Comparing decolonisation referendums in US and French Overseas Territories

Abstract

This article examines the legal design and practice of decolonisation referendums in the overseas territories of the United States (US) and France. It highlights the tension between international law, which since the 1960s has favoured self-determination and independence, and the constitutional frameworks of administering states that tend to preserve the colonial status quo. The analysis compares two contrasting models: France, a unitary republic emphasising territorial indivisibility, and the US, a federal republic. The comparison focuses on recent referendums in New Caledonia and Puerto Rico, and prospective votes in Guam and the US Virgin Islands. Four recurring challenges structure the comparison: who has authority to initiate referendums; how voter eligibility is defined to balance self-determination with equal suffrage; how questions are framed to ensure clarity; and how campaign conditions affect the integrity of the vote. The article argues that weaknesses in these areas have entrenched a condition of colonial limbo. It concludes that reasserting international law’s primacy in guiding decolonisation is essential to move beyond this impasse.