;)
Difference between associated state and federated state
Hello everyone,
We are coming back to you following the request of some of our readers to know how an associated State differs from a federated State?
As former Minister of Justice JJ Urvoas points out in the notes of the Club of Jurists, the associated State and the federated State are concepts that are quite close to each other. The major difference is that the associated State is situated beyond independence , and that New Caledonia would therefore have to be independent to acquire this status, whereas the federated State, which we defend, is situated below independence . (see avenir-nouvelle-caledonie_
For those who have had the opportunity to read the report by Jean Courtial and Ferdinand Melin-Soucramanien on Les réflexions sur l’avenir institutionnel de la Nouvelle-Calédonie (cf. (RO) Réflexion sur l’évolution institutionnelle de la Nouvelle Calédonie III.indd (aprofed.nc)),
the associated State corresponds to the solution entitled “full sovereignty with partnership” and the federated State to that entitled “extended autonomy”.
The associated state, also known as “independence-association,” has only been the subject of one attempt at implementation in French history to resolve the war with Algeria. As a reminder, in 1954, the Algerian population rose up to demand its independence. From there, an armed conflict began with France, which colonized the country in 1830, which lasted 8 years. In 1962, France tended to grant Algeria its independence in exchange for an association with it , with a view to continuing to provide assistance to it in its development. If Algeria initially accepted, once independent, it would terminate the terms of the association, ensuring its full sovereignty without France, thereby causing humiliation to the latter.
Twenty years later, in the same context of a conflict between another people colonized by France, in New Caledonia, this proposal for independence-association resurfaced through the project put forward by the representative of the State at the time on the ground, E. Pisani. This solution would be rejected both by the independence-supporting populations of the territory and by the French State, scalded by the Algerian case.
Originally conceived by the United Nations as an intermediate path to decolonization between independence and integration into another State, the associated State , as Léa Havard recalls in her thesis on the subject in 2016 (see L’Etat associé : recherches sur une nouvelle forme de l’Etat dans le Pacifique Sud – TEL – Thèses en ligne (hal.science))
is in reality only an idea coming back to the European powers who tried to prevent the breakup of their colonial empires and thus continue to maintain their control over their former colonies, which some described as a kind of “trusteeship-association” or “negotiated neocolonialism”.
Therefore, it is surprising for the association that certain politicians and institutional experts in public law continue to promote this solution of an associated State for New Caledonia in 2024 in view of the liabilities cited above linked to this notion.
This is why, when seeking an institutional solution to the Caledonian problem, the association turned towards federalism; an Anglo-Saxon solution used by the French State and accepted by the various local pro-independence and non-pro-independence parties with a view to resolving the events of 1984-1988 and enabling a return to peace for nearly 40 years.
It is therefore appropriate for us to continue on this path and finalize this currently partial process which leads some to describe the development of New Caledonia over the last 30 years as a “trompe l’oeil”, a mirage or even a deception.
We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.
The APROFED association