– What does e.m.p.i.r.e stand for

Looking for:

What does e.m.p.i.r.e stand for
Click here to ENTER

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What does EMPIRE stand for? · EMPIRE — Exemplary Multicultural Practices in Rural Education · EMPIRE — Empire Air Service. What does EMPIRE mean? empire, imperium(noun) the domain ruled by an emperor or empress; the region over which imperial dominion is exercised. It would be a mistake to consider the concepts of Empire and Here again, federations stand between the empire, which tolerates and.
 
 

– What does e.m.p.i.r.e stand for

 
1. supreme rule; absolute power or authority; dominion · 2. a. government by an emperor or empress · 3. a. a group of states or territories under the sovereign. What does EMPIRE mean? empire, imperium(noun) the domain ruled by an emperor or empress; the region over which imperial dominion is exercised. An empire is a political construct in which one state dominates over another state, or a series of states. At its heart, an empire is ruled by an emperor.

– What does e.m.p.i.r.e stand for

Miscellaneous » Unclassified. Community » Educational. Business » Management. We’re doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe. If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we’ll take care of it shortly. Forgot your password? Retrieve it. Abbreviation » Term. Term » Abbreviation. Word in Term. Term » Abbr. Filter by: Select category from list Notify me of new comments via email.

Cancel Report. Create a new account. Log In. In principle, there is such a thing as a liberal empire. To these similarities we should add another one which concerns the question of diversity or plurality. As political forms, federation and empire are defined by their high tolerance of diversity. This, indeed, is a particularly striking feature of empire. One of the great lessons of the Roman Empire is its undeniable capacity to control a huge range of heterogeneous populations.

Even if the empire, like the state in its internal relations, is always struggling to keep the peace in its dominions, it does not seek or want uniformity between them. For England, Ireland remained the model of this inside enemy that would not let itself be incorporated and which never ceased to assert its own peculiarity. Arguably, the empire, unlike the nation state, desires and even fosters diversity and pluralism.

It is a fact of history that empires that have tried to impose uniformity, like the French colonial empire, failed miserably. The importance of diversity also explains why some scholars try to apply the concept of empire to the European Union. Federalism, too, is linked with diversity and pluralism. They must desire union, and must not desire unity.

If there be no desire to unite, there is clearly no basis for federalism. But the ideal of combining unity and diversity which federation and empire share should not lead us into error. In this respect, it appears that there is an essential difference between a federation and an empire, the latter allowing for a much more differentiated union of states. These observations raise two questions of pivotal importance for an understanding of federalism: what kind of homogeneity is required to build a federation?

And to what extent must the discrete parts of a federation be homogenous? There are, in fact, different elements to this homogeneity. The primary requirement is political homogeneity. A federation has better chances of survival where the member states have the same political form of government.

This threat to the political unity of the federation explains why most federations acknowledge a right of a federal intervention in case of regime change within a member state. But political homogeneity also means economic homogeneity. It is well known, for instance, that the differences in economic policy in USA in the nineteenth century between the North and the South were major sources of tension.

In the European case, since the collapse of the communist system under the Warsaw Pact, the major obstacles that stood in the way of unity have receded. Yet tensions remain. Homogeneity might also have a cultural component, although this is controversial. That idea is perhaps most prominently associated with Alexis de Tocqueville. In a fascinating paragraph on federalism, where he addresses the question of why the federal system is not within the reach of all nations, he compares the success of the American federal experience with Mexican failure.

He stresses that constitutional engineering cannot in and of itself explain the success or failure of a particular federation.

In a nutshell, federations are arguably more demanding than empires when it comes to the requirement of homogeneity. Here again, federations stand between the empire, which tolerates and accepts the diversity of peoples that it unifies by force, and the state, which, in its modern national incarnation, has difficulties in dealing with diversity. I conclude with three observations on the differences between these two ideal-types of federation and empire.

First, in legal terms, the difference between a federation and an empire can be demonstrated by their different genesis. It is not merely the opposition between free will and force, nor indeed the opposition between a federative compact and a unilateral act, that is relevant. The institutional repercussions of these founding acts must also be taken into account. In a federation, the federative compact maintains the political existence of the member states, whereas in an empire, they no longer exist as political bodies.

The founders of modern international law understood this very well. Thus, Pufendorf noted two hypotheses: the creation of a new polity by aggregation—the federation—or by fusion—the empire. Second, another difference relates to citizenship. The characteristic of the imperial form, in contrast to the federal form, is to treat people subject to imperial power un equally. Third, this ideal-typical opposition between the federation and the empire may also be elaborated by describing their institutional structure, that is, the relationships between the parts and the whole.

In other words, an empire can only be conceived as a hierarchized duality between the center and its peripheries, whereas the federation must be conceived of as a duality of equals between the federation and the member states. What, in sum, this ideal typical scheme has sought to demonstrate is that the modern nation state is by no means an unrivaled polity type, nor one that even supplies the template for other polity types.

Rather the sovereign state, with its distinctively unitarian legal form, has developed alongside and in complex interaction with federation and empire—two polity types that for all their differences share a more pluralistic internal logic. For instance, a longer article with the same title , drawing on the material in this article, was already published in The Federal Idea. Raymond Aron, Paix et guerre entre les nations Imperial Politics in Historical Perspective unpublished Ph.

Here, I appropriate a distinction proposed by French political scientist. Jean Leca personal communication on file with author. Shmuel N. Doyle , supra note 11, at Preston King, Federalism and Federation 20—21 Une introduction au droit politique britannique Albert V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 75 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Samuel von Pufendorf, Droit naturel et des Gens I would like to thank Mrs.

Andrea Hamann and Gabrielle Smart for having translated the French manuscript into English and Amnon Lev for additional editorial supervision. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Article Navigation.

Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents Abstract. Unity and diversity: Plurality in federation and empire. Journal Article. Federation and empire: About a conceptual distinction of political forms. Olivier Beaud Olivier Beaud.