Page 25 - Suffolk University Law Review
P. 25
7] THE EVOLUTIONOFDEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 617
window of opportunity for the advantages of these arrangements to be
utilized."175 Puerto Rico is undergoingjust this type of crisis.
When Puerto Rico finally recovers from the economic crisis, a new exercise
of the right of self-determination will be necessary. There will be resentment
and tension during the FOMB's tenure, and ultimately the United States will
need to redefine its relationship with Puerto Rico. Every alternative recognized
by international law should be available, including statehood, independence,
and two categories of free association: the model of the federated states,
represented by Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, and the model of
commonwealth, currently represented by Puerto Rico and the Mariana
Islands.176 A change of status is implied by statehood, independence, and the
variant of free association used by Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and
Palau.177
Free association following the commonwealth model does not imply a
change in status, but it involves changes to Puerto Rico's current political
relationship. These changes must prevent the denial of self-government
embodied by PROMESA from happening again. Furthermore, these changes
must empower Puerto Rico to manage its economy in the globalized world of
the twenty-first century. As Frankfurter's 1914 memorandum notes, and the
Sanchez Valle court reaffirms, "luckily our Constitution has left this field of
invention open."!" This field of invention--or innovative statesmanship-
would give Puerto Rico its own self-government for the twenty-first century,
widen and deepen the democratic character of its relationship with the United
States, and validate the principies of freedom and government by consent.
A mutually obligatory and documented compact is required, which would
establish the terms and conditions of the relationship between the United States
and.Puerto Rico, and affirm equal dignity for U.S. citizens residing in Puerto
Rico. This compact must include greater self-goyernance in economic matters,
and allow for more equitable and effective uses of federal programs.
Moreover, this compact must allow Puerto Rico to function competitively in
175. See Rzzv ANI, supra note 9, at 62.
176. See G.A. Res. 1514 (XV), at 66 (Dec. 12, 1960) (advocating for independence of colonial territories);
O.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), at 121 (Oct. 24, 1970) (adopting declarations on intemational law principies to
promote "friendly relations"). The free association of Micronesia differs from Puerto Rico in that the fonner
arises from a treaty between sovereign countries, which allows either country to unilaterally terrninate the
relationship at any time. See LE!BOWITZ, supra note 2, at 44 (recognizing ability to termínate relarionship at
will). The citizens of Micronesia are not citizens of the United $tates, and U.S. federal aid programs do not
apply even if Micronesia receives limited aid. See 48 U.S.C. § 1901 (2012) (setting forth terrns of compact
between United States and Micronesia); Bureau of East Indian and Pacific Affairs, supra note 24 (illustrating
unique relationshíp with Micronesia). Also, Micronesia's sovereignty as a free association is recognized
intemationally. See LEIBOWlTZ, supra note 2, at 44. It may participate in the United Nations and mint its own
currency. See id.
177. See LEffiOWlTZ, supra note 2, at 42-45 (recognizing status differences between free association states
and Puerto Rico).
178. See Frankfurter Memorandum, supra note 6, at 2 (calling for inventive staresmanship).
window of opportunity for the advantages of these arrangements to be
utilized."175 Puerto Rico is undergoingjust this type of crisis.
When Puerto Rico finally recovers from the economic crisis, a new exercise
of the right of self-determination will be necessary. There will be resentment
and tension during the FOMB's tenure, and ultimately the United States will
need to redefine its relationship with Puerto Rico. Every alternative recognized
by international law should be available, including statehood, independence,
and two categories of free association: the model of the federated states,
represented by Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, and the model of
commonwealth, currently represented by Puerto Rico and the Mariana
Islands.176 A change of status is implied by statehood, independence, and the
variant of free association used by Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and
Palau.177
Free association following the commonwealth model does not imply a
change in status, but it involves changes to Puerto Rico's current political
relationship. These changes must prevent the denial of self-government
embodied by PROMESA from happening again. Furthermore, these changes
must empower Puerto Rico to manage its economy in the globalized world of
the twenty-first century. As Frankfurter's 1914 memorandum notes, and the
Sanchez Valle court reaffirms, "luckily our Constitution has left this field of
invention open."!" This field of invention--or innovative statesmanship-
would give Puerto Rico its own self-government for the twenty-first century,
widen and deepen the democratic character of its relationship with the United
States, and validate the principies of freedom and government by consent.
A mutually obligatory and documented compact is required, which would
establish the terms and conditions of the relationship between the United States
and.Puerto Rico, and affirm equal dignity for U.S. citizens residing in Puerto
Rico. This compact must include greater self-goyernance in economic matters,
and allow for more equitable and effective uses of federal programs.
Moreover, this compact must allow Puerto Rico to function competitively in
175. See Rzzv ANI, supra note 9, at 62.
176. See G.A. Res. 1514 (XV), at 66 (Dec. 12, 1960) (advocating for independence of colonial territories);
O.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), at 121 (Oct. 24, 1970) (adopting declarations on intemational law principies to
promote "friendly relations"). The free association of Micronesia differs from Puerto Rico in that the fonner
arises from a treaty between sovereign countries, which allows either country to unilaterally terrninate the
relationship at any time. See LE!BOWITZ, supra note 2, at 44 (recognizing ability to termínate relarionship at
will). The citizens of Micronesia are not citizens of the United $tates, and U.S. federal aid programs do not
apply even if Micronesia receives limited aid. See 48 U.S.C. § 1901 (2012) (setting forth terrns of compact
between United States and Micronesia); Bureau of East Indian and Pacific Affairs, supra note 24 (illustrating
unique relationshíp with Micronesia). Also, Micronesia's sovereignty as a free association is recognized
intemationally. See LEIBOWlTZ, supra note 2, at 44. It may participate in the United Nations and mint its own
currency. See id.
177. See LEffiOWlTZ, supra note 2, at 42-45 (recognizing status differences between free association states
and Puerto Rico).
178. See Frankfurter Memorandum, supra note 6, at 2 (calling for inventive staresmanship).
