‘The idea of the separation of powers has been subjected to criticism and competition ever since it first came to be during the upheaval of the English Civil War. In recent years the case has once again been stated that the idea of the separation of powers has lost its significance in a globalised world, with a power constellation in which the distinctions between different types of “powers” have blurred and even so-called constituted power holders have become more and more diffuse. Yet even its fiercest opponents cannot deny that the idea of the separation of powers as a theory of government has, in the words of M.J.C. Vile, “in modern times, been the most significant, both intellectually and in terms of its influence upon institutional structures”.
The idea of the separation of powers reached its zenith in the United States and France in the late 19th century. In the two centuries that separate us from this zenith, the doctrine has suffered almost endless criticism, but endured nonetheless. The tenacity of the idea of the separation of powers is partly due to the fact that it is still widely held to be a procedural and institutional prerequisite for providing the state and its laws with legitimacy. It was, and is, considered by many a guarantor of liberty, in the absence of which power cannot be legitimately exercised.
However, both democratic legitimacy and the separation of powers as concepts have very much evolved alongside the state and over the last decades the state has been giving up ground to other power holders. This brings up the question of whether the combination of these concepts is still viable outside a traditional state context, and if so, in what form? This is the central question the current volume seeks to answer.’
See for the full text:
See for order information:
‘Both democratic legitimacy and the separation of powers as concepts have very much evolved alongside the state and over the last decades the state has been giving up ground to other power holders, particularly international (and even supranational) actors. This brings up the question of whether the combination of these concepts is still viable outside a traditional state context, and if so, in what form? This is the central question the current volume seeks to answer.
In 2013 Christoph Möllers published his impressive monograph, The Three Branches; A Comparative Model of Separation of Powers. This inspirational book led to the idea to pitch it against both the agenda of us as researchers of the Institute of Public Law at Leiden Law School (resulting from a 2012 conference) and our own insights, as well as that of fellow travellers in the field.’
For more (order) information, see:
The European Parliament is sometimes criticised as being weak compared to national parliaments, while the executive it is supposed to check is not as well-defined an antagonist as in national systems.
Read here why viewing the European Union (EU) through this state-centred lens seems neither fitting nor fair:
The classic question posed by Tocqueville about the relationship between values and democracy is coming to the fore again. The main argument of this article is that, while the social doctrine of the Catholic Church has a clear answer to this question, Neo-Calvinism does not or at least does to a lesser extent. To illustrate this point, the article focuses on a recent application of Catholic social teaching: the approach to the democratic legitimacy of the European Union (EU) as developed by Joseph H. H. Weiler. Because of historic and other parallels between Catholic and Neo-Calvinist thinking on democracy, however, the latter could perhaps draw inspiration from the middle path that the social doctrine of the Catholic Church represents between a confessional state and the liberal, neutralistic concept of the state.
Hans-Martien ten Napel, ‘Joseph H. H. Weiler’s Approach to the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union: Is There a Message for Neo-Calvinists?,’ Journal of Markets and Morality 17, no.1 (Spring 2014): 125-141.
The Journal of Markets & Morality is a peer-reviewed academic journal published twice a year–in the Spring and Fall promoting intellectual exploration of the relationship between economics and morality from both social science and theological perspectives.’
On 18 March 2012 I wrote a post on a new essay by Joseph Weiler on Europe as ‘political messianism’. The essay is also referred to in an article which appeared today on Leiden Law Blog: http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/no-more-promised-land-waiting-at-the-end-of-the-road-for-eu. Have a look at this new blog of Leiden Law School, and check out the post which concludes as follows:
‘In sum, whether one views the EU as constitutional or administrative in nature, its perspectives in terms of democratic legitimacy appear to be rather gloomy. With no easy fixes available, Leiden University’s decision to launch the theme ‘Law, Democracy and Governance: Legitimacy in a Multilevel Setting’ as a core aspect of its research strategy can be considered a timely one indeed.’