukraine. In the other case, the treaty provides a framework to sue Russia for compensation. And in the last variant, no compensation for civilians is agreed upon at all.