Talk:Federacy

Use

Is this term actually used anywhere besides in the book referenced at the bottom of the article? Argyriou 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In research in the field of comparative federalism. Elazar is not just some book but one of the authoritative sources in field of comparative federalism. See his site for his reputation. But see also Stepan in the Journal of Democracy 10 (4) 1999 pp.19-34, for some theoretical background on federacies. -- C mon 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the adjective of "federacy"? If I want to call the United Kingdom a "... kingdom", I can't say "federated kingdom", since that would imply a federation, but what *should* I use instead? —Nightstallion (?) 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know what the adjective is, I'm not a native speaker. In other texts I have used "federacy-like". -- C mon 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I s'pose Elazar doesn't use any kind of adjective for federacy in his books and texts? —Nightstallion (?) 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Federate" maybe? By analogy with, in US history, the Confederacy, known in full as the Confederate States of America? Nik42 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

confederation, confederacy, federacy, federation

Should this be merged into the confederation article, which although does talk more about confederation of states, it would be an appropriate term for provinces in a federacy as well. The only difference I can see is that states within confederations still have their own constitution, while provinces in a federacy do not, although they do seem to have a sort of law autonomy. Intangible 15:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm against the merger, as this is obviously a terminus technicus distinct from both federations and confederations. —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with Nightstallion that the terms mean different things and should not be merged (the main point is that in a confederation each state has got equal powers, and in a federacy powers are distributed assymetrically), I feel I should say that two terms are etimologically linked with federacy according to some dictionaries being short for confederacy. The terms have got different meanings now. --C mon 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand pretty well the different meanings of the words federation, confederation and federacy, but what about confederacy? Is it the same as a confederation? I have never heard about this word before (actually I had not heard the word federation either, although I knew the principle it describes. I wrote a similar question at Talk:Confederacy. Take a look there as well for reference. --Oddeivind (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

US?

Would the US be a federacy, in light of entities like Puerto Rico and Micronesia? Nik42 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was in the original list, because of Puerto Rico, but some-one removed it citing that "Puerto Rico has no specified consititutional status, and can have its status changed at whim by Congress" and therefore it is not a federacy. Micronesia is an associated state which leads to a completely different constitutional status. -- C mon 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who removed Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is, from a constitutional standpoint, a straight-up dependency, albeit one with a great deal of home rule. --Jfruh (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I removed the United Kingdom from the list. The justification for it being there was that the Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man) have more autonomy than the devolved legislatures of London, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Since the Crown Dependencies aren't part of the United Kingdom, their administrative freedom is unsurprising. Ironically, the article uses the UK as an example of what a federacy is not. Bastin 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this I will not allow. Academic sources like Elazar clear point that the relationship between the UK with Man and the Channel Islands can best be described as a federay. I will revert your edit, unless you can tell me how the relationship between the UK and these crown dependencies should be interpreted. Give me an academic source with an alternative, or point to wiki page where there relationship is classified without calling it sui generis.

That a country has multiple systems of governance within its border may be seen as ironic, but every single example of federacy is in that situation, because there is a difference between the different levels of autonomy. In the Netherlands this is decentralized unitary state vs. federation for instance.

Finally these classifications are scientific, meaning that they are not 100% proof, but instead depend on some interpretation and generalization. Okay the UK is not 100% federacy in this view, but is Germany 100% a federation, or the Netherlands 100% a monarchy. No they are not political systems tend to defy classification. That is no reason not to try. --C mon 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone that claims that the Crown Dependencies are indicative of any aspect of the British political system fails to understand what the Crown Dependencies are. However, I don't believe that Daniel Elazar does; although I don't have the book in question, I can see his broad opinions in the introduction to the handbook, which clearly categorises the Crown Dependencies separately (under #4: Feudal arrangements transformed) from federacies (which is #5).

Working on the basis that Elazar does understand the relationship, but that he has been misinterpreted, I'll clarify the Crown Dependencies' position (see: Crown Dependency). They are not in the UK, but are instead both in personal union and dependent upon the United Kingdom. Since they aren't part of the UK, the UK can't be considered a federacy on the grounds of their existence. In analogy, one could say that the United States does not become a federacy on account of Palau. The British government states, "Government officials must never state or imply that the Islands are part of the United Kingdom, or Great Britain, or England, or act on that assumption."[1] To consider the United Kingdom a federacy to ignore this advice. Bastin 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you settle for a sentence in the main body stating that the relation between the UK government and the Crown dependencies is very similar (them not having an international status and having a high degree of autonomy) but due to the specific arrangement they chose there the relationship is different? BTW Elazar does not use the classification but instead does refer to them as federacies -- C mon 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also advocate this kind of compromise. —Nightstallion (?) 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: SARs

The SAR is a temporary provision for the return of Hong Kong and Macao to PRC, and is different from a federation system. In particular, the status is temporary and the autonomy is not guaranteed under the PRC's constitution. --Vsion 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The case of PRC is interesting because it is to new to appear in the handbooks. I see the case is disputed, and your point that the autonomy is not guaranteed in the constitution is valid. I'll move it. C mon 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The way you organise it is great. --Vsion 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(response to Vsion's comment at 00:00, August 31) How do you know it is a temporary provision? Who can tell at the present moment whether it is temporary or not? The PRC was established in 1949 - how can Hong Kong and Macao be returned to the PRC? Is the autonomy of Greenland and Faroe Islands, Åland, Niue and Cook Islands, guaranteed in the constitution of Denmark, Finland and New Zealand? Please substantiate your bold assertions, especially when you're trying to make a point. Thanks in advance. :-) — Instantnood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Hong Kong Basic Law, and Constitution of the People's Republic of China. --Vsion 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Where in the Basic Law did it state that a special administrative region were a temporary provision? (Which to my knowledge isn't true.) How could Hong Kong and Macao be returned to the People's Republic of China, that the People's Republic of China did not even exist when Hong Kong and Macao were ceded/leased? Is the autonomy of Greenland and Faroe Islands, Åland, etc., guaranteed in the constitution of Denmark and Finland, etc.? Present the evidence if your serious with your claims. — Instantnood 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you first present reference that Hong Kong's relation with PRC is that of a federation, and that it is not your own imagination. --Vsion 00:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Joint Declaration is a good reference here.

1. It says that the PRC will "resume the exercise of sovereignty" over Hong Kong.
2. It does not say that the SAR set-up is temporary. It says basically that the SAR government will remain unchanged for 50 years. Meaning that the PRC won't change HK for 50 years, but it does not say that the PRC will change HK after 50 years.

--- Hong Qi Gong 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Let me try to rephrase or correct my earlier sentence: the autonomy of SAR is not guaranteed by PRC constitution, and after 50 years, could be withdrawn as PRC government wishes. --Vsion 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Vision's comment

[2] [3] - That's the point. None of those listed (well, except the case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which setup is pretty close to federation) are truly close to conventional federations. — Instantnood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User:C mon's edit

[4] - I'd be interested to know how the following conclusion was drawn - " especially in the economic realm, but their independence is not guaranteed in the Chinese constitution ". Regarding the section titled " Similar but different " - All the cases mentioned in the article (including those under "List of federacies") are similar, and every of them is different. Why is it necessary to break them into two sections? Where to draw the line? — Instantnood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to all your comments & edits:

• I moved China into a new section because seen the comments of Vsion there was a problem in categorizing the PRC as a federacy. China is also not listed by sources such as Elazar, because the case is too recent. I am no specialist in the political situation in China, I accepted Vsion's comments who appears to have more knowledge on the subject. He made one vital objection: the autonomy of Hong Kong and Macau are not guaranteed in the constitution. If China is listed as a federacy this claim has to be substantiated, in a way that does not violate No Orignal Research. If you have such evidence please assert it so we can list China as a federacy.
• The similar but different section was set up to encompass forms of government that are similar to federacies but are not classified this way. This is comparable to your own comparison sections. Off course all political systems are different, but too narrow focus on that would end any attempt of classification. The line is drawn on basic of verifiable sources, such as Elazar.
• Finally a question to you: why have you changed the table into a lengthy discussion of each case? Is there a specific reason why you did this? It interests me because the article federation does not discuss all federations at lenght but all federations but merely lists them.

C mon 13:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what examples Elazar listed in his book. Did Elazar lists the People's Republic of China as a similar but different case (in his book published in 1991)? As responded to Vsion's comment above, in how many states that the autonomy of its autonomous units is specified in their constitutions? The differences and background among federations are, comparatively speaking, not as significance as federacies. It would be too complicated to convey so complicated information by a table. — Instantnood 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm backing off: you're right both Puerto Rico, the Northern Marinas (see below #Actual meaning of federacy) are listed by experts, like Elazar, as federacies, and the PRC probably also applies on the same criteria. I support their inclusion. I will not make their inclusion immediate because I would like to see the opinion of other editors.

I have to say one thing: I dislike your strategy, which involves a lot of reversions of other peoples edits without explanation, while calling on other editors to tell you why they did what they did. This upsets good editing.

BTW, The differences between federations are as large as between federacies. Status of the capital, special independence for some subunits, representation in the senate, judicial review, constitutional rigidity, division of competences. No one federation is similar to another.

C mon 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actual meaning of federacy

In this webpage [5] Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas (with the United States) is used as an example of federacy arrangements. Is this what this article on Wikipedia discusses? — Instantnood 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. If the scholar who came up with the Federacy term thinks PR has some special constitutional status within the US, then I question the validity of the term and the research. Puerto Rico and the Marianas Islands have been devolved a great deal of home rule, but they are not full participants in the US Federal government (since they aren't states), nor do they have some special constitutional status. They are unincorporated territories under the absolute jurisdiction of Congress. While from a political viewpoint, it is extremely unlikely that Congress would revoke their devolved governments (as doing so would be extremely undemocratic and would look very colonialist), Congress has the constitutional right to do so, in a way that it does not in the case of the States. --Jfruh (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely certain this term deserves a separate article, it appears that the definition of "federacy" does not require that the arrangements be constitutionally difficult to alter, merely that they exist and are moderately stable. Therefore, I'm inclined to keep U.S./Puerto Rico, and PRC/Hong Kong/Macau. Argyriou 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico & Malaysia

First off, Malaysia is not a federacy but a federation. Most federations are assymetric (i.e. some states have power than others, see for instance Quebec) but the assymetry has to be significant.

Second, if Puerto Rico is listed by Elazar as a federacy we have to accept him as an authority on the subject. We can add our reservations there. C mon 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I really, really have a problem with the idea that the relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S. is a federacy, at least as the term is defined in this article (emphasis added):

In a federacy, at least one of the constituent parts of the state is autonomous, while the other constituent parts are not or comparatively less autonomous ... The autonomous constituent part enjoys independence as though it was part of federation, while the other constituent parts are as independent as subunits in a unitary state. This autonomy is guaranteed in the country's constitution ... These autonomous subunits often have a special status in international relations.

Puerto Rico meets almost none of these criteria.

• • Puerto Rico has significantly less autonomy than most other constituent parts of the U.S., if by autonomy we mean the right to decide on its own affairs. There are some areas of governance that under the U.S. Constitution and constitutional law are solely under the purview of the states, and cannot be legislated on by the federal Congress without a constitutional amendment. However, as a territory, Puerto Rico is under the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Here's an example: Massachusetts' Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages must be recognized by the state government, due to a gender equality clause in the state constitution. Although there's a solid anti-same-sex marriage majority in the US Congress, Congress cannot overturn this decision by statute law, because states have sole jurisdiction to interpret their own constitution. If a Puerto Rican court made the same decision, however, Congress could overturn it by a simple majority vote.
  • There is no provision recognizing Puerto Rico's special status in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution recognizes only three types of entities under U.S. sovereignty: States, the Federal District, and territories. Constitutionally, Puerto Rico has the same status as territories like the Guam and even uninhabited territories like Wake Island: it is under the sole jurisdiction of the federal Congress. Congress has devolved much of its authority to an elected home rule government, but it could theoretically dissolve that government by a simple majority vote.
  • Puerto Rico has no special status in international relations. While it sends its own delegations to sporting or cultural events like the Olympics or Miss Universe, it does not exchange diplomatic officials with other countries or participate separately in international organizations like the UN or OAS.

Maybe my spending 10 minutes making this list constitutes "original research", but I feel like there has to be a way to point out contradictions in an article. Where is the "there" where we can "add our reservations", C Mon? I understand that there is wiggle room in this definition but I'd love it if someone could explain to me how, in light of the facts I have listed, Puerto Rico fits the definition explained in the opening of this article? How can we have an article that is about a category and then list as examples things don't meet the definition of that category? --Jfruh (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The main issue that we are bordering here is that wikipedia values external sources over original research. The source on autonomy arrangements, Elazar, calls Puerto Rico a federacy.

However you raise two relevant points:

Although your examples is theoretic ("if ..., then ...") it indeed appears that Puerto Rico has powers similar to US states (education, police, courts, public works, internal communications etc.), but there is one fundamental difference: federal taxes do not apply on Puerto Rico, unless the Puerto Rican government wants it do (Elazar, 1989, p.326).

Indeed the U.S. constitution does not guarantee the independence of Puerto Rico, but the constitution of the Puerto Rico can only be changed by mutual consent of the US congress and Puerto Rico legislature, therefore releaving it from the arbitrary power of Congress (Elazar, 1989, p.325).

Although the US government has full say over its foreign policy, Puerto Rico does maintain direct contacts with it's Caribbean neighbours. Please note that this third characteristic is not necessary for a federacy and does not mean that it should be represented in anything. Aland has a special status in international relations because it is a DMZ, Crimea because it hosts the Russian fleet, and Greenland and Faroe because they have opted out of the EU.

So what do we do now? I suppose the best thing to do is to keep Puerto Rico in the list, add references to Elazar and (y)our reservations about the status of Puerto Rico to that entry and leave it at that.

C mon 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow this article any more because the definition seems so fundamentally flawed. However, I would note that the Congress does retain the power to override or legislate over Puerto Rico's constitution without Puerto Rico's consent, as this is a Constitutional power of the Congress in regards to all US territories. See this document for more information. Puerto Rico has powers similar to US states but they are not constitutionally guaranteed, which is my point. I'm not sure how its citizens not being subject to income tax equates to "autonomy." --Jfruh (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Territories & Districts

Territories like the Nothern Territories of Canada or Australia and Capital districts like DC are not examples of federacies, because they have considerably less autonomy than other substates. It should be discussed elsewhere. C mon 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

They are unitary parts within federations. Power is not surrender by the provinces or states to the federal government. Instead, power is delegated from the federal government. The federal government can take back such delegated power. - Passer-by 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! While in a federacy involves a) granting more power to some subunits and not less (which is the case in Districts and territories) and b) some kind of constitutional protection and not delegation. That's why these are not examples of federacy-like arrangements. C mon 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In this article a federacy is a state which has some of its units like usual unitary states, but also has some units like federal provinces. The District of Columbia, the Northern Territory, the Northwest Territories, the Australian Capital Territory, the Yukon Territory are all examples of unitary units. They are federacies in the other way round. There are more federal than unitary, while others there are more unitary than federal. - Passer-by 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the majority of the substates should enjoy less autonomy than the autonomous substate. It is a way to grant autonomy to a region not to curtail it. C mon 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who defined federacy in this way? You said they are not federacies. Then what are they? - Passer-by 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The main source for this article, Elazar, who was one of the leading experts on comparative federal governmen,t did, as do other authors like Stepan. I realize that there are problems with this, but conventionally (for instance in Elazar) Australia, Canada and the United States are listed as federations. Please put your reservations about their federalism in the federation article. C mon 07:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some federations are purely federations. How to describe these not pure federations? - Passer-by 15:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no pure federations. In no federation do all the subunits have equal powers and representation. C mon 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Switzerland, Austria and Germany? - Passer-by 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland: Half cantons (which have less representation in parliament and less power);

Austria: Is a federation in constitution only, operates like a unitary state and the second house is elected proportionately;

Germany: Has unequal representation in the Bundesrat and city states (Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen) enjoy a different level of autonomy than large states like Bayern.

There are not "pure federations", that's an ideal type.

C mon 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way are the city states of Germany, in terms of levels of autonomy, different from the large states? Are they represented in the German federal second house proportionately according to their sizes of population? What less power are the half cantons of Switzerland having, apart from representation at the federal level? Why do a country not a pure federation if its federal second house is proportionate? - Passer-by 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Passer-by here. C mon, you seem not to have delved to deeply into the political structure of Austria, for instance, or did you? There is absolutely no difference in powers between the different states of Austria whatsoever, and Passer-by's observations about the others are correct, as well. —Nightstallion (?) 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

United States, Puerto Rico and other Territories

The article has an entire section about how the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico is a federacy. Apart from a grammatical error or two (Puerto Rico citizens instead of the correct Puerto Rican citizens) the entire section is questionable and possibly POV (not by the wiki-editor, but by the author of the research about PR and the US). The section deals solely with Puerto Rico as though other inhabited US territories with Organic Acts do not have the exact same relationship with the States as Puerto Rico does. Nothing outlined in the section is specific solely to Puerto Rico:

• Puerto Rico citizens and United States citizens may freely travel between both countries.
  • Puerto Rican citizens, U.S. Virgin Islands citizens/U.S. Virgin Islanders, North Marianan citizens, citizens of Guam (all of whom are also by statute United States citizens) and American Samoans (who are U.S. nationals but not citizens) may all freely travel between the United States and their countries (and amongst their countries) and U.S. citizens from the mainland and Hawaii may also freely travel to any of those countries.
• Puerto Rico's government is subject to fewer restrictions than states are....
  • Can anyone name one or even a few examples? restrictions on what? Surely these fewer restrictions must have been detailed or at least mentioned in one of the sources.
• ...and residents of Puerto Rico are exempt from some federal taxes.
  • As are all U.S. territories. Residents of territories don't pay certain federal taxes until their territories become states but the taxes of the territorial governments are usually the same as both State and Federal taxes combined. Anyway how does tax exemption define a federacy? In that case all Special Economic Zones and their host countries are in federacy relationships.
• Puerto Rico's autonomy is guaranteed by the constitution of Puerto Rico, that can only be changed with the consent both the U.S. Congress and the Puerto Rico legislature.
  • That isn't true. Puerto Rico's autonomy is outlined in its constitution, but its autonomy is derived from an Organic Act made by Congress. Likewise the American citizenship of Puerto Ricans is statutory citizenship (just check out the wikipedia article on United States nationality law and [6]) which is granted by Congress. So one day, if Congress decided to, it could revoke both Puerto Rico's autonomy and the U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricans (the latter case of course being subject to many limitations but would most likely occur for instance if Puerto Rico was to become independent, in which case Congress remove the automatic right of Puerto Ricans to become U.S. citizens in the future, but would allow those who are already citizens to choose whether or not to remain U.S. citizens). Now it was said earlier that “Indeed the U.S. constitution does not guarantee the independence of Puerto Rico, but the constitution of the Puerto Rico can only be changed by mutual consent of the US congress and Puerto Rico legislature, therefore releaving it from the arbitrary power of Congress (Elazar, 1989, p.325).” If this is Elazar's reasoning then he surely must have realized that PR's constitution cannot be changed without mutual consent between the U.S. government and Puerto Rico, but it can be revoked by the unilateral consent of the U.S. government (change and revokation being two different things). The constitution of all U.S. States also cannot be changed "without mutual consent" in so much as any change in any U.S. State constitution must not contradict the U.S. Constitution and if any change does then the U.S. Supreme Court can over-rule it. Thus all changes in State constitutions can only be changed without U.S. government involvement so long as the changes do not contradict the U.S. constitution. In this case U.S. States have more autonomy than Puerto Rico as their constitutions cannot be revoked. The U.S. States would have even more autonomy than Puerto Ricos still, if the information from Elazar implies that absolute mutual consent is required between the U.S. and Puerto Rican governments for any change. The same arguments apply for the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, Guam and American Samoa.
• Federal taxes do not automatically apply to Puerto Rico unless the Puerto Rican government wants them to.
  • The same applies for other territories (see point above)
• Although the US government has full say over its foreign policy, Puerto Rico does maintain direct contacts with its Caribbean neighbours.
  • And the U.S. Virgin Islands don't and can't? And what of Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa? Doesn't American Samoa at least maintain direct contact with Samoa?
• There are occasions the U.S. federal courts have taken jurisdiction on cases having to do with Puerto Rican law.
  • U.S. federal courts can take jurisdiction on cases dealing with State or Territorial Law if it is a matter for them and not just State or Territorial courts. This is especially true with regards to the U.S. Supreme Court and State and Territorial constitutions and laws. Hence if PR's constitution had any provisions which were incompatible with the U.S. constitution then those provisions could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court (otherwise PR could well have put anything it wanted in its constitution and the U.S. government couldn't do anything about it). The same also applies for the other territories.
• Puerto Rico differs from the aforementioned federacies for three reasons: Puerto Rico is not mentioned in the U.S. constitution; therefore, Puerto Rico does not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress and lacks constitutional guarantees to protect it from the federal government.
  • I guess this is the section that mentions Jfruh's reservations, although it is rather scanty. If anything it should at least be expanded.

Yes, some people will say this is "original research", but it is not original research to put known, documented information (U.S. citizenship laws, U.S. supreme court modus operandi, nature of State and Territorial constitutions, etc) besides contradictory information (this is what the reservations section does anyway), all of this is only original research if all the points are added up to come to a conclusion. For example it is not original research to insert a sentence about Darwinian evolution being the accepted theory of evolution for the natural world in an article about Lamarckian evolution. All of that is true. Original research however would entail some wikipedia editor purporting that Lamarck's theory is wrong when no source has ever said so. Elazar's points about Puerto Rico and the US being a federacy may be wrong in my personal opinion (The US and PR is more like an assymmetric federation), but if it is not stated in the section with the "reservations" that Elazar is incorrect, then there is no original research. Though it would be nice to have a label for the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico, a more suitable label would seem to be assymmetric federation (just like Canada and Australia). If the US and PR is a federacy then so is the UK and its overseas territories (not the Crown dependencies).72.27.92.21 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer some of your concerns, but I'm no specialist on the U.S. constitution, please feel free to correct spelling mistakes, to expand the reservation section and to incorporate the information about other US territories into the text. You certainly have appoint with the other territories: Elazar him self includes the Northern Marianas in his list of federacies.

Federal taxes do not apply to the United States I would call that one of the fewer restrictions. Furthermore Puerto Rico has full control over its education system (in Spanish), the police, courts, public works and internal communication (according to Elazar)

Honestly I don't really understand the rest of your concerns, but feel free to incorporate your points (preferably in such a way that a person without a PhD in U.S. constitutional law can understand it).

But do watch out for original research, reference to an article in academic work about Puerto Rico, instead of the laws themselves for instance. If there is a debate about the status of Puerto Rico, it must have left its traces in the academic debate.

The term assymmetric federation does not apply to Puerto Rico, because in assymmetry in that federation concerns the relationship between formally equal entities (all states or provinces) with different levels of (practical) autonomy.

C mon 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What I still don't understand about Elazar's reasoning (from the quotes/references given in the article and on this page) is that most of the autonomy that seems to make PR's relationship with the US is shared by all U.S. States (which are probably more autonomous in most respects than PR except that they apparently cannot declare independence - though that topic is a whole other much debated story altogether). I almost pretty sure that all U.S. States also have full control over their education systems (which are all in English, but New Mexico apparently declared Spanish as a co-official language of government so it shouldn't be such a leap for education in Spanish, if enough people require it). All U.S. States also have full control over their local police and courts. The rest I have no clue about, but they also probably have at least control over public works (yes they do now that I think about California). Not sure what is meant by internal communications...is it postal system or telephone service? Just seems strange to me that Elazar would define PR as being in a "federate" relationship when it seems that most of the hallmarks of its autonomy are shared by the 50 federal units/States. I'm wary of adding anything, without the consensus of the contributors to this page, but its late now, so maybe I'll try to add in the other territories and expand the reservations section another day. Thanks for your speedy reply though.72.27.92.21 06:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal communication must mean telephone since the postal service is the U.S. Postal Service. However, the PR telephone company was sold to Verizon not long ago. Joelito (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Federation

In the few months that this article has been around, I've not yet seen a good rationale for this article to be a separate article. User:Nightstallion above mentions that Federacy has become a technical term, but it's a very small community which uses the word in the way in which Elazar, et al, use it. Almost every use I've been able to locate of the word has significant references back to Elazar, which tells me that the other authors using it are part of a small group studying a particular form of federalism, or using the word to define a particular form of federalism, to make a distinction which most other people will not need to make.

The material in this article is relatively useful, so while I toyed with the idea of nominating it as an Article for Deletion, I think it's better to merge the unique content to Federation, instead. I can easily be persuaded that some other article would be a better home for the material on this page, but the specific use of the word Federacy in the way which this article uses it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Argyriou (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge/redirect for a list of reasons:

1. This is a concept which is both relevant for understanding the relations within states such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland.
2. It 'is used in the field of comparative federalism. Writers like Elazar but also Stepan in the Journal of Democracy and in Amoretti's Federalism and Territorial cleavages. It has about 2,000 google scholar hits [see here]
3. The article is rather long has considerable room for people critical to the concept and its applications to specific cases.
4. There are articles on wikipedia that are considerably more problematic and obscure than this one. (Asymmetric federalism f.i.)
5. There is a limited number of scholars that understand and are able to use the most developed forms of physics: that is no reason to delete it. As long as it is part of academic discussion, it is relevant to be included here.
6. A federation is distinct from a federacy, it stands between a unitary state and federation, it is non-sensical to merge it with either, because it is neither.

Although wikipedia cannot include all, this is worth including.

C mon 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless it can be ruled out as original research (and it seems it cannot), the concept is certainly worthy of inclusion. Merging with Federation is in any case a bad idea, as the concepts are clearly distinct (or in same cases maybe a little less clearly, see Russia below). -- Jao 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Serbia: Shouldn't the relation between Serbia and Kosovo/Vojvodina be listed? If I have understood the definition correctly, it seems to be a clear-cut case. -- Jao 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• the Netherlands: If we necessarily must mention this, I think the article should be clearer that it can only be a de facto federacy relation. Constitutionally, the three parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are equal (correct me if I'm wrong), so it can have no federacies. Also, constitutionally, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are not part of the Netherlands, so that can't have any federacies either. -- Jao 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• US: In which way does Puerto Rico have significantly larger autonomy than the other top-level administrative divisions of the US (i.e., the states, the DC, and the other insular areas)? -- Jao 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Russia: I've added Russia to the Asymmetric federation article. I don't think differences between federal subjects qualify for federacy, but I can be wrong -- Jao 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• On serbia: Please do so, the handbooks on federalism that were used here were printed in the 1990s, so the Serbian situation was not present yet.
• On the Netherlands & the US: The Netherlands is a clear example, based on scientific literature, as is the US.
• On Russia: that seems like a better place for it.

- C mon 19:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Home Rule

I just read the article on Home Rule. It states that federal systems, or federacies, differ from home rule in that sub-state government is guaranteed in the constitution. However, both the Finish and Danish examples use the term "home rule". It's a bit confusing. Boreanesia 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Basque Country?

Shouldn't the Basque regions of Spain be included in here? Aren't they autonomous?

No, Spain is an asymmetrical federation. C mon 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I believe that the changes in the relationship of some constituent countries in the United Kingdom versus the government are correctly labelled under the heading for devolution, but shouldn't the United Kingdom by virtue of its Acts of Union be considered a federacy?

How can it be that Scotland has the right to indefinitely retain its own independent judiciary, and uphold its own distinctly separate legal system, while the United Kingdom is still considered a unitary state? -- Domino theory 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that part of the terms of the Act of Union in 1707? And a separate judiciary and legal system doesn't constitute guaranteed autonomy because the the judiciary cannot make or implement laws, so while a separate judiciary will always be maintained a separate government is not guaranteed.72.27.24.167 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

Is Belgium a federacy? TRBlom

no, it's a federation C mon (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition and OR

I have yet to find the definition given in this article in any reputable dictionary. It's generally defined as an archaic form of confederacy. Though the term seems to be used in by academics in the "field of comparative federalism", it does not app3ear to be in the mainstream as yet, and as such the application of the term is not fixed, judging by the various opinons throughout the talk page. In fact, there isn't even any real consensus on nations actually qualify as federacies. The article still only has two cites based on one obscure source. Wikipedia doesn't contain Original Research: It reports using reliable sources. Elazar appears to be reputable (judging by his own site!, but that's not an RS), but two citations do not make an article well-sourced. This needs to be addressed, and other reliable sources need to be added. - BillCJ (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see no evidence federacy has acquired a meaning distinct from confederacy. Superm401 - Talk 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The spectrum of philosophical jurisprudence in the direction of federalism's taxonomy and typification is a growing and quickly entrenching field of endeavors. With its fecundity for a criterion of distinctions from real world instances and that need for classifying and distinguishing minor valid differences betwixt them. I'm sure if Federacy doesn't have extant in instances of the academia and establishments of governmental law wisdom a particular and unique coloration of meaning in the federative spectrum then it is heading in that direction due to its prevalence and need to compete with alternative equivalent terms with the burgeoning vacuum it makes if to remain a static generality by definition when the generality covers such a diversity along its definition. Especially in an age of imposed consociational states and intertwined interdependencies of statehood becoming the model of legal-liberal dichotomy for ever new manners reciprocation (federating) on the level of international interactionism. 67.171.248.22 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)