OK I’m asking this wrong, but I don’t know how to ask.
So for example the United States is divided into 50 states. These states have a degree of independence from the federal government. Other nations like India have states but these divisions are much less independent from the federal government.
So what I’m asking is what country or nation has subdivisions, whatever they are termed (Provinces, States, Division, whatever…) that have the most degree of autonomy from their federal government.
I realize this probably doesn’t have a definitive answer, so I will put it here but it may wind up more of an opinion thing
The Confederacy was along the lines of a weaker central government as were the articles of confederation which was the founding governmental system after the US won it’s independence. Both failed, for differing reasons. The US itself started out pretty autonomous from Brittan, though when the crown saw tax dollars that all changed. Some colonies had to start out as independent states, just due to the distance from the mother country.
You also had the Holy Roman Empire, which was a strange mix of semi-independent states under a religious authority. And many feudal states which were pretty independent from their king. We also have Native American tribal rullerships under one Indian nation, and things like the Iroquois Confederacy.
Possible the EU sort of fits, though the EU is not a country, though where does one want to draw the line in what is a independent sovereign nation. There just seems to be so many possibly answers that without narrowing it down it may not be answerable.
Canada is usually referred to as one of the most decentralised federations, with a great deal of provincial autonomy.
For instance, just this week the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot unilaterally create a national securities regulator, on par with the SEC in the United States. The federal trade and commerce power is much weaker in Canada than it is in the US.
The Court held that to establish a single regulator, the federal government here will have to work with the provinces, with each delegating regulatory authority to the same body.
I presume we want to carefully exclude things like the British Commonwealth and the EU which are associations of nations.
It’s still likely to hinge on exact definitions. I’ll suggest that “subdivision” means something that does not have its own foreign policy, rather having its interests in foreign affairs represented by the “owning” country.
Given that, maybe we’re interested in devolved governments: Greenland (belongs to Denmark), Scotland, Wales, Nunavut.
I’ll suggest Greenland, which is physically separated as well as autonomous.
I don’t think devolved territories are an apt comparison, because they do not have independent constitutional status or authority.
For instance, Nunavut is a federal territory, with no independent constitutional authority. Its constitution is a federal statute, which Parliament could change unilaterally, affecting the powers of the territory. Under the Constitution Act, 1871, the federal Parliament has plenary legislative power over the territories; it has chosen to delegate part of that powers to local territorial governments.
That’s not the same as the provinces of Canada, whose existence and powers are entrenched in the Constitution and cannot be altered by the federal Parliament unilaterally.
Similarly, the devolved powers of Scotland and Wales are granted by statutes of the British Parliament and are not constitutionally entrenched. And, in my understanding, the powers granted to Scotland and Wales through devolution do not match up to the extent of the powers of the Canadian provinces.
Point. But do we mean in practice, or in theory? In practice, I think you could argue that some of these devolved governments have more autonomous control than the provinces or states of a federalized government, even though that power can theoretically be taken away again at the whim of the delegating government. I think it unlikely that the Danish central government is going to want to take over more direct rule of Greenland in the near future. They are moving in the opposite direction.
How so? can you give examples where devolved governments have more authority in practice than a province?
Nunavut is entirely dependent on the federal government for its budget. (PDF) Its total revenues for Fiscal 2011 were $1,256 billion; of that, $1,167 billion came from the feds. The feds pay the provinces as well, but none of the provinces is as dependent on the federal budget as Nunavut.
As well, the federal government controls all of the natural resources in Nunavut, unlike the provinces, which own all of the natural resources. That means that development of natural resources, which is a key area of potential economic development, is under federal control, not territorial. That’s not the same as the provinces, which get to control resource development and have full control over that key area of the economy.
As well, the federal government controls portions of the public service in Nunavut that in the provinces are under the control of the provinces. For instance, there is no territorial prosecutions service under the control of the Nunavut government. Prosecutions are conducted by the federal prosecutions service. Again, that’s greater federal control than in the provinces, which have sole control over their own prosecutorial authorities.
No but it has quite a bit of characteristics of a independent sovereign nation, and the nations that comprise the EU have given up some characteristics of a sovereign state.
True, but each province’s Lieutenant governor is appointed & dismissed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister, not the provincial premier. In theory the federal cabinet could instruct a Lieutenant Governor to withold assent to any act of a provincial legislature (thus vetoing it) or dismiss a provincial government. The Governor General can also (on advice of the PM) disavow any legislation signed into law by a Lieutenant Governor. IIRC it’s been a hundred years since any of these powers were used, but they’re still there.
They haven’t, really. They all still retain absolute sovereign power. When it comes down to it, all that’s really there is a bunch of treaties, just like every other country on the planet. A treaty isn’t a loss of sovereignty - it’s merely a mutual agreement to do something.
While it might not be advisable, and would have unfortunate consequences, any of them can choose not to ratify an EU directive in domestic law or to ignore European courts. It’s just not in their best interests at the moment to do so. All of them individually retain the ability to tax their citizens directly, and to declare war.
Sure, and the Queen can refuse assent to federal legislation if she wanted to. But, neither is practical politics.
By contrast, it was only 11 years ago that Parliament passed the Nunavut Act, with the restrictions I’ve mentioned, and there is no indication that it plans to turn over control of resources or all of the public service to the Nunavut gov’t any time soon.
Again, I’m curious in actual, real-life examples where devolved areas have more authority than the rest of the country, as yabob has suggested.
The UAE is a good example of an extremely decentralized arrangement.
As a scholar of constitutional law, I’m very sorry to hear it put this way. The United States is not divided into 50 states; it’s formed of 50 states. The police power of each is plenary, and the national government has no police power at all. It’s a lot more like the EU than most people seem to understand.