The difference between the Union States and the United States according to Georg Jellinek
Union States and the United States
Georg Jellinek pointed out the differences between the union state and the union-states.
Jellinek has been looking at it from various angles for a long time to find these differences. And presumably he comes to a conclusion in accordance with his opinion that the state is essentially an organism, which has a will or will, which then incarnates in its concrete form in the form of state regulations, or laws, or laws. So law is the incarnation of the will of the state, thus the state is sovereign.
Sovereignty, in the federal state, or is it in the states ?
This is Jellinek's criterion in distinguishing between a union state and a united of these countries.
If the sovereignty rests with the federal state, so the federal government is the federal government, or the joint government, then the federal state is called a union state, whereas if the sovereignty still exists with states, then this federal state is called a union of States.
So as if it is already firm, it remains only to see, who is the sovereignty, in the federal state, or in the states.
But even so, Kranenburg may object to accepting Jellinek's opinion. And put forward the weaknesses of Jellinek's opinion as follows :
Whereas the criteria used by Jellinek in expressing his opinion about the differences between the union state and the union state are not precise, weak. Because regarding the notion of sovereignty or souvereiniteit, or sovereighty, it still creates many differences of opinion, so there is no unity of opinion. After all, the notion of sovereignty is often used in a variety of definitions from time to time. For example, originally sovereignty or souvereiniteite was used in a relative sense. According to its origin, souvereiniteite comes from the word superanity or superanitas, which means the highest authority or power in an area, for example a landlord is sovereign in an area, this means that regarding the internal matters of the area the master is not depends on whoever. So it is the landlord who has the highest power in determining or deciding everything in the area.
Then at the emergence of the kings who have absolute power, the power of the landlords is reduced and the power of the kings is now the sole power, and the word souverein is only reserved for the power of kings, and means the highest power, which means that apart from the king is not depending on other powers, also the authority to determine everything that is in the country, even the power to determine the life and death of a person.
In this modern era, the word or term sovereignty already has another meaning, for example someone says that sovereignty is the highest power in a region or state to determine or make laws that apply in that region or country. Such is the opinion of Jean Bodin.
In this connection it has also been clearly seen that the meaning of the term has changed with the change of duties. The word or term of sovereignty, said Leon Duguit, was only the nature and character of the king's power, as the highest power, used as a designation for the king's own power.
Indeed, in the history of state administration, there are also those who firmly state that the notion of sovereignty or souvereiniteite in its history has experienced three phases, according to Mac Iver's opinion. Check out his book: The Web of Government,
Mac Iver divides the history of the development of the souvereiniteite into three phases :
- Comparative. This phase refers to the feudal era, namely in the medieval ages, because at that time the sovereignty rests with the king, who is sometimes a leenheer, and in the baron or leenman.
- Absolute. This phase refers to the era of kings who have absolute power.
- Relative. This phase refers to the modern era where the sovereignty of one country is relative when faced with the sovereignty of other countries in the international field.
But besides that, it is actually not true that Kranenburg said that sovereignty or souvereiniteite cannot be used as a criterion, just as Jellinek used it as a criterion to distinguish between a union state and a state union. As mentioned above, Kranenburg stated that Jellinek's opinion in this matter was not strong enough, weak, because the notion of sovereignty itself is still very vague.
Kranenburg's opinion, on the one hand, is true, in the sense that the notion of sovereignty has not yet had a unified opinion. But on the other hand Kranenburg's statement is imprecise, untrue, because thus Kranenburg also considers that the notion of sovereignty or souvereiniteit for Jellinek is still a vague meaning. This is simply not true.
Because Jellinek uses the notion of sovereignty or souvereiniteit according to his understanding, according to his own understanding. For him there is a definite understanding of what the meaning of sovereignty is, and this definition is what he uses as a criterion in expressing his opinion on the difference between a union state and a state union, so he does not use the definition of sovereignty according to general understanding, or strictly not according to the agreement of everyone. , but in Jellinek's own understanding.
According to Jellinek, the notion of sovereignty or souvereiniteit is the highest power to determine laws in a country. So Jellinek already has a definite and fixed understanding of the term sovereignty or souvereiniteite. It is the state that has the highest power, the state is the source of law, because according to his opinion, the law is essentially an incarnation or manifestation of the will or will of the state.
So, once again, for Jellinek it already has a definite and permanent understanding of the term sovereignty or souvereiniteit. So it is not possible if the notion of sovereignty or souvereiniteite used by Jellinek as a criterion for distinguishing the meaning between a union state and a union of states is replaced by another meaning.
After Kranenburg expressed his disagreement with Jellinek's opinion, he himself then proposed an opinion or teaching about the differences between a union state and a union state.
