Constitutional fixation of mechanisms for preventing secession: the experience of Belgium

The subject of this study is the constitutional mechanisms aimed at preventing secession in a multiethnic federal state, using the example of the Kingdom of Belgium. The author examines in detail the legal institutions enshrined in the Belgian Constitution that ensure a balance of interests between ethno-linguistic communities—the Flemish and the Walloon—and prevent unilateral actions that could undermine the territorial integrity of the country. Special attention is given to legal constructs such as the super-rigid procedure for amending the Constitution, the deliberate refusal of the referendum institution, special procedures for coordinating bills affecting community interests, and the role of the monarch as an arbiter and symbol of national unity. The study relies on the analysis of the regulatory framework, constitutional practice, and doctrinal approaches, revealing the specific characteristics of the Belgian federation. In preparing the article, general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, systematization, and generalization were used, as well as special legal methods: formal-legal, comparative-legal, and historical-legal, which allowed for the identification of the features of constitutional regulation of secession prevention in Belgium. The novelty of the study lies in the comprehensive assessment of the Belgian model of secession prevention as a unique example of a federal structure, in which the segregation of ethno-linguistic groups serves as the foundation for maintaining territorial integrity, while the legal basis for making decisions sensitive to federation subjects lies in the community-based ("consociational") democracy instruments enshrined in the Constitution. The author emphasizes that the sustainability of the Belgian federation is ensured not so much by centralized control as by institutional balance, making unilateral withdrawal an impractical means of overcoming political crises. As a main conclusion, the author states that the strict adherence to the principle of territorial monolingualism, which allowed Belgium to maintain the integrity of the state in the second half of the 20th century, can only be an effective mechanism for preventing secession today when combined with measures from the central authority aimed at improving interaction among representatives of different cultures living in the state.