Abstract
New Caledonia and Puerto Rico are two non-sovereign island territories of France and the United States respectively. Both territories have historically centered their political debate on the definition of their political status and have done so by implementing numerous referendums. Of the two territories, however, only New Caledonia has managed to establish a binding referendum on political status. This raises the following question: How has New Caledonia managed to obtain a binding referendum on its political status while Puerto Rico has failed to do so? One variable present in New Caledonia, but not in Puerto Rico, was the convening of both the metropolitan and territorial political elite with regards to the territory’s change in political status as well as the definition of each status option. While elite theory has been used as a theoretical framework to explain democratization, this article discusses the role of elite settlements with regards to changes in political status among non-sovereign island jurisdictions. I focus on two key events in both case studies. In New Caledonia, I focus on the signing of the Matignon and Nouméa Accords, 1988 and 1998 respectively, while in Puerto Rico I focus on the Plebiscitary Process of 1989-1991.
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science,Geography, Planning and Development
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Canada and Comparative Territorial Politics;Canadian Journal of Political Science;2023-12