Suchergebnisse

Federalism is regarded as one of the signal American contributions to modern politics. Its origins are typically traced to the drafting of the Constitution, but the story began decades before the delegates met in Philadelphia. This book traces the history of American federal thought.

In contrast to modern federations, the federalization of the EU has taken place without a constitutional answer to the question of the system's democratic legitimacy. The process of compound polity building under the shadow of the dilemma of the Union's finalité politique can be described as "hidden federalism". The major consequence of this process has been a gradual migration of decision making from an intergovernmental toward a supra-governmental power-holder. On the one hand, due to an excessive Europeanization of governing tasks, national democratic institutions have lost the political autonomy necessary for shaping the relation between state and society, politics and the market, and individual and collective autonomy within member states. On the other hand, reforming the EU by creating democratically suspicious control mechanisms within its members' budget policies has not substituted the absence of the EU's governance autonomy to regulate politically sensitive fields such as fiscal, employment and social policies. With the escalation of the Eurozone crisis it has become evident that neither member states nor the EU have a sufficient level of autonomy to make policy choices related to the most sensitive issues of distributive justice. The implementation of the Fiscal Compact will decisively affect economic and social life in Europe; yet it is hardly possible to discern who should take credit or the blame for the nontransparent penalty mechanism embedded in this contract and aimed at regaining the Eurozone's stability. In this new historical context, institutions of constitutional democracy, being present on the national and to an extent on the European level, have been deprived of their original purpose. Instead of making power visible and accountable, they have actually enlarged the scope of an unaccountable power by maintaining the illusion that citizens can still determine their collective destiny through the political process.

In contrast to modern federations, the federalization of the EU has taken place without a constitutional answer to the question of the system's democratic legitimacy. The process of compound polity building under the shadow of the dilemma of the Union's finalite politique can be described as "hidden federalism". The major consequence of this process has been a gradual migration of decision-making from an intergovernmental toward a supra-governmental power-holder. On the one hand, due to an excessive Europeanization of governing tasks, national democratic institutions have lost the political autonomy necessary for shaping the relation between state and society, politics and the market, and individual and collective autonomy within member states. On the other hand, reforming the EU by creating democratically suspicious control mechanisms within its members' budget policies has not substituted the absence of the EU's governance autonomy to regulate politically sensitive fields such as fiscal, employment and social policies. With the escalation of the Eurozone crisis it has become evident that neither member states nor the EU have a sufficient level of autonomy to make policy choices related to the most sensitive issues of distributive justice. The implementation of the Fiscal Compact will decisively affect economic and social life in Europe; yet it is hardly possible to discern who should take credit or the blame for the nontransparent penalty mechanism embedded in this contract and aimed at regaining the Eurozone's stability. In this new historical context, institutions of constitutional democracy, being present on the national and to an extent on the European level, have been deprived of their original purpose. Instead of making power visible and accountable, they have actually enlarged the scope of an unaccountable power by maintaining the illusion that citizens can still determine their collective destiny through the political process.

The question 'Who speaks for the Europeans?' involves a basic contradiction in European constitutional engineering: federalist autonomy developed against democratic representation on the basis of popular sovereignty of equal citizens. Working on a European Constitution includes the search for a fair balance between the modes of representation. This paper shows, however, that the balance remains precarious. Asymmetries in the de jure institutional settings & in de facto social & economic development permanently reshuffle the balance. Older theories of federalism in the age of classical modernism started from a rational model of symmetric states' rights. Postmodernist thinking with its patchwork scenarios developed more tolerance towards asymmetries. The neo-liberal paradigm leads away from 'participatory federalism' in the direction of a 'federalism of competition'. In the early federations the poor territories in a 'class struggle from below' asked for subsidies from the centre. In recent federations a 'class struggle from above' is developing. The rich states fight for asymmetries because they feel punished if they have to subsidize the poorer areas. 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

Regardless of the earlier assumptions about the obsolescence of the classic federal theory, the paper emphasizes the contemporary significance and relevance of federalism. Europe is the epicentre of modern federalization processes, not only when it comes to the European Union, but also a number of European countries such as Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. The paper points out the fundamental distinction between the classic and modern federalism, which has its origin in the fact that federal systems 'arise' differently as a result of opposite processes of federalization and that in this sense we can distinguish between classic "integrative" and modern "devolutive" federalism. The basic assumptions of the paper are that 1) these two federalism patterns originally differ in the character of the basic constitutive act of the federal union with regard to the subject of creating a federation, and 2) because contemporary federations are "federal states without a federal foundation" this difference is not noticeable today. On the contrary, it has largely disappeared, and in this way, the difference between classic and modern federalism is actually bridged. ; Bez obzira na ranije postavke o zastarjelosti klasične federalne teorije u radu se naglašava suvremeni značaj i aktualnost federalizma. Upravo je Europa epicentar suvremenih procesa federalizacije, ne samo kada je riječ o Europskoj uniji, već i nizu europskih država poput Belgije, Španjolske i Ujedinjene Kraljevine. U radu se ukazuje na temeljno razlikovanje klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma, koje ima ishodište upravo u činjenici da federalni sustavi različito "nastaju" kao rezultat suprotnih procesa federalizacije i da u tom smislu možemo razlikovati klasični "integrativni" i suvremeni "devolutivni" federalizam. Temeljne su postavke rada da 1) između ta dva obrasca federalizma izvorno postoji suštinska razlika u karakteru temeljnog konstitutivnog akta federalnog saveza s obzirom na subjekta stvaranja federacije, i 2) s obzirom na to da su suvremene federacije "savezne države bez federalnog temelja" ta razlika danas više nije zamjetna, već je ona, naprotiv, u velikoj mjeri nestala i na taj način zapravo se premošćuje razlika između klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma.

Bez obzira na ranije postavke o zastarjelosti klasične federalne teorije u radu se naglašava suvremeni značaj i aktualnost federalizma. Upravo je Europa epicentar suvremenih procesa federalizacije, ne samo kada je riječ o Europskoj uniji, već i nizu europskih država poput Belgije, Španjolske i Ujedinjene Kraljevine. U radu se ukazuje na temeljno razlikovanje klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma, koje ima ishodište upravo u činjenici da federalni sustavi različito "nastaju" kao rezultat suprotnih procesa federalizacije i da u tom smislu možemo razlikovati klasični "integrativni" i suvremeni "devolutivni" federalizam. Temeljne su postavke rada da 1) između ta dva obrasca federalizma izvorno postoji suštinska razlika u karakteru temeljnog konstitutivnog akta federalnog saveza s obzirom na subjekta stvaranja federacije, i 2) s obzirom na to da su suvremene federacije "savezne države bez federalnog temelja" ta razlika danas više nije zamjetna, već je ona, naprotiv, u velikoj mjeri nestala i na taj način zapravo se premošćuje razlika između klasičnog i suvremenog federalizma. ; Regardless of the earlier assumptions about the obsolescence of the classic federal theory, the paper emphasizes the contemporary significance and relevance of federalism. Europe is the epicentre of modern federalization processes, not only when it comes to the European Union, but also a number of European countries such as Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. The paper points out the fundamental distinction between the classic and modern federalism, which has its origin in the fact that federal systems 'arise' differently as a result of opposite processes of federalization and that in this sense we can distinguish between classic "integrative" and modern "devolutive" federalism. The basic assumptions of the paper are that 1) these two federalism patterns originally differ in the character of the basic constitutive act of the federal union with regard to the subject of creating a federation, and 2) because contemporary federations are "federal states without a federal foundation" this difference is not noticeable today. On the contrary, it has largely disappeared, and in this way, the difference between classic and modern federalism is actually bridged.

A succinct review and interpretation of some of the main developments in Spain's modern history is carried out in the first section of this chapter. A reference is made to the upsurge of ethnoterritorial political movements which took place in Spain during the 1970s and which coincided with a challenge to the hypercentralist state enforced by General Franco's dictatorship. With the subsequent transition to democracy, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 adopted a quasi-federal structure more in line with the pluri-ethnic nature of Spanish society. ; Peer reviewed

Caption title. ; "Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. States, Jan. 20, 1847." ; Mode of access: Internet.

Ethnic, linguistic, & religious identities have emerged during the past decade as major challenges to the institutional capacity of the modern state to cope with cultural diversity. As such, multilingualism, which formulates a response to this challenge, has emerged as a new focus of empirical research on federalism. This provides a contrast to classic studies of federalism, which concentrated on the institutional division of powers between a state & its constituent units. Language plays a double role in this: as a thin bond for communication & negotiation between political actors, & a thick system of meanings, carrying the burden of history, religion, culture, ritual, & memory. The article studies this ambivalence of language through a comparison of India & Switzerland, two quite different cases of relatively successful accommodation of linguistic diversity & discusses the constitutional means & policy measures that might enable a modern state to balance regional diversity & national unity in the face of the multiethnic challenge. 3 Tables, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

"First issued October 1966 as Committee Print for use of Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2d session. Reprinted with Revised Foreword, June 1967"--Page 2 of cover. ; "Prepared by Bernard J. Frieden for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations." ; At head of title: Commission findings and proposals. ; Includes bibliographical references and index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"M-129." ; "August 1981." ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Since the founding of the modern Swiss federal state in 1848, Swiss federalism & ethnic heterogeneity have been closely linked. Swiss ethnic divisions involve both linguistic & religious diversities, & also have political correlations. Over the last hundred years Swiss political leaders have been particularly sensitive to dissatisfied ethnic minorities & have instituted a complex system of decision making which includes minorities at all stages. Political dissatisfaction is not particularly concentrated in either linguistic or religious groups. The reliance on cantons as organs of government helps safeguard ethnic diversity by bringing most of government under local control. The current tendency toward the emergence of a new canton of Jura within the present canton of Bern is an illustration of this system's continued role in mediating ethnic conflict. Federalism at the national level has a similar effect, both through representation & through the role of extraparliamentary legislation-drafting commissions in including minority viewpoints; legislative referenda also allow minority groups to safeguard their interests. 4 Tables. Modified HA.

This article analyzes the views that exist in legal and political scientific literature on the development of federal relations in Russia during drafting the Constitution 1993 and after its adoption. The main issues in the article are to determine at what stage of the development of the federalism our state is, what trends are inherent in this stage. Without solving these issues it is impossible to fully realize a number of important tasks that legislative authorities of the Federation and of its subjects face. The article concludes that modern Russian federalism is not a finally established model of political and legal relations between the center and the subjects of the Russian Federation. It is proposed to characterize the current status of federal relations as the period of ongoing reforms towards the optimization of relations between federal and regional levels of state power. ; В данной статье анализируются взгляды, существующие в научной литературе (правоведческой и политологической), на периодизацию развития федеративных отношений в России в ходе разработки Конституции 1993 года и после ее принятия. Основные вопросы, которые здесь рассматриваются, заключаются в определении того, на каком этапе развития федерализма находится наше государство, какие тенденции присущи этому этапу. Без решения указанных вопросов нельзя осознать в полной мере существо ряда важных задач, которые стоят перед законодательными властями Федерации и ее субъектов. В статье делается вывод, что современный российский федерализм не является окончательно установившейся моделью политико-правовых взаимоотношений между центром и субъектами Российской Федерации. Предлагается охарактеризовать современное состояние федеративных отношений в нашей стране как период их продолжающегося реформирования в направлении оптимизации отношений между федеральным и региональным уровнями государственной власти.

This article discusses federalism and deferent theories related to it. Federalism as a theory, as a concept and as an organizational structure refers to the distribution of powers between the two levels of the government. It stands for unity, cooperation, and interdependence between the central government and the component units. Being dynamic in nature, it adopts changes according to the prevailing conditions of the country. An attempt has been made to elucidate federalism from two broad perspectives of the classical approach and Modern approach. The classical approach restricts federalism to cooperation and independence with quasi federalism, coupled with the element of encroachment from the federal government. This approach is merely based upon the doctrine of legal formalism or formalism fallacy. The modern approach focuses on two cardinal principles of cooperation and interdependence. The modern theory is a broad term and encompasses many forms of federalism within its ambit.