The difference between the Union States and the United States according to Kranenburg
Union States and the United States according to Kranenburg
In Kranenburg opinion, the difference between a union state and a union of these states lies in the problem: whether or not the Federal government or the joint government can make or issue legal regulations that are directly binding or applicable to citizens rather than states.
So this is what should be used as a criterion in the distinction between the union state and the union of these states, and not the location of their sovereignty.
If the statutory regulations issued by the government of the federal states, or the combined government, are directly applicable or binding on the nationals of the states, then the federation state is a union type.So without any specific action from the state government, the laws coming from the federal government, or the joint government can already apply or bind directly to the citizens of the states.Meanwhile, if the legal regulations made and issued by the federal government or the joint government cannot directly apply or bind the citizens of the states, then such a state is called a state union.
In this case, if the legal regulations made or issued by the federal government or the combined government are to be applied to the citizens of the states, the state government concerned must first take an action, namely to establish or create a regulation, or statute, or statement, or perhaps other act, which essentially states the applicability of the laws of the federal government or the government of the combined state thereof to its citizens.
After we study the opinion of Jellinek and the opinion of Kranenburg about the differences between the union state and the union of states, then we can make a comparison between the two opinions. In my opinion, the two opinions are in principle the same.
According to Jellinek, a union state is a type of federal state where the federal government, or the government of the joint state, holds the sovereignty, so that sovereignty or souvereiniteit exists or lies with the government of the joint state. If this is the case, then of course the federal government or the government of the combined state can or has the authority to make or issue legal regulations that can bind or apply directly to citizens of the states.
So this is in accordance with Kranenburg's opinion which states that the union state is a federal state in which the federal government or the government of the joint state can or is authorized to make or issue legal regulations which can bind or apply directly to the citizens of the countries. part.
Meanwhile, according to Jellinek, what is called a state union is a type of federal state in which the government of the states remains the one holding the sovereignty, so strictly speaking, the sovereignty exists or lies with the state governments.
If this is the case, then of course the federal government or the government of the combined state cannot or is not authorized to make or issue legal regulations that can apply or bind directly to citizens of the states.
So even this is in accordance with Kranenburg opinion which states that a state union is a type of federal state in which the federal government or the government of the combined state cannot or is not authorized to make or issue legal regulations which can apply or bind directly to the citizens of the states.
This is in my opinion regarding the opinion of Jellinek and Kranenburg's opinion regarding the differences between the union state and the union of states, which, unless it has been mentioned above, presumably can also be corroborated by Kranenburg's own opinion regarding the differences between the union state and the decentralized unitary state, where It is said that in a union state, the states have the authority to make their own constitution or constitution, the states have the authority to regulate their own form of state organization, although it still has to be within the limits stipulated in the constitution or constitution of the federal state.
This is how a country is, if we look at it from the perspective of its structure, we can find two types of major groups, namely the unitary state and the federated state. While both can still be differentiated.
Unitary states can be, unitary states that are decentralized, and unitary states are deconcentrated. Meanwhile, a federation state can be: a union state and a union state.
Of the types of countries mentioned above, there are things that need further attention to obtain clearer information. Thus it seems that a decentralized unitary state with a federation state, especially with a union state, has certain similarities and differences.
The equations. The existence of these similarities means that within the two countries there are :
- Division of regions or territories, only the names are different. In a decentralized unitary state the regions are called "regions", either level I regions, level II regions, level III regions which have the right to regulate and manage their own households, while in a union state, the regions are called "the states ". So here there is a state within the state, this is not the case in a decentralized unitary state.
- There are two types of government in the two countries, namely: in a decentralized unitary state there is a central government and a regional government. Whereas in a union state there is a federal government or joint state government and state government.
The differences. The difference between the decentralized unitary state system and the union state system is that these differences do not only exist in the different names, it seems that the titles of regions, provinces, states, cantons but the differences are really about the positive law, namely :
- Authority to enact or make a constitution. As we have seen that in the union state, there are basically two kinds of states, namely the federal state or the combined state itself and the states, so there are also two kinds of government, namely the federal government or the government of the combined state and the government of the states.
Whereas in principle, each state is independent and has the authority to make its own constitution. So here there are two kinds of constitution, namely the constitution of each state, and the constitution of the federation state itself, which in essence is an agreement from each state to enter into a bond. effective cooperation.
So the authority to make constitutions in a union state, either rests with the federation itself, or in each individual state.
Whereas in a decentralized unitary state, in principle there is only one state, one state government, namely the central government, and it is the regions that have the authority to make a constitution, while the regions do not have this authority. So thus in a desen- tralized unitary state there is only one constitution. - Power sharing system in the constitution. This means how the system of power sharing between the federal government and state governments. In the union state what functions are the authority or power of the federal government or the government of the combined state are mentioned in detail in its constitution.
In fact, there is often also a special appendix to mention matters or functions the administration of which is assigned to, or becomes the authority of the federal government, and usually these are matters or matters of interest to all the states.
Thus, the authority or power of the state governments is only formulated in general terms, or it can also be said to be a restant of the authority or power of the federal government, meaning that what is not the authority or power of the federal government is the authority or power of the government of the states part.
Meanwhile, in a decentralized unitary state the situation is the opposite. Here, what is the affairs, authority or power of the central government is formulated in general, while the functions, powers or powers of the regional government are mentioned or formulated in detail one by one. In our country, for example, what is the matter of the regional government is explicitly stated and submitted. So what is the regional affair is what is mentioned, while the rest becomes the central affair. - About the origin of genuine power. In the union state the original powers come from the states. Because after the countries joined to form a bond, part of their power was transferred to the joint government, the federal government. And usually the power handed over is power of a general nature which concerns their common interests, so it is better to concentrate it so that there is no confusion. So here is a kind of contribution of power from the states to the federal state.
Moreover, it should be borne in mind and note that in this union state it is not possible every time a change of power of the federal government, the central government, takes place, because every change of power of the federal government, or the central government, will also be a change of power rather than the power of the state governments. In addition, because the power comes from the states, if a change is made to the powers of the federal government, it must obtain prior approval from the state governments.
Whereas in a decentralized unitary state the original power lies with the central government, so all power comes from the central government. The original power that was in the central government, then part of it was transferred or given to local governments to be implemented. Usually what is left to the regional government is the power to take care of matters that are closely related to the region concerned. Moreover, according to considerations it will not be effective if these matters are managed by the central government itself. So here there is a kind of distribution of power from the center to the regions. - About sovereignty. Usually in these two countries sovereignty is at the center, so it can be said that there are similarities, but even so the sovereignty in the central government rather than the decentralized unitary state is stronger than the sovereignty in the central government rather than the union state, especially in the union of countries. Because here each state can be said to have sovereignty, good inward and outward.
