NB The text resumes - so (very) summary - the content of an article published in Issue 132 of the Regional Law Journal .
The news brings the policy debate in Belgium to handle the concepts of federalism and confederalism in various directions. For its part, the citizen wonders sometimes distraught, what specifically cover these expressions. This is not a simple war of words, but the demonstration of institutional models are radically different.
federalism certainly share with the characteristic confederalism to be one of the possible modes of institutionalization of relationships within groups of people or social (state, economic and social world, sports clubs, etc..). Therefore, the federal state as a confederation of states are only the largest species of the genera.
However, these species can be very diverse.
federalism ...
We thus consider that there are almost as many models of federalism that state has States federal.
But all have in common to hold a single state in the mode of genuine partnership between the federated entities (Communities and Regions in Belgium, the U.S. states, the Länder in Germany or Austria , Provinces in Canada, Cantons in Switzerland, etc..) that are placed on an equal footing with each other whatever their size, their population or level of economic prosperity.
The technical division of powers between these entities vary, often for historical reasons. And in a centripetal federalism finds its origins in the amalgamation of several previously separate states (eg Germany), it is common that the federation has powers specifically granted from the old States, while the constituent entities retain the overall balance of State powers precedent. Conversely, it is not surprising that in a more centrifugal federalism (eg Belgium), the Federal Government has given specific powers to the new federal entities, retaining its share of the remaining powers more or less extensive. But there is nothing that is written in the stars and the two factors mentioned above can be widely modulated, so this is not because we assign more responsibilities to states or because they would have residual responsibilities (as provided in Article 35 seeds of the Belgian Constitution) that would change the nature of the institutional model.
... In confederalism
Unlike a federal state (Bundesstaat), a confederation of states (Staatenbund) is trite - usually institutionalized through a diplomatic circle (a "diet") - meeting and decision between different states in some subjects clearly defined such as foreign affairs or defense.
These states retain their full independence externally. Consequently, their mutual relations are governed by international treaty and not by a constitution. The confederation does not in principle of the international legal personality (or at least a full legal personality), it does not create a new topic in this full-fledged legal system.
Most often, the confederal model is thus the benchmark of a federal process called Succeed (Germany, Switzerland, USA) or remain short-lived ( abortive attempt to create a confederation of Senegambia in the 1980s). Today, we can watch " Commonwealth of Independent States" as a form of confederation which maintains links - sometimes rather strained - between a number of former Soviet republics now independent.
The Belgian institutional debate
Returning to the Belgian institutional debate, we see that some people tend to mix these two models and consider an extension of federal or skills that moving the center of gravity Skills Belgium residual orient towards what they call a "confederal state .
For reasons that have been mentioned above about federalism, that is false, but we have seen in respect of confederalism is also absurd and perilous.
is absurd since this term implies that there may be a state (subject under international law) home to other states with the same type and the same characteristics: a state of States somehow. Conceptually, it would want to follow Russian dolls that would have all the same size! In this regard, the example of the traditional "Swiss Confederation" should not be deceived: notwithstanding the maintenance of the historic label responsible for emotions, Switzerland is now a true federal state.
is also dangerous in that it introduces, so latent in the national debate the use of concepts that do not.
Yes, words have so much meaning ... and it is not neutral.
is why it is preferable to limit the use of the word "confederation" in the field of international relations and to prefer the internal debate that "federal" .
The debate would gain in clarity for the citizen (who aspires to quickly) and would allow institutional players to state their wishes or their projects with greater transparency.
The news brings the policy debate in Belgium to handle the concepts of federalism and confederalism in various directions. For its part, the citizen wonders sometimes distraught, what specifically cover these expressions. This is not a simple war of words, but the demonstration of institutional models are radically different.
federalism certainly share with the characteristic confederalism to be one of the possible modes of institutionalization of relationships within groups of people or social (state, economic and social world, sports clubs, etc..). Therefore, the federal state as a confederation of states are only the largest species of the genera.
However, these species can be very diverse.
federalism ...
We thus consider that there are almost as many models of federalism that state has States federal.
But all have in common to hold a single state in the mode of genuine partnership between the federated entities (Communities and Regions in Belgium, the U.S. states, the Länder in Germany or Austria , Provinces in Canada, Cantons in Switzerland, etc..) that are placed on an equal footing with each other whatever their size, their population or level of economic prosperity. The technical division of powers between these entities vary, often for historical reasons. And in a centripetal federalism finds its origins in the amalgamation of several previously separate states (eg Germany), it is common that the federation has powers specifically granted from the old States, while the constituent entities retain the overall balance of State powers precedent. Conversely, it is not surprising that in a more centrifugal federalism (eg Belgium), the Federal Government has given specific powers to the new federal entities, retaining its share of the remaining powers more or less extensive. But there is nothing that is written in the stars and the two factors mentioned above can be widely modulated, so this is not because we assign more responsibilities to states or because they would have residual responsibilities (as provided in Article 35 seeds of the Belgian Constitution) that would change the nature of the institutional model.
... In confederalism
Unlike a federal state (Bundesstaat), a confederation of states (Staatenbund) is trite - usually institutionalized through a diplomatic circle (a "diet") - meeting and decision between different states in some subjects clearly defined such as foreign affairs or defense.
These states retain their full independence externally. Consequently, their mutual relations are governed by international treaty and not by a constitution. The confederation does not in principle of the international legal personality (or at least a full legal personality), it does not create a new topic in this full-fledged legal system.
Most often, the confederal model is thus the benchmark of a federal process called Succeed (Germany, Switzerland, USA) or remain short-lived ( abortive attempt to create a confederation of Senegambia in the 1980s). Today, we can watch " Commonwealth of Independent States" as a form of confederation which maintains links - sometimes rather strained - between a number of former Soviet republics now independent.
The Belgian institutional debate
Returning to the Belgian institutional debate, we see that some people tend to mix these two models and consider an extension of federal or skills that moving the center of gravity Skills Belgium residual orient towards what they call a "confederal state .
For reasons that have been mentioned above about federalism, that is false, but we have seen in respect of confederalism is also absurd and perilous.
is absurd since this term implies that there may be a state (subject under international law) home to other states with the same type and the same characteristics: a state of States somehow. Conceptually, it would want to follow Russian dolls that would have all the same size! In this regard, the example of the traditional "Swiss Confederation" should not be deceived: notwithstanding the maintenance of the historic label responsible for emotions, Switzerland is now a true federal state.
is also dangerous in that it introduces, so latent in the national debate the use of concepts that do not.
Yes, words have so much meaning ... and it is not neutral.
is why it is preferable to limit the use of the word "confederation" in the field of international relations and to prefer the internal debate that "federal" .
The debate would gain in clarity for the citizen (who aspires to quickly) and would allow institutional players to state their wishes or their projects with greater transparency.
Abstract:
Often the terms "federalism" and "confederacy" is used is unclear.
Here we would like to point out that a federal state (a Confederation), an international legal entity that is composed of internal sub-entities (with any level of authority), while a State Confederacy (Confederation) from several independent States, which has voluntarily decide some issues together to manage.
Here we would like to point out that a federal state (a Confederation), an international legal entity that is composed of internal sub-entities (with any level of authority), while a State Confederacy (Confederation) from several independent States, which has voluntarily decide some issues together to manage.
Rather, the term "Confederate States" not technical - even political - sense: it would imply that a State creates is composed of other States, in other words, that concept would be the same size matrioschkas want to join forces ...
any case it is appropriate the term "confederacy" of international relations coverage. For the average citizen (who is asking), this might be more readable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment