The History of Trade Unionism (1894, new edition 1920) is a book by Sidney and Beatrice Webb on the British trade union movement's development before 1920.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Trade_Unionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_about_labor_history
The Making of the English Working Class[1] is a work of English social history written by E. P. Thompson, a New Left historian. It was first published in 1963 by Victor Gollancz Ltd,[2] and republished in revised form in 1968 by Pelican,[3] after which it became an early Open University set book. It concentrates on English artisan and working-class society "in its formative years 1780 to 1832".
It was placed 30th in the Modern Library 100 Best Nonfiction books of the 20th century.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_English_Working_Class
Miners’ Lung: A History of Dust Disease in British Coal Mining by Arthur McIvor and Ronald Johnston is a 2007 book (ISBN 978-0-7546-3673-1) which is part of the Studies in Labour History series. The book argues that British coal mining is the "classic dangerous trade", and even those that escape the immediate dangers of the pit (mine collapses, explosions, suffocation) may be subject to years of pain, laboured breathing and eventual death. McIvor and Johnston relate the story of how the dust created by the picks, hammers, and pneumatic tools "crept deep into the lungs of the otherwise powerfully built, healthy workers, eventually incapacitating them, ruining their bodies and killing them".[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miners%27_Lung_(book)
The Industrial Worker, 1840–1860: The Reaction of American Industrial Society to the Advance of the Industrial Revolution is a book published in 1924 by Canadian-born historian Norman Ware.
The book suggests that the traditional historical underemphasis of class consciousness and radicalism was the natural reaction of workers to the perceived dehumanization of capitalist society, following the rise of industrialism in mid-19th century America. Many of these observations and conclusions are drawn from workers' writings in the popular labor newspapers of the time, including Voice of Industry, Working Man's Advocate, and The Awl.
The book was republished in 1990 by Ivan R. Dee, Inc., with an introduction by Thomas Dublin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Industrial_Worker,_1840%E2%80%931860
Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français (DBMOF, "Biographical Dictionary of the French Workers' Movement") is a 44-volume set of biographical dictionaries of the French labor movement compiled by historian Jean Maitron and his successor Claude Pennetier between 1967 and 1997.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_biographique_du_mouvement_ouvrier_fran%C3%A7ais
Forerunners of Modern Socialism (German: Die Vorläufer des neueren Sozialismus) is a four volume work that documents the history of primitive communist and socialist ideas, edited by Karl Kautsky and including contributions by a number of prominent intellectuals of the Second International, including Eduard Bernstein, Paul Lafargue, C. Hugo, Franz Mehring, and Georgii Plekhanov. The first volume was published in 1895.
Although only partially translated into English as of the middle of the 2010s, this German-language work is regarded as an important pioneering Marxist study of the history of the impact of early Christianity and various classical philosophical thinkers upon the modern socialist movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forerunners_of_Modern_Socialism
The Second International (1889–1916) was an organisation of socialist and labour parties, formed on 14 July 1889 at two simultaneous Paris meetings in which delegations from twenty countries participated.[1] The Second International continued the work of the dissolved First International, though excluding the powerful anarcho-syndicalist movement. While the international had initially declared its opposition to all warfare between European powers, most of the major European parties ultimately chose to support their respective states in World War I. After splitting into pro-Allied, pro-Central Powers, and antimilitarist factions, the international ceased to function. After the war, the remaining factions of the international went on to found the Labour and Socialist International, the International Working Union of Socialist Parties, and the Communist International.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International
Webster's Dictionary is any of the English language dictionaries edited in the early 19th century by American lexicographer Noah Webster (1758–1843), as well as numerous related or unrelated dictionaries that have adopted the Webster's name in his honor. "Webster's" has since become a genericized trademark in the United States for English dictionaries, and is widely used in dictionary titles.[1]
Merriam-Webster is the corporate heir to Noah Webster's original works, which are in the public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary#W2NID
The International Workingmen's Association (IWA), often called the First International (1864–1876), was an international organisation which aimed at uniting a variety of different left-wing socialist, communist[1] and anarchist groups and trade unions that were based on the working class and class struggle. It was founded in 1864 in a workmen's meeting held in St. Martin's Hall, London. Its first congress was held in 1866 in Geneva.
In Europe, a period of harsh reaction followed the widespread Revolutions of 1848. The next major phase of revolutionary activity began almost twenty years later with the founding of the IWA in 1864. At its peak, the IWA reported having 8 million members[2] while police reported 5 million.[3] In 1872, it split in two over conflicts between statist and anarchist factions and dissolved in 1876. The Second International was founded in 1889.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association
St. James's Hall was a concert hall in London that opened on 25 March 1858, designed by architect and artist Owen Jones, who had decorated the interior of the Crystal Palace.[1] It was situated between the Quadrant in Regent Street and Piccadilly, and Vine Street and George Court. There was a frontage on Regent Street, and another in Piccadilly. Taking the orchestra into account, the main hall had seating for slightly over 2,000 persons.[2] It had a grand hall 140 feet (43 m) long and 60 feet (18 m) broad, the seating was distributed between ground floor, balcony, gallery and platform and it had excellent acoustics.[3] On the ground floor were two smaller halls, one 60 feet (18 m) square; the other 60 feet (18 m) by 55 feet (17 m).[4] The Hall was decorated in the 'Florentine' style, with features imitating the great Moorish Palace of the Alhambra. The Piccadilly facade was given a Gothic design, and the complex of two restaurants and three halls was hidden behind Nash's Quadrant.[5] Sir George Henschel recalled its 'dear old, uncomfortable, long, narrow, green-upholstered benches (pale-green horse-hair) with the numbers of the seats tied over the straight backs with bright pink tape, like office files.'[6]
The Hall was built jointly by two music publishing firms, Chappell & Co. and Cramer & Co., in the hope of attracting the growing audiences for fine musical performances that attended the Crystal Palace and the halls being built in the provinces.[5] It stood empty for nearly a year after its opening.[7] For almost half a century thereafter, the Hall was London's principal concert hall,[8] to be succeeded by Queen's Hall in the 1900s and later by Wigmore Hall, the Royal Albert Hall and Royal Festival Hall. It became famous for its 'Monday Pops' concerts and Ballad Concerts, as the home of the Philharmonic Society and the Christy Minstrels and for the many famous conductors and performers who gave important performances there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James%27s_Hall
St Martin's Hall
St Martin's Hall was built for John Hullah, in 1847, by William Cubitt, from a design by Richard Westmacott. The scheme was financed by subscription and it was built on a parallelogram of land, 149 feet (45.4 m) by 61 feet (18.6 m) wide, connected to a plot on Long Acre (44 feet (13.4 m) by 22 feet (6.7 m)); and consisted of a main hall with connected anterooms, galleries and a 500-seat lecture hall.[2] It was built in the Elizabethan style, with a large domed iron roof. The music hall was capable of seating 3,000 persons and was opened in 1850 by Hullah, the founder of a new "school of choral harmony". In addition to his singing classes, Hullah directed oratorios and concerts, both instrumental and vocal, at the hall. The hall was then used for musical recitals, lectures and political meetings.[1]
The German Reed Entertainments were initially presented here in 1855 – known as "Miss P. Horton's Illustrative Gatherings" – before moving to the more intimate Gallery of Illustration and later St George's Hall.[3] Charles Dickens first appeared as a public lecturer in St Martin's Hall, in April, 1858, speaking on behalf of the Hospital for Sick Children, in Great Ormond Street. A week or two later, he spoke on his own account.[1]
On 26 August 1860, a fire broke out in a nearby coach factory and the hall was destroyed, together with its organ.[1] The hall was rebuilt as a concert hall, opening in 1862. The First International was founded in St Martin's Hall in 1864. The final musical entertainment was given in 1867.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Theatre,_Long_Acre#St_Martin's_Hall
Internal tensions
At first, the IWA had mostly male membership, although in April 1865 it was agreed that women could become members. The initial leadership was exclusively male. At the IWA General Council meeting on 16 April 1867, a letter from the secularist speaker Harriet Law about women's rights was read and it was agreed to ask her if she would be willing to attend council meetings. On 25 June 1867, Law was admitted to the General Council and for the next five years was the only woman representative.[8]
Due to the wide variety of philosophies present in the First International, there was conflict from the start. The first objections to Marx's influence came from the mutualists, who opposed communism and statism. However, shortly after Mikhail Bakunin and his followers (called collectivists while in the International) joined in 1868, the First International became polarised into two camps, with Marx and Bakunin as their respective figureheads. Perhaps the clearest differences between the groups emerged over their proposed strategies for achieving their visions of socialism. The anarchists grouped around Bakunin favoured (in Peter Kropotkin's words) "direct economical struggle against capitalism, without interfering in the political parliamentary agitation". Marxist thinking at that time focused on parliamentary activity. For example, when the new German Empire of 1871 introduced male suffrage, many German socialists became active in the Marxist Social Democratic Party of Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association
Geneva Congress, 1866
During the Geneva Congress, the Paris group of Proudhonians dominated the discussions. Six Blanquists from Paris came to the Congress to denounce the French representatives as emissaries of Napoleon III, but they were thrown out.
A significant decision at this event was the adoption of the eight-hour work day as one of the IWA's fundamental demands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association
The Geneva Congress of 1866 is the common name assigned to the 1st General Congress of the International Workingmen's Association, held in Geneva, Switzerland from 3 to 8 September 3 1866. The gathering was attended by 46 regular and 14 fraternal delegates from a total of five countries. The Geneva Congress is best remembered for its watershed decision to make universal establishment of the 8-hour working day a main goal of the International Socialist movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Congress_(1866)
The Hague Congress was the fifth congress of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), held from 2–7 September 1872 in The Hague, the Netherlands.
The Hague Congress is famous for the expulsion of the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin for clashing with Karl Marx and his followers over the role of politics in the IWA had accepted proposals made by Marx.[1] It marked the end of this organization as a unitarian alliance of all socialist factions (anarchists and Marxists).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Congress_(1872)
In political science, statism is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.[1][2][3] This may include economic and social policy, especially in regard to taxation and the means of production.[4]
While in use since the 1850s, the term statism gained significant usage in American political discourse throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Opposition to statism is termed anti-statism or anarchism. The latter is characterized by a complete rejection of all hierarchical rulership.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
Universal manhood suffrage is a form of voting rights in which all adult male citizens within a political system are allowed to vote, regardless of income, property, religion, race, or any other qualification. It is sometimes summarized by the slogan, "one man, one vote".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_manhood_suffrage
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789), set by France's National Constituent Assembly in 1789, is a human civil rights document from the French Revolution.[1] Inspired by Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a significant impact on the development of popular conceptions of individual liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide.[2]
The Declaration was initially drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, but the majority of the final draft came from the Abbé Sieyès.[3] Influenced by the doctrine of natural right, human rights are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by the law. It is included at the beginning of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958), and is considered valid as constitutional law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
The Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1793 (French: Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1793) is a French political document that preceded that country's first republican constitution. The Declaration and Constitution were ratified by popular vote in July 1793, and officially adopted on 10 August; however, they never went into effect, and the constitution was officially suspended on 10 October. It is unclear whether this suspension was thought to affect the Declaration as well. The Declaration was written by the commission that included Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just and Marie-Jean Hérault de Séchelles during the period of the French Revolution. The main distinction between the Declaration of 1793 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 is its egalitarian tendency: equality is the prevailing right in this declaration. The 1793 version included new rights, and revisions to prior ones: to work, to public assistance, to education, and to resist oppression.[1]
The text was mainly written by Hérault de Séchelles, whose style and writing can be found on most of the documents of the commission that also wrote the French Constitution of 1793 ("Constitution of the Year I") that was never implemented.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Man_and_of_the_Citizen_of_1793
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism
The Constitution of 1793 (French: Acte constitutionnel du 24 juin 1793), also known as the Constitution of the Year I or the Montagnard Constitution, was the second constitution ratified for use during the French Revolution under the First Republic. Designed by the Montagnards, principally Maximilien Robespierre and Louis Saint-Just, it was intended to replace the constitutional monarchy of 1791 and the Girondin constitutional project.[1] With sweeping plans for democratization and wealth redistribution, the new document promised a significant departure from the relatively moderate goals of the Revolution in previous years.
However, the Constitution's radical provisions were never implemented. The government placed a moratorium upon it, ostensibly because of the need to employ emergency war powers during the French Revolutionary War. Those same emergency powers would permit the Committee of Public Safety to conduct the Reign of Terror, and when that period of violent political combat was over, the constitution was invalidated by its association with the defeated Robespierre. In the Thermidorian Reaction, it was discarded in favor of a more conservative document, the Constitution of 1795.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Constitution_of_1793
The Reign of Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of the French Revolution when, following the creation of the First Republic, a series of massacres and numerous public executions took place in response to revolutionary fervour, anticlerical sentiment, and accusations of treason by the Committee of Public Safety.
There is disagreement among historians over when exactly "the Terror" began. Some consider it to have begun only in 1793, giving the date as either 5 September,[3] June[4] or March, when the Revolutionary Tribunal came into existence. Others, however, cite the earlier time of the September Massacres in 1792, or even July 1789, when the first killing of the revolution occurred.[a]
The term "Terror" being used to describe the period was introduced by the Thermidorian Reaction who took power after the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794,[3][4] to discredit Robespierre and justify their actions.[5] Today there is consensus amongst historians that the exceptional revolutionary measures continued after the death of Robespierre, and this subsequent period is now called the "White Terror".[6] By then, 16,594 official death sentences had been dispensed throughout France since June 1793, of which 2,639 were in Paris alone.[4][7] An additional 10,000 to 12,000 people had been executed without trial and 10,000 had died in prison.[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
The Reign of Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of the French Revolution when, following the creation of the First Republic, a series of massacres and numerous public executions took place in response to revolutionary fervour, anticlerical sentiment, and accusations of treason by the Committee of Public Safety.
There is disagreement among historians over when exactly "the Terror" began. Some consider it to have begun only in 1793, giving the date as either 5 September,[3] June[4] or March, when the Revolutionary Tribunal came into existence. Others, however, cite the earlier time of the September Massacres in 1792, or even July 1789, when the first killing of the revolution occurred.[a]
The term "Terror" being used to describe the period was introduced by the Thermidorian Reaction who took power after the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794,[3][4] to discredit Robespierre and justify their actions.[5] Today there is consensus amongst historians that the exceptional revolutionary measures continued after the death of Robespierre, and this subsequent period is now called the "White Terror".[6] By then, 16,594 official death sentences had been dispensed throughout France since June 1793, of which 2,639 were in Paris alone.[4][7] An additional 10,000 to 12,000 people had been executed without trial and 10,000 had died in prison.[1][2][3]
"Terror" as the order of the day
There was a sense of emergency among leading politicians in France in the summer of 1793 between the widespread civil war and counter-revolution. Bertrand Barère exclaimed on 5 September 1793 in the convention: "Let's make terror the order of the day!"[8] This quote has frequently been interpreted as the beginning of a supposed "system of Terror", an interpretation no longer retained by historians today. Under the pressure of the radical sans-culottes, the Convention agreed to institute a revolutionary army, but refused to make terror the order of the day. According to French historian Jean-Clément Martin there was no "system of terror" instated by the Convention between 1793 and 1794, despite the pressure from some of its members and the sans-culottes.[9] The members of the convention were determined to avoid street violence such as the September Massacres of 1792 by taking violence into their own hands as an instrument of government.[7]
What Robespierre called "terror" was the fear that the justice of exception would inspire the enemies of the Republic. He opposed the idea of terror as the order of the day, defending instead "justice" as the order of the day.[10] In February 1794 in a speech he explains why this "terror" was necessary as a form of exceptional justice in the context of the revolutionary government:
If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [homeland, fatherland].[11][7]
Some Marxist historians argue that such terror was a necessary reaction to the circumstances.[12] Others suggest there were additional causes, including ideological[13] and emotional.[14]
Influences
Enlightenment thought
Enlightenment thought emphasized the importance of rational thinking and began challenging legal and moral foundations of society, providing the leaders of the Reign of Terror with new ideas about the role and structure of government.[15]
Rousseau's Social Contract argued that each person was born with rights, and they would come together in forming a government that would then protect those rights. Under the social contract, the government was required to act for the general will, which represented the interests of everyone rather than a few factions.[16] Drawing from the idea of a general will, Robespierre felt that the French Revolution could result in a Republic built for the general will but only once those who fought this ideal were expelled.[17][18] Those who resisted the government were deemed "tyrants" fighting against the virtue and honor of the general will. The leaders felt that their ideal version of government was threatened from the inside and outside of France, and terror was the only way to preserve the dignity of the Republic created from French Revolution.[18]
The writings of Baron de Montesquieu, another Enlightenment thinker of the time, greatly influenced Robespierre as well. Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws defines a core principle of a democratic government: virtue—described as "the love of laws and of our country."[19] In Robespierre's speech to the National Convention on 5 February 1794, titled "Virtue & Terror", he regards virtue as being the "fundamental principle of popular or democratic government."[20][21] This was, in fact, the same virtue defined by Montesquieu almost 50 years prior. Robespierre believed that the virtue needed for any democratic government was extremely lacking in the French people. As a result, he decided to weed out those he believed could never possess this virtue. The result was a continual push towards Terror. The Convention used this as justification for the course of action to "crush the enemies of the revolution…let the laws be executed…and let liberty be saved."[22]
Threats of foreign invasion
At the beginning of the French Revolution, the surrounding monarchies did not show great hostility towards the rebellion.[23] Though mostly ignored, Louis XVI was later able to find support in Leopold II of Austria (brother of Marie Antoinette) and Frederick William II of Prussia. On 27 August 1791, these foreign leaders made the Pillnitz Declaration, saying they would restore the French monarch if other European rulers joined. In response to what they viewed to be the meddling of foreign powers, France declared war on 20 April 1792.[24] However, at this point, the war was only Prussia and Austria against France. France began this war with a series of major defeats, which set a precedent of fear of invasion in the people that would last throughout the war.
Massive reforms of military institutions, while very effective in the long run, presented the initial problems of inexperienced forces and leaders of questionable political loyalty.[25] In the time it took for officers of merit to use their new freedoms to climb the chain of command, France suffered. Many of the early battles were definitive losses for the French.[citation needed] There was the constant threat of the Austro-Prussian forces which were advancing easily toward the capital, threatening to destroy Paris if the monarch was harmed.[26] This series of defeats, coupled with militant uprisings and protests within the borders of France, pushed the government to resort to drastic measures to ensure the loyalty of every citizen, not only to France but more importantly to the Revolution.
While this series of losses was eventually broken, the reality of what might have happened if they persisted hung over France. The tide would not turn from them until September 1792 when the French won a critical victory at Valmy preventing the Austro-Prussian invasion.[27] While the French military had stabilized and was producing victories by the time the Reign of Terror officially began, the pressure to succeed in this international struggle acted as justification for the government to pursue its actions. It was not until after the execution of Louis XVI and the annexation of the Rhineland that the other monarchies began to feel threatened enough to form the First Coalition. The Coalition, consisting of Russia, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Holland, and Sardinia began attacking France from all directions, besieging and capturing ports and retaking ground lost to France.[28] With so many similarities to the first days of the Revolutionary Wars for the French government, with threats on all sides, unification of the country became a top priority.[29] As the war continued and the Reign of Terror began, leaders saw a correlation between using terror and achieving victory. Well phrased by Albert Soboul, "terror, at first an improvised response to defeat, once organized became an instrument of victory."[30] The threat of defeat and foreign invasion may have helped spur the origins of the Terror, but the timely coincidence of the Terror with French victories added justification to its growth.
Popular pressure
During the Reign of Terror, the sans-culottes and the Hébertists put pressure on the National Convention delegates and contributed to the overall instability of France. The National Convention was bitterly split between the Montagnards and the Girondins. The Girondins were more conservative leaders of the National Convention, while the Montagnards supported radical violence and pressures of the lower classes.[29] Once the Montagnards gained control of the National Convention, they began demanding radical measures. Moreover, the sans-culottes, the urban workers of France, agitated leaders to inflict punishments on those who opposed the interests of the poor. The sans-culottes' violently demonstrated, pushing their demands and creating constant pressure for the Montagnards to enact reform.[31] The sans-culottes fed the frenzy of instability and chaos by utilizing popular pressure during the Revolution. For example, the sans-culottes sent letters and petitions to the Committee of Public Safety urging them to protect their interests and rights with measures such as taxation of foodstuffs that favored workers over the rich. They advocated for arrests of those deemed to oppose reforms against those with privilege, and the more militant members would advocate pillage in order to achieve the desired equality.[32] The resulting instability caused problems that made forming the new Republic and achieving full political support critical.
Religious upheaval
The Reign of Terror was characterized by a dramatic rejection of long-held religious authority, its hierarchical structure, and the corrupt and intolerant influence of the aristocracy and clergy. Religious elements that long stood as symbols of stability for the French people, were replaced by views on reason and scientific thought.[33][34] The radical revolutionaries and their supporters desired a cultural revolution that would rid the French state of all Christian influence.[35] This process began with the fall of the monarchy, an event that effectively defrocked the State of its sanctification by the clergy via the doctrine of Divine Right and ushered in an era of reason.[36]
Many long-held rights and powers were stripped from the Catholic church and given to the state. In 1789, church lands were expropriated and priests killed or forced to leave France.[35] Later in 1792, "refractory priests" were targeted and replaced with their secular counterpart from the Jacobin club.[37] Not all religions experienced equal aggression, the Jewish community, on the contrary, received admittance into French citizenship in 1791.[38] A Festival of Reason was held in the Notre Dame Cathedral, which was renamed "The Temple of Reason", and the old traditional calendar was replaced with a new revolutionary one.[36] The leaders of the Terror tried to address the call for these radical, revolutionary aspirations, while at the same time trying to maintain tight control on the de-Christianization movement that was threatening to the clear majority of the still devoted Catholic population of France. Robespierre used the event as a means to combat the "moral counterrevolution" taking place among his rivals.[39] Additionally, he hoped to stem "the monster Atheism" that was a result of the radical secularization in philosophical and social circles.[40] The tension sparked by these conflicting objectives laid a foundation for the "justified" use of terror to achieve revolutionary ideals and rid France of the religiosity that revolutionaries believed was standing in the way.
Major events during the Terror
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. (September 2017) |
.jpg)
On 10 March 1793 the National Convention set up the Revolutionary Tribunal. Among those charged by the tribunal, about half were acquitted (though the number dropped to about a quarter after the enactment of the Law of 22 Prairial on 10 June 1794). In March, rebellion broke out in the Vendée in response to mass conscription, which developed into a civil war. Discontent in the Vendée lasted—according to some accounts—until after the Terror.
On 6 April 1793 the National Convention established the Committee of Public Safety, which gradually became the de facto war-time government of France.[41] The Committee oversaw the Reign of Terror. "During the Reign of Terror, at least 300,000 suspects were arrested; 17,000 were officially executed, and perhaps 10,000 died in prison or without trial."[1][3]
On 2 June 1793 the Parisian sans-culottes surrounded the National Convention, calling for administrative and political purges, a fixed low price for bread, and a limitation of the electoral franchise to sans-culottes alone. With the backing of the national guard, they persuaded the convention to arrest 29 Girondist leaders.[42] In reaction to the imprisonment of the Girondin deputies, some thirteen departments started the Federalist revolts against the National Convention in Paris, which were ultimately crushed.
On 24 June 1793 the Convention adopted the first republican constitution of France, the French Constitution of 1793. It was ratified by public referendum, but never put into force.
On 13 July 1793 the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat—a Jacobin leader and journalist—resulted in a further increase in Jacobin political influence. Georges Danton, the leader of the August 1792 uprising against the king, was removed from the Committee of Public Safety on 10 July 1793. On 27 July 1793 Robespierre became part of the Committee of Public Safety.[43]
On 23 August 1793 the National Convention decreed the levée en masse:[44]
Les jeunes gens iront au combat; les hommes mariés forgeront les armes et transporteront les subsistances; les femmes feront des tentes et serviront dans les hôpitaux; les enfants mettront le vieux linge en charpie; les vieillards se feront porter sur les places publiques pour exciter le courage des guerriers, prêcher la haine des rois et l’unité de la République |
The young men shall fight; the married man shall forge arms and transport provisions; the women shall make tents and clothes and shall serve in the hospitals; the children shall pick rags to lint [for bandages]; the old men shall betake themselves to the public square in order to arouse the courage of the warriors and preach hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic. |
On 5 September the Convention formally declared by vote that "terror is the order of the day".[45] This allowed the government to form "revolutionary armies" designed to force French citizens into compliance with Maximilian rule. These armies were also used to enforce "the law of the Maximum", which controlled the distribution and pricing of food. Addressing the Convention, Robespierre claimed that the "weight and willpower" of the people loyal to the republic would be used to oppress those who would turn "political gatherings into gladiatorial arenas".[45] The policy change unleashed a newfound military power in France, which was used to defend against the future coalitions formed by rival nations. The event also solidified Robespierre's rise to power as president of the Committee of Public Safety earlier in July.
On 9 September the convention established paramilitary forces, the "revolutionary armies", to force farmers to surrender grain demanded by the government. On 17 September, the Law of Suspects was passed, which authorized the imprisonment of vaguely defined "suspects". This created a mass overflow in the prison systems. On 29 September, the Convention extended price fixing from grain and bread to other essential goods, and also fixed wages.
On 10 October the Convention decreed that "the provisional government shall be revolutionary until peace." On 16 October Marie Antoinette was executed. On 24 October the French Republican Calendar was enacted. The trial of the Girondins started on the same day; they were executed on 31 October.
Anti-clerical sentiments increased during 1793 and a campaign of dechristianization occurred. On 10 November (20 Brumaire Year II of the French Republican Calendar), the Hébertists organized a Festival of Reason.
On 14 Frimaire (5 December 1793) the National Convention passed the Law of Frimaire, which gave the central government more control over the actions of the representatives on mission.
On 16 Pluviôse (4 February 1794), the National Convention decreed the abolition of slavery in all of France and in French colonies.
On 8 and 13 Ventôse (26 February and 3 March 1794), Saint-Just proposed decrees to confiscate the property of exiles and opponents of the revolution, known as the Ventôse Decrees.
By the end of 1793, two major factions had emerged, both threatening the Revolutionary Government: the Hébertists, who called for an intensification of the Terror and threatened insurrection, and the Dantonists, led by Georges Danton, who demanded moderation and clemency. The Committee of Public Safety took actions against both. The major Hébertists were tried before the Revolutionary Tribunal and executed on 24 March. The Dantonists were arrested on 30 March, tried on 3 to 5 April and executed on 5 April.
On 20 Prairial (8 June 1794) the Festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated across the country; this was part of the Cult of the Supreme Being, a deist national religion. On 22 Prairial (10 June), the National Convention passed a law proposed by Georges Couthon, known as the Law of 22 Prairial, which simplified the judicial process and greatly accelerated the work of the Revolutionary Tribunal. With the enactment of the law, the number of executions greatly increased, and the period from this time to the Thermidorian Reaction became known as "The Great Terror" (French: la Grande Terreur).
On 8 Messidor (26 June 1794), the French army won the Battle of Fleurus, which marked a turning point in France's military campaign and undermined the necessity of wartime measures and the legitimacy of the Revolutionary Government.[46]
Thermidorian Reaction
The fall of Robespierre was brought about by a combination of those who wanted more power for the Committee of Public Safety (and a more radical policy than he was willing to allow) and the moderates who completely opposed the revolutionary government. They had, between them, made the Law of 22 Prairial one of the charges against him, so that, after his fall, to advocate terror would be seen as adopting the policy of a convicted enemy of the republic, putting the advocate's own head at risk. Between his arrest and his execution, Robespierre may have tried to commit suicide by shooting himself, although the bullet wound he sustained, whatever its origin, only shattered his jaw. Alternatively, he may have been shot by the gendarme Merda. The great confusion that arose during the storming of the municipal Hall of Paris, where Robespierre and his friends had found refuge, makes it impossible to be sure of the wound's origin. In any case, Robespierre was guillotined the next day, together with Saint-Just, Couthon, and his brother Augustin Robespierre.[47]
The reign of the standing Committee of Public Safety was ended. New members were appointed the day after Robespierre's execution, and limits on terms of office were fixed (a quarter of the committee retired every three months). The Committee's powers were gradually eroded.[citation needed]
For a long time it was considered that the Terror ended on 9 Thermidor year II (27 July 1794) with the fall of Robespierre and his supporters and their execution the following day. Today historians are more nuanced. They recall that only the Law of 22 Prairial was abolished in the days following 9 Thermidor, and that the revolutionary court and the law of suspects were not abolished for many months, while executions continued.[6]
See also
Notes
- The dates July 1789, September 1792 and March 1793 are given as alternatives in Martin, Jean-Clément (2010). La Terreur, part maudite de la Révolution [The Terror: Cursed Period of the Revolution]. Découvertes Gallimard (in French). Vol. 566. Paris: Gallimard. pp. 14–15.
References
Citations
- Merriman, John (2004). "Thermidor" (2nd ed.). A history of modern Europe: from the Renaissance to the present, p 507. W.W. Norton & Company Ltd. ISBN 0-393-92495-5
Works cited
- Bloy, Marjorie. "The First Coalition 1793–1797." A Web of English History. Accessed 21 October 2018. http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/coalit1.htm Archived 8 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine.
- Leopold, II, and Frederick William. "The Declaration of Pillnitz (1791)." French Revolution. 27 February 2018. Accessed 26 October 2018. https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/declaration-of-pillnitz-1791/ Archived 3 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine.
- McLetchie, Scott. "Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror." Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror. Accessed 23 October 2018. http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/mcletchie.htm#22 Archived 5 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine.
- Montesquieu. "Modern History Sourcebook: Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws, 1748." Internet History Sourcebooks. Accessed 23 October 2018. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/montesquieu-spirit.asp Archived 31 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine.
- Ozouf, Mona (1984). "War and Terror in French Revolutionary Discourse (1792–1794)". The Journal of Modern History. 56 (4): 580–597. doi:10.1086/242733. JSTOR 1880323. S2CID 153782457.
- Popkin, Jeremy D. (2016). A Short History of the French Revolution. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-50892-4.
- "Robespierre, "On Political Morality"," Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, accessed 19 October 2018, http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/413 Archived 30 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine.
- Rothenberg, Gunther E. (1988). "The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon". The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 18 (4): 771–793. doi:10.2307/204824. JSTOR 204824.
- ""Terror Is the Order of the Day"," Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, accessed 26 October 2018, http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/416 Archived 23 June 2020 at the Wayback Machine.
- Voltaire. "Voltaire, Selections from the Philosophical Dictionary." Omeka RSS. Accessed 23 October 2018. http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/273/ Archived 29 January 2020 at the Wayback Machine.
Further reading
Primary sources
- Cléry, Jean-Baptiste; Henry Essex Edgeworth (1961) [1798]. Sidney Scott (ed.). Journal of the Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 3153946.
Secondary sources
- Andress, David (2006). The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-27341-5.
- Andress, David; Popkin, Jeremy (2015). Revolution and Changing Identities in France, 1789–99. Oxford University Press.
- Baker, Keith M. François Furet, and Colin Lucas, eds. (1987) The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture, vol. 4, The Terror (London: Pergamon Press, 1987)
- Beik, William (August 2005). "The Absolutism of Louis XIV as Social Collaboration: Review Article". Past and Present. 188: 195–224. doi:10.1093/pastj/gti019.
- Biard, Michel and Linton, Marisa, Terror: The French Revolution and its Demons (Polity Press, 2021).
- Censer, Jack, and Lynn Hunt (2001). Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Hunt, Lynn (1984). Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Gough, Hugh. The terror in the French revolution (London: Macmillan, 1998)
- Hibbert, Christopher (1981). The Days of the French Revolution. New York: Quill-William Morrow. ISBN 978-0-688-16978-7.
- Kerr, Wilfred Brenton (1985). Reign of Terror, 1793–1794. London: Porcupine Press. ISBN 978-0-87991-631-2.
- Kennedy, Emmet (1989). A Cultural History of the French Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-04426-3.
- Linton, Marisa (August 2006). "Robespierre and the terror: Marisa Linton reviews the life and career of one of the most vilified men in history, (Maximilien Robespierre)(Biography)". History Today. 8 (56): 23.
- Linton, Marisa, Choosing Terror: Virtue, Friendship and Authenticity in the French Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2013).
- Loomis, Stanley (1964). Paris in the Terror. New York: Dorset Press. ISBN 978-0-88029-401-0.
- McLetchie, Scott. "Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror." Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror. Accessed 23 October 2018. http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/mcletchie.htm#22.
- Moore, Lucy (2006). Liberty: The Lives and Times of Six Women in Revolutionary France. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-720601-8.
- Palmer, R. R. (2005). Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12187-1.
- Reinberg, M; Chaouat, Bruno; Brewer, Daniel; Brewer, Maria; Schlte-Sasse, Jochen (2010). Modernity and Ethics: The Ghost of Terror in the French Thought.
- Schama, Simon (1989). Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 678–847. ISBN 978-0-394-55948-3.
- Scott, Otto (1974). Robespierre, The Fool as Revolutionary – Inside the French Revolution. Windsor, New York: The Reformer Library. ISBN 978-1-887690-05-8.
- Shadow (9 February 1870). "The 'Reign of Terror'". The New York Times.
- Shulim, Joseph I. (1977). "Robespierre and the French Revolution". The American Historical Review. 82 (1): 20–38. doi:10.2307/1857136. JSTOR 1857136.
- Soboul, A. (1954). "Robespierre and the Popular Movement of 1793–4". Past & Present. 5 (5): 54–70. doi:10.1093/past/5.1.54. JSTOR 649823.
- Steel, Mark (2003). Vive La Revolution. London: Scribner. ISBN 978-0-7432-0806-2.
- Reviewed by Adam Thorpe in The Guardian, 23 December 2006.
- Sutherland, D.M.G. (2003) The French Revolution and Empire: The Quest for a Civic Order pp 174–253
- Thoral, Marie-Cécile (2011). From Valmy to Waterloo. doi:10.1057/9780230294981. ISBN 978-1-349-32253-4.
- Wahnich, Sophie (2016). In Defence of the Terror: Liberty or Death in the French Revolution (Reprint ed.). Verso. ISBN 978-1784782023.
- Reviewed by Ruth Scurr in The Guardian, 17 August 2012
- Weber, Caroline (2003). Terror and Its Discontents: Suspect Words in Revolutionary France. U of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-3887-1.
Historiography
- Kafker, Frank, James M. Lauz, and Darline Gay Levy (2002). The French Revolution: Conflicting Interpretations. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
- Rudé, George (1976). Robespierre: Portrait of a Revolutionary Democrat. New York: Viking Press. ISBN 978-0-670-60128-8. A Marxist political portrait of Robespierre, examining his changing image among historians and the different aspects of Robespierre as an 'ideologue', as a political democrat, as a social democrat, as a practitioner of revolution, as a politician and as a popular leader/leader of revolution, it also touches on his legacy for the future revolutionary leaders Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong.
External links
- "The Terror" from In Our Time (BBC Radio 4)
| Authority control: National |
|---|
- 1793 events of the French Revolution
- 1794 events of the French Revolution
- French First Republic
- Anti-Catholicism in France
- Persecution of Christians
- Police misconduct in France
- Political and cultural purges
- Political repression in France
- Terrorism
- People killed in the French Revolution
- Revolution terminology
- Politicides
- Terrorist incidents in France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
Equality as the first natural right of man
Equality is the most important aspect of the Declaration of 1793. In its second article, equality is the first right mentioned (followed by liberty, security, and property). In Article 3 states "All men are equal by nature and before the law". As such, for the authors of this declaration equality is not only before the law but it is also a natural right, that is to say, a fact of nature.
There was already at that time a school of thought that stated that liberty and equality can quickly become contradictory: indeed liberty doesn't solve social inequalities since there exist some natural inequalities (of talent, intelligence, etc.). That school of thought considered that the government had only to protect liberty and to only proclaim natural equality, and eventually liberty would prevail over social equality since all people have different talents and abilities and are free to exercise them. The question raised by this declaration is how to solve social inequalities. Article 21 states that every citizen has a right to public help, that society is indebted to each citizen and therefore has the duty to help them. Citizens have there a right to work and society has a duty to provide relief to those who cannot work. Article 22 declares a right to education.
These rights are considered "2nd generation rights of Man", economic and social rights (the first ones would be natural or political). These rights entail a greater government intervention in order to reach society's goal, stated in article 1: common welfare.
The protections of Liberty
Individual liberty is still a primary right and some aspects are more precisely defined than in Declaration of 1789. The declaration explicitly states the freedom of religion, of assembly, and of the press (article 7), of commerce (article 17), of petition (article 32). Slavery is prohibited by article 18 which states "Every man can contract his services and his time, but he cannot sell himself nor be sold: his person is not an alienable property."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Man_and_of_the_Citizen_of_1793
The protections of the citizens against their own government
If in a way, this declaration has a more liberal bent in the modern American sense, since it states that there ought to be public policies for the general welfare, it also contains some very strong libertarian aspects.
Article 7 states "The necessity of enunciating these rights supposes either the presence or the fresh recollection of despotism." Article 9: "The law ought to protect public and personal liberty against the oppression of those who govern." Article 33 states that resisting tyranny is a logical consequence of the rights of man: "Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man". Article 34 states that if one is oppressed, everyone is. Article 27 states "Let any person who may usurp the sovereignty be instantly put to death by free men." Though the usurpation of sovereignty is not detailed, sovereignty is explained in article 25 as residing "in the people". There is no doubt that this way of thinking deeply influenced the revolutionary government during the Terror.
Finally, article 35 states "When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties." Though this declaration was never enforced (like the Constitution of 1793), history has shown that the French people have followed this advice with many successful (1830, 1848) and unsuccessful (1832, 1870) revolutions throughout the 19th century.
Notes
- Louis R. Gottschalk, The Era of the French Revolution (1929) pp. 236–38
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Man_and_of_the_Citizen_of_1793
The National Convention (French: Convention nationale) was the constituent assembly of the Kingdom of France for one day and the French First Republic for the rest of its existence during the French Revolution, following the two-year National Constituent Assembly and the one-year Legislative Assembly. Created after the great insurrection of 10 August 1792, it was the first French government organized as a republic, abandoning the monarchy altogether. The Convention sat as a single-chamber assembly from 20 September 1792 to 26 October 1795 (4 Brumaire IV under the Convention's adopted calendar).
The Convention came about when the Legislative Assembly decreed the provisional suspension of King Louis XVI and the convocation of a National Convention to draw up a new constitution with no monarchy. The other major innovation was to decree that deputies to that Convention should be elected by all Frenchmen twenty-one years old or more, domiciled for a year and living by the product of their labor. The National Convention was, therefore, the first French assembly elected by a suffrage without distinctions of class.[1]
Although the Convention lasted until 1795, power was effectively delegated by the Convention and concentrated in the small Committee of Public Safety from April 1793. The eight months from the fall of 1793 to the spring of 1794, when Maximilien Robespierre and his allies dominated the Committee of Public Safety, represent the most radical and bloodiest phase of the French Revolution, known as the Reign of Terror. After the fall of Robespierre, the Convention lasted for another year until a new constitution was written, ushering in the French Directory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Convention
The Coup d'état of 9 Thermidor or the Fall of Maximilien Robespierre is the series of events beginning with Maximilien Robespierre's address to the National Convention on 8 Thermidor Year II (26 July 1794), his arrest the next day, and his execution on 10 Thermidor Year II (28 July 1794). In the speech of 8 Thermidor, Robespierre spoke of the existence of internal enemies, conspirators, and calumniators, within the Convention and the governing Committees. He refused to name them, which alarmed the deputies who feared Robespierre was preparing another purge of the Convention.[1]
On the following day, this tension in the Convention allowed Jean-Lambert Tallien, one of the conspirators whom Robespierre had in mind in his denunciation, to turn the Convention against Robespierre and decree his arrest.[2][3] By the end of the next day, Robespierre was executed in the Place de la Revolution, where King Louis XVI had been executed a year earlier. He was executed by guillotine, like the others.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Maximilien_Robespierre
The Committee of Public Safety (French: Comité de salut public) was a committee of the National Convention which formed the provisional government and war cabinet during the Reign of Terror, a violent phase of the French Revolution. Supplementing the Committee of General Defence, created early January 1793, the Committee of Public Safety was created on 6 April 1793 by the National Convention.[1] It was charged with protecting the new republic against its foreign and domestic enemies, fighting the First Coalition and the Vendée revolt. As a wartime measure, the committee was given broad supervisory and administrative powers over the armed forces, judiciary and legislature, as well as the executive bodies and ministers of the convention.
As the committee, restructured in July, raised the defense (levée en masse) against the monarchist coalition of European nations and counter-revolutionary forces within France, it became more and more powerful. In December 1793, the Convention formally conferred executive power upon the committee. Among the members, the radical Jacobin Maximilien Robespierre was one of the most well-known, though he did not have any special powers or privileges.[2] After the arrest and execution of the rival factions of Hébertists and Dantonists, sentiment in the Convention eventually turned against Robespierre, who was executed in July 1794. In the following Thermidorian Reaction, the committee's influence diminished after 26 months and it disappeared on the same day as the National Convention, which was 25 October 1795, but it probably continued till the end of the month.[3][4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety
Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th century and became firmly established during the 17th century. Absolute monarchy is a variation of the governmental form of monarchy in which the monarch holds supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. In France, Louis XIV was the most famous exemplar of absolute monarchy, with his court central to French political and cultural life during his reign. It ended in May 1789, when widespread social distress led to the convocation of the Estates-General, which was converted into a National Assembly in June. The Assembly passed a series of radical measures, including the abolition of feudalism, state control of the Catholic Church and extending the right to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy_in_France
Absolute monarchy[1][2] is a form of monarchy in which the monarch rules in their own right or power. In an absolute monarchy, the king or queen is by no means limited and has absolute power, though a limited constitution may exist in some countries.[3] These are often hereditary monarchies. On the other hand, in constitutional monarchies, in which the authority of the head of state is also bound or restricted by the constitution, a legislature, or unwritten customs, the king or queen is not the only one to decide, and their entourage also exercises power, mainly the prime minister.[3]
Absolute monarchy originally emerged in Europe after the social upheaval of the Black Death and Renaissance, and represented a reaction by monarchs to create a centralised state against the counter-balancing forces of medieval society (feudal fragmentation, municipal corporations, etc.). Originally associated with the prestigious Duchy of Burgundy, it later spread as a model to centralize the varied territories of the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of France. The absolutist system of government saw its high point during the late 16th and the 17th Century, associated with a more autocratic form of rule under figures such as Louis XIV of France and Philip II of Spain. Attempting to establish an absolutist government along European lines, Charles I of England viewed Parliament as unnecessary, which would ultimately lead to the English Civil Wars (1642–51) and his execution. Absolutism declined substantially, first following the French Revolution, and later after World War I, both of which led to the popularization of theories of government based on the notion of popular sovereignty. It did however provide a foundation for the newer political theories and movements that emerged to oppose liberal-democracy, such as Legitimism and Carlism in the early 19th Century, or "integral nationalism" in the early 20th century.
Absolute monarchies include Brunei, Eswatini,[4] Oman,[5] Saudi Arabia,[6] Vatican City,[7] and the individual emirates composing the United Arab Emirates, which itself is a federation of such monarchies – a federal monarchy.[8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
In European Christianity, the divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandation is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy. It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which a monarch is, before birth, pre-ordained to inherit the crown, chosen by God and in the image of God. According to this theory of political legitimacy, the subjects of the crown have actively (and not merely passively) turned over the metaphysical selection of the king's soul – which will inhabit the body and rule them – to God. In this way, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical act of humility and/or submission towards God. Divine right has been a key element of the legitimisation of many absolute monarchies.
Significantly, the doctrine asserts that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority (such as a parliament) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority. Thus, the monarch is not subject to the will of the people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It follows that only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase by the Grace of God or its Latin equivalent, Dei Gratia, which has historically been attached to the titles of certain reigning monarchs. Note, however, that such accountability only to God does not per se make the monarch a sacred king.
Historically, many notions of rights have been authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people granted different rights and some having more rights than others. For instance, the right of a father to receive respect from his son did not indicate a right for the son to receive a return from that respect. Analogously, the divine right of kings, which permitted absolute power over subjects, provided few rights for the subjects themselves.[1]
In contrast, conceptions of rights developed during the Age of Enlightenment – for example during the American and French Revolutions – often emphasised liberty and equality as being among the most important of rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
(Chinese)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the sovereign and which have become widely vested in the government.[note 1] It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
A constitutional monarchy, parliamentary monarchy, or democratic monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions.[1] Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch is the only decision-maker) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework.
Constitutional monarchies range from countries such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Bhutan, where the constitution grants substantial discretionary powers to the sovereign, to countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Japan, where the monarch retains significantly less, if any, personal discretion in the exercise of their authority.
Constitutional monarchy may refer to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether codified or uncodified.[2] While most monarchs may hold formal authority and the government may legally operate in the monarch's name, in the form typical in Europe the monarch no longer personally sets public policy or chooses political leaders. Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "A sovereign who reigns but does not rule".[3]
In addition to acting as a visible symbol of national unity, a constitutional monarch may hold formal powers such as dissolving parliament or giving royal assent to legislation. However, such powers generally may only be exercised strictly in accordance with either written constitutional principles or unwritten constitutional conventions, rather than any personal political preferences of the sovereign. In The English Constitution, British political theorist Walter Bagehot identified three main political rights which a constitutional monarch may freely exercise: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. Many constitutional monarchies still retain significant authorities or political influence, however, such as through certain reserve powers, and may also play an important political role.
The United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms are all constitutional monarchies in the Westminster system of constitutional governance. Two constitutional monarchies – Malaysia and Cambodia – are elective monarchies, in which the ruler is periodically selected by a small electoral college.
Strongly limited constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have been referred to as crowned republics by writers H. G. Wells and Glenn Patmore.[4][5]
The concept of semi-constitutional monarch identifies constitutional monarchies where the monarch retains substantial powers, on a par with a president in a presidential or semi-presidential system.[6] As a result, constitutional monarchies where the monarch has a largely ceremonial role may also be referred to as 'parliamentary monarchies' to differentiate them from semi-constitutional monarchies.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
A monarch is a head of state[1][2] for life or until abdication, and therefore the head of state of a monarchy. A monarch may exercise the highest authority and power in the state, or others may wield that power on behalf of the monarch. Usually a monarch either personally inherits the lawful right to exercise the state's sovereign rights (often referred to as the throne or the crown) or is selected by an established process from a family or cohort eligible to provide the nation's monarch. Alternatively, an individual may proclaim themself monarch, which may be backed and legitimated through acclamation, right of conquest or a combination of means.
If a young child is crowned the monarch, then a regent is often appointed to govern until the monarch reaches the requisite adult age to rule. Monarchs' actual powers vary from one monarchy to another and in different eras; on one extreme, they may be autocrats (absolute monarchy) wielding genuine sovereignty; on the other they may be ceremonial heads of state who exercise little or no direct power or only reserve powers, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other body (constitutional monarchy).
A monarch can reign in multiple monarchies simultaneously. For example, the 15 Commonwealth realms are all separate sovereign states, but share the same monarch through personal union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch
Monarchism is the advocacy of the system of monarchy or monarchical rule.[1] A monarchist is an individual who supports this form of government independently of any specific monarch, whereas one who supports a particular monarch is a royalist. Conversely, the opposition to monarchical rule is referred to as republicanism.[2][3][4]
Depending on the country, a royalist may advocate for the rule of the person who sits on the throne, a regent, a pretender, or someone who would otherwise occupy the throne but has been deposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism
The English Constitution is a book by Walter Bagehot. First serialised in The Fortnightly Review between 15 May 1865 and 1 January 1867, and later published in book form in 1867,[1][2] it explores the constitution of the United Kingdom—specifically the functioning of Parliament and the British monarchy—and the contrasts between British and American government. The book became a standard work which was translated into several languages.
While Walter Bagehot's references to the Parliament of the United Kingdom have become dated, his observations on the monarchy are seen as central to the understanding of the principles of constitutional monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
In a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government, a reserve power, also known as discretionary power, is a power that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch or part of the government. Unlike in a presidential system of government, the head of state is generally constrained by the cabinet or the legislature in a parliamentary system, and most reserve powers are usable only in certain exceptional circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state.[1][2] As a movement, it tends to promote the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people),[3] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[4] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.[3][5] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[6][7] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[3] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture.[8] There are various definitions of a "nation", which leads to different types of nationalism. The two main divergent forms are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.
Nationalism developed at the end of the 18th century, particularly with the French Revolution and the spread of the principle of popular sovereignty (the idea that "the people" should rule).[9] Three main theories have been used to explain the emergence of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) developed alongside nationalism during the romantic era and held that there have always been nations. This view has since been rejected by most scholars,[10] and nations are now viewed as socially constructed and historically contingent.[11] Modernization theory, currently the most commonly accepted theory of nationalism,[12] adopts a constructivist approach and proposes that nationalism emerged due to processes of modernization, such as industrialization, urbanization, and mass education, which made national consciousness possible.[11][13] Proponents of this theory describe nations as "imagined communities" and nationalism as an "invented tradition" in which shared sentiment provides a form of collective identity and binds individuals together in political solidarity.[11][14][15] A third theory, ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a product of symbols, myths, and traditions, and is associated with the work of Anthony D. Smith.[9] Additionally, the spread of nationalist movements during decolonization has led many theorists to examine the role of elites in mobilizing communities in order to maintain their power.[9]
The moral value of nationalism, the relationship between nationalism and patriotism, and the compatibility of nationalism and cosmopolitanism are all subjects of philosophical debate.[11] Nationalism can be combined with diverse political goals and ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism and right-wing populism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).[4][16][17] In practice, nationalism is seen as positive or negative depending on its ideology and outcomes. Nationalism has been a feature of movements for freedom and justice, has been associated with cultural revivals,[8] and encourages pride in national achievements.[18] It has also been used to legitimize racial, ethnic, and religious divisions, suppress or attack minorities, and undermine human rights and democratic traditions.[11] Radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Dissolution of a legislative assembly (or parliament) is the mandatory simultaneous resignation of all of its members, in anticipation that a successive legislative assembly will reconvene later with possibly different members. In a democracy, the new assembly is chosen by a general election. Dissolution is distinct on the one hand from abolition of the assembly, and on the other hand from its adjournment or prorogation, or the ending of a legislative session, any of which begins a period of inactivity after which it is anticipated that the same members will reassemble. For example, the "second session of the fifth parliament" could be followed by the "third session of the fifth parliament" after a prorogation, but the "first session of the sixth parliament" after a dissolution.
In most Continental European countries, dissolution does not have immediate effect – that is, a dissolution merely triggers an election, but the old assembly itself continues its existing term and its members remain in office until the new assembly convenes for the first time. In those systems, ordinarily scheduled elections are held before the assembly reaches the end of a fixed or maximum term, and do not require a dissolution.
In most Westminster systems, however, a dissolution legally ends the existence of the assembly, resulting in a temporary power vacuum, which may be filled in special circumstances by recalling the old assembly if need be. Because of this peculiarity, Westminster systems also have automatically-triggered dissolutions when the assembly reaches the end of a fixed or maximum term, since the act of dissolution itself is synonymous with the end of the assembly's term, and elections cannot be held in anticipation of a dissolution.
Early dissolutions may be possible in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, to resolve conflicts between the executive and the legislature; either a "snap election" called by an executive seeking to increase its legislative support, or an election triggered by parliament withholding confidence and supply from the government. Some presidential systems also allow early dissolutions, usually by the legislature voting to dissolve itself (as in Cyprus), but sometimes by executive action in more authoritarian presidential systems.
In a bicameral legislature, dissolution may apply jointly or separately to the lower house and upper house, or may apply only to the lower house, with the upper house never fully dissolved. In a bicameral Westminster system, the expression "dissolution of parliament" typically refers to the dissolution of the lower house, just as "member of parliament" means member of the lower house.
Australia
The House of Representatives, but not the Senate, can be dissolved at any time by the governor-general on the advice of the prime minister. The term of the House expires three years after its first meeting if not dissolved earlier. The governor-general can dissolve the Senate only by also dissolving the House of Representatives (a double dissolution) and only in limited circumstances spelled out in the Constitution.
There is a convention that the Governor-General only orders a dissolution on the advice of the prime minister. This convention was demonstrated in the dismissal of prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor General Sir John Kerr in 1975. Kerr claimed that dissolving the House of Representatives was his duty and "the only democratic and constitutional solution" to the political deadlock over supply.[1] Whitlam refused to advise Kerr to call an election, and Kerr replaced him with a caretaker prime minister, Malcolm Fraser. Fraser promptly advised a double dissolution, and Sir John acted in accordance with that advice.
Parliament of Victoria
Unlike the Commonwealth Parliament, the premier and governor of Victoria have very little discretion in dissolving the Parliament of Victoria. Both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are dissolved automatically twenty-five days before the last Saturday in November every four years. However, the governor can dissolve the Legislative Assembly if a motion of no confidence in the premier and the other ministers of state is passed and no motion of confidence is passed within the next week. Finally, the premier can advise the governor to dissolve both houses in the case of a deadlocked bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_parliament
A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state that has Charles III as its monarch and head of state. Charles succeeded his mother, Elizabeth II, as monarch of the Commonwealth realms immediately upon her death on 8 September 2022. All the realms are both equal with and independent of the others, though one person acts as monarch of each.[1][2][3]
As of 2023, there are 15 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. All are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation of 56 independent member states, 52 of which were formerly part of the British Empire. Charles III is also Head of the Commonwealth, a non-constitutional role.
The notion of these states sharing the same person as their monarch traces back to 1867 when Canada became the first dominion, a self-governing nation of the British Empire. With the growing independence of the dominions in the 1920s, the Balfour Declaration of 1926 originally established the Commonwealth of Nations, and that the nations were considered "equal in status ... though united by a common allegiance to the Crown".[1] The Statute of Westminster 1931 further set the relationship between the realms and the Crown, including a convention that any alteration to the line of succession in any one country must be voluntarily approved by all the others. The modern Commonwealth of Nations was then formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949 when India wanted to become a republic without leaving the Commonwealth; this left seven independent nations sharing the Crown: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Since then, new realms have been created through the independence of former colonies and dependencies, and some realms have also become republics. Barbados was the most recent realm to become a republic, doing so on 30 November 2021.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona who officially embodies a state[1] in its unity and legitimacy. Depending on the country's form of government and separation of powers, the head of state may be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently the head of government and more (such as the president of the United States, who is also commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces).
In a parliamentary system, such as the United Kingdom or India, the head of state usually has mostly ceremonial powers, with a separate head of government.[2] However, in some parliamentary systems, like South Africa, there is an executive president that is both head of state and head of government. Likewise, in some parliamentary systems the head of state is not the head of government, but still has significant powers, for example Morocco. In contrast, a semi-presidential system, such as France, has both heads of state and government as the de facto leaders of the nation (in practice they divide the leadership of the nation between themselves). Meanwhile, in presidential systems, the head of state is also the head of government.[1] In one-party ruling communist states, the position of president has no tangible powers by itself, however, since such a head of state, as a matter of custom, simultaneously holds the post of General Secretary of the Communist Party, they are the executive leader with their powers deriving from their status of being the party leader, rather than the office of president.
Former French president Charles de Gaulle, while developing the current Constitution of France (1958), said that the head of state should embody l'esprit de la nation ("the spirit of the nation").[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state
An uncodified constitution is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules often take the form of customs, usage, precedent and a variety of statutes and legal instruments.[1] An understanding of the constitution is obtained through reading commentary by the judiciary, government committees or legal experts. In such a constitutional system, all these elements may be (or may not be) recognized by courts, legislators and the bureaucracy as binding upon government and limiting its powers. Such a framework is sometimes imprecisely called an "unwritten constitution"; however, all the elements of an uncodified constitution are typically written down in a variety of official documents, though not codified in a single document.
An uncodified constitution has the advantages of elasticity, adaptability and resilience, A. V. Dicey described the uncodified constitution as "the most flexible polity in existence."[2] A significant disadvantage, however, is that controversies may arise due to different understandings of the usages and customs that form the fundamental provisions of the constitution.[1]
A new condition or situation of government may be resolved by precedent or passing legislation.[1] Unlike a codified constitution, there are no special procedures for making a constitutional law and it will not be inherently superior to other legislation. A country with an uncodified constitution lacks a specific moment where the principles of its government were deliberately decided. Instead, these are allowed to evolve according to the political and social forces arising throughout its history.[3]
When viewed as a whole system, the difference between a codified and uncodified constitution is one of degree. Any codified constitution will be overlaid with supplementary legislation and customary practice after a period of time.[1] Conversely, customs and practices that have been observed for long periods in an uncodified manner may be added to the written constitution at various junctures, such as in the case of the two-term limit for presidents of the United States. This custom was observed for nearly a century and a half, unbroken, without any enforcement mechanism until it was ignored by Franklin Roosevelt, after which it was added to the written Constitution as mandatory de jure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution
A constitutional monarchy, parliamentary monarchy, or democratic monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions.[1] Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch is the only decision-maker) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
Public policy is an institutionalized proposal or a decided set of elements like laws, regulations, guidelines, and actions[1][2] to solve or address relevant and real-world problems, guided by a conception[3] and often implemented by programs. Public policy can be considered to be the sum of a government's direct and indirect activities[4] and has been conceptualized in a variety of ways.
They are created and/or enacted on behalf of the public typically by a government. Sometimes they are made by nonprofit organizations[5] or are made in co-production with communities or citizens,[6][7] which can include potential experts,[8][9][10] scientists, engineers and stakeholders or scientific data, or sometimes use[11][12] some of their results. They are typically made[how?] by policy-makers affiliated with (in democratic polities) currently elected politicians. Therefore, the "policy process is a complex political process in which there are many actors: elected politicians, political party leaders, pressure groups, civil servants, publicly employed professionals, judges, non-governmental organizations, international agencies, academic experts, journalists and even sometimes citizens who see themselves as the passive recipients of policy."[13]
A popular way of understanding and engaging in public policy is through a series of stages known as "the policy cycle," which was first discussed by the political scientist Harold Laswell in his book The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis, published in 1956. The characterization of particular stages can vary, but a basic sequence is agenda setting, policy formulation, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation. "It divides the policy process into a series of stages, from a notional starting point at which policymakers begin to think about a policy problem to a notional end point at which a policy has been implemented and policymakers think about how successful it has been before deciding what to do next."[14]
Officials considered as policymakers bear responsibility to reflect the interests of a host of different stakeholders. Policy design entails conscious and deliberate effort to define policy aims and map them instrumentally. Academics and other experts in policy studies have developed a range of tools and approaches to help in this task.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy
In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime. Whereas authority denotes a specific position in an established government, the term legitimacy denotes a system of government—wherein government denotes "sphere of influence". An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential elite.[1] In Chinese political philosophy, since the historical period of the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC), the political legitimacy of a ruler and government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, and unjust rulers who lost said mandate therefore lost the right to rule the people.
In moral philosophy, the term legitimacy is often positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors' institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government.[2]
The Enlightenment-era British social John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: "The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed."[3] The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said that "[l]egitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed of that right".[4] The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also "involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society".[5] The American political scientist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir: so long as the water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is endangered.[1]
Types
Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper".[6] In political science, legitimacy has traditionally been understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion. The three types of political legitimacy described by German sociologist Max Weber, in ”Politics as Vocation,” are traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal:
- Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that emphasize the history of the authority of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as historically accepted, hence its continuity, because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions of traditional government usually are historically continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism.
- Charismatic legitimacy derives from the ideas and personal charisma of the leader, a person whose authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to agreement with the government's régime and rule. A charismatic government usually features weak political and administrative institutions, because they derive authority from the persona of the leader, and usually disappear without the leader in power. However, if the charismatic leader has a successor, a government derived from charismatic legitimacy might continue.
- Rational-legal legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy.[7]
More recent scholarship distinguishes between multiple other types of legitimacy in an effort to draw distinctions between various approaches to the construct. These include empirical legitimacy versus normative legitimacy, popular legitimacy, regulative legitimacy, and procedural legitimacy.[8][9] Types of legitimacy draw distinctions that account for different sources of legitimacy, different frameworks for evaluating legitimacy, or different objects of legitimacy.[10]
Forms
Numinous legitimacy
In a theocracy, government legitimacy derives from the spiritual authority of a god or a goddess.
- In ancient Egypt (c. 3150 BC), the legitimacy of the dominion of a Pharaoh (god–king) was theologically established by a doctrine that posited the pharaoh as the Egyptian patron god Horus, son of Osiris.
Civil legitimacy
The political legitimacy of a civil government derives from agreement among the autonomous constituent institutions—legislative, judicial, executive—combined for the national common good. In the United States, this issue has surfaced around how voting is impacted by gerrymandering,[11] the United States Electoral College's ability to produce winners by minority rule and discouragement of voter turnout outside of Swing states,[12] and the repeal of part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.[13] Another challenge to the political legitimacy offered by elections is whether or not marginalized groups such as women or those who are incarcerated are allowed to vote.[citation needed]
Civil legitimacy can be granted through different measures for accountability[14] than voting, such as financial transparency[15] and stake-holder accountability. In the international system another method for measuring civil legitimacy is through accountability to international human rights norms.[citation needed]
In an effort to determine what makes a government legitimate, the Center for Public Impact launched a project to hold a global conversation about legitimacy stating, inviting citizens, academics and governments to participate.[16] The organization also publishes case studies that consider the theme of legitimacy as it applies to projects in a number of different countries including Bristol, Lebanon and Canada.[17]
"Good" governance vs "bad" governance
The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR) established standards of what is considered "good governance" that include the key attributes transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation and responsiveness (to the needs of the people).[18]
Input, output and throughput legitimacy
Assessing the political legitimacy of a government can be done by looking at three different aspects of which a government can derive legitimacy. Fritz Scharpf introduced two normative criteria, which are output legitimacy, i.e. the effectiveness of policy outcomes for people and input legitimacy, the responsiveness to citizen concerns as a result of participation by the people. A third normative criterion was added by Vivien Schmidt, who analyzes legitimacy also in terms of what she calls throughput, i.e. the governance processes that happen in between input and output.
Negative and positive legitimacy
Abulof distinguishes between negative political legitimacy (NPL), which is about the object of legitimation (answering what is legitimate), and positive political legitimacy (PPL), which is about the source of legitimation (answering who is the 'legitimator').[citation needed] NPL is concerned with establishing where to draw the line between good and bad; PPL with who should be drawing it in the first place. From the NPL perspective, political legitimacy emanates from appropriate actions; from a PPL perspective, it emanates from appropriate actors. In the social contract tradition, Hobbes and Locke focused on NPL (stressing security and liberty, respectively), while Rousseau focused more on PPL ("the people" as the legitimator). Arguably, political stability depends on both forms of legitimacy.[19]
Instrumental and substantive legitimacy
Weber's understanding of legitimacy rests on shared values, such as tradition and rational-legality. But policies that aim at (re-)constructing legitimacy by improving the service delivery or 'output' of a state often only respond to shared needs.[20] Therefore, substantive sources of legitimacy need to be distinguished from more instrumental ones.[20] Instrumental legitimacy rests on "the rational assessment of the usefulness of an authority ..., describing to what extent an authority responds to shared needs. Instrumental legitimacy is very much based on the perceived effectiveness of service delivery. Conversely, substantive legitimacy is a more abstract normative judgment, which is underpinned by shared values. If a person believes that an entity has the right to exercise social control, he or she may also accept personal disadvantages."[20]
Perceived legitimacy
Establishing legitimacy is not simply transactional; service provision, elections and rule of law do not automatically grant legitimacy.[21] State legitimacy rests on citizens’ perceptions and expectations of the state, and these are co-constructed between state actors and citizens.[22] What legitimizes a state is also contextually specific. McCullough et al. (2020) show that in different countries, provision of different services build state legitimacy. In Nepal public water provision was most associated with state legitimacy, while in Pakistan it was health services.[22] But it is not only states that that can build legitimacy. Other authorities, such as armed groups in a conflict zones, may construct legitimacy more successfully than the state in certain strata of the population.[23]
Foundational and contingent legitimacy
Political theorist Ross Mittiga has proposed an alternative typology, consisting of two parts: foundational and contingent legitimacy.[24] According to Mittiga, foundational legitimacy (FL) "pertains to a government’s ability to ensure the safety and security of its citizens," while contingent legitimacy (CL) obtains in situations in which governments "exercise[] power in acceptable ways."[24]
Mittiga specifies further that FL:
...is bound up with a range of political capacities and actions including, among other things, being able to ensure continuous access to essential goods (particularly food, water, and shelter), prevent avoidable catastrophes, provide immediate and effective disaster relief, and combat invading forces or quell unjustified uprisings or rebellions. If a government cannot fulfill these basic security functions, it is not legitimate, if it is even a government at all. [p.3]
On the other hand, Mittiga acknowledges that there is "extensive debate" about which factors are relevant to CL, but argues that, "[a]mong the most commonly defended factors" are "the presence of democratic rights and processes, consent, guarantees of equal representation, provision of core public benefits, protection of basic individual rights and freedoms, social justice, and observance of fairness principles." [pp. 4–5] Mittiga specifies further that "[m]ost contemporary theorists maintain that legitimacy [in the contingent sense] requires multiple of these factors—some of which are procedural and others substantive."[24]
According to Mittiga, what makes certain aspects of legitimacy "contingent" (as opposed to "foundational") is that they are affected by (1) "the problem of pluralism"—i.e., the idea that "any firm agreement on" which factor(s) matters (or matter most of all) "will remain elusive or at least always open to contestation and renegotiation"; (2) "the problem of partial displacement," which holds that "when new legitimation factors emerge," as they often have historically, "earlier ones may not entirely disappear but only become less salient, at least for sizable portions of the citizenry"; and (3) "the problem of exceptional circumstances," which is "the fact that even widely shared and seemingly stable CL factors are routinely relaxed or abandoned during emergencies, often without calling into question the basic legitimacy of the government."[24]
Mittiga summarizes the difference between these two types or levels or types of legitimacy as follows:
The factors associated with CL condition the use of political power by specifying, for instance, what can or cannot be done or sacrificed, how decisions should be made, and who counts (and for how much). The answers to these questions often appear to us as moral universals; yet, in practice, they are the products of long and contentious historical processes. FL, on the other hand, does not vary between societies, generations, or circumstances. Ensuring safety and security is always the primary—though, in good states, under reasonably favorable conditions, not the exclusive—end of political power. Aristotle expresses something like this in insisting that the point of political society is to furnish the resources needed not just to live but to live well. Crudely put, FL is about living, CL about living well. And it is of course impossible to live well without living: after all, there can be no democracy of desolation, no fair social cooperation in conditions of extreme scarcity, no real rights when political stability is maintainable only through raw assertions of coercive power (if it can be maintained at all). In this sense, FL is necessarily prior to CL, and must be regarded as such in moments when trade-offs become a necessary part of the political calculus. [p.7]
Sources
Max Weber proposed that societies behave cyclically in governing themselves with different types of governmental legitimacy. That democracy was unnecessary for establishing legitimacy, a condition that can be established with codified laws, customs, and cultural principles, not by means of popular suffrage. That a society might decide to revert from the legitimate government of a rational–legal authority to the charismatic government of a leader; e.g., the Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, and Francoist Spain under General Francisco Franco.
The French political scientist Mattei Dogan's contemporary interpretation of Weber's types of political legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, legal-rational) proposes that they are conceptually insufficient to comprehend the complex relationships that constitute a legitimate political system in the 21st century.[25] Moreover, Dogan proposed that traditional authority and charismatic authority are obsolete as forms of contemporary government; e.g., the Islamic Republic of Iran (est. 1979) rule by means of the priestly Koranic interpretations by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. That traditional authority has disappeared in the Middle East; that the rule-proving exceptions are Islamic Iran and Saudi Arabia.[clarification needed][citation needed] Furthermore, the third Weber type of political legitimacy, rational-legal authority, exists in so many permutations no longer allow it to be limited as a type of legitimate authority.[clarification needed]
Forms of legitimate government
In determining the political legitimacy of a system of rule and government, the term proper—political legitimacy—is philosophically an essentially contested concept that facilitates understanding the different applications and interpretations of abstract, qualitative, and evaluative concepts such as "art", "social justice", et cetera, as applied in aesthetics, political philosophy, the philosophy of history, and the philosophy of religion.[26] Therefore, in defining the political legitimacy of a system of government and rule, the term "essentially contested concept" indicates that a key term (communism, democracy, constitutionalism, etc.) has different meanings within a given political argument. Hence, the intellectually restrictive politics of dogmatism ("My answer is right, and all others are wrong"), scepticism ("I don't know what is true, and I even doubt my own opinion"), and eclecticism ("Each meaning gives a partial view, so the more meanings the better") are inappropriate philosophic stances for managing a political term that has more than one meaning[27] (see Walter Bryce Gallie).
Establishing what qualifies as a legitimate form of government continues to be a topic of great philosophical controversy. Forms of legitimate government are posited to include:[citation needed]
- Communism, where the legitimacy of a Communist state derives from having won a civil war, a revolution, or from having won an election such as the Presidency of Salvador Allende (1970–73) in Chile; thus, the actions of the Communist government are legitimate, authorised by the people. In the early 20th century, Communist parties based the arguments supporting the legitimacy of their rule and government upon the scientific nature of Marxism (see dialectical materialism).
- Constitutionalism. where the modern political concept of constitutionalism establishes the law as supreme over the private will, by integrating nationalism, democracy, and limited government. The political legitimacy of constitutionalism derives from popular belief and acceptance that the actions of the government are legitimate because they abide by the law codified in the political constitution. The political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich (1901–1984) said that, in dividing political power among the organs of government, constitutional law effectively restrains the actions of the government[28] (see checks and balances).
- Democracy, where government legitimacy derives from the popular perception that the elected government abides by democratic principles in governing, and thus is legally accountable to its people.[28]
- Fascism, where in the 1920s and the 1930s it based its political legitimacy upon the arguments of traditional authority; respectively, the German National Socialists and the Italian Fascists claimed that the political legitimacy of their right to rule derived from philosophically denying the (popular) political legitimacy of elected liberal democratic governments. During the Weimar Republic (1918–1933), the political philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888–1985)—whose legal work as the "Crown Jurist of the Third Reich" promoted fascism and deconstructed liberal democracy—addressed the matter in Legalität und Legitimität (Legality and Legitimacy, 1932), an anti-democratic polemic treatise that asked: "How can parliamentary government make for law and legality, when a 49 per cent minority accepts as politically legitimate the political will of a 51 per cent majority?"[29]
- Monarchy, where the divine right of kings establishes the political legitimacy of the rule of the monarch (king or queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular perception (tradition and custom) and acceptance of the monarch as the rightful ruler of nation and country. Contemporarily, such divine-right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute monarchy of the House of Saud (est. 1744), a royal family who have ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since the 18th century. Moreover, constitutional monarchy is a variant form of monarchic political legitimacy which combines traditional authority and legal–rational authority, by which means the monarch maintains nationalist unity (one people) and democratic administration (a political constitution).[30]
See also
Further reading
- Schoon, Eric W. (2022). "Operationalizing Legitimacy." American Sociological Review.
- Weigand, Florian (2022). Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-55364-3.
References
- Tahmazyan, Daniel (31 May 2021). "Is the Empire Eternal?". evnreport.com. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
Monarchy, where the divine right of kings establishes the political legitimacy of the rule of the monarch (king or queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular perception (tradition and custom) and acceptance of the monarch as the rightful ruler of nation and country. Contemporarily, such divine-right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute monarchy of the House of Saud (est. 1744), a royal family who have ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since the 18th century. Moreover, constitutional monarchy is a variant form of monarchic political legitimacy which combines traditional authority and legal–rational authority, by which means the monarch maintains nationalist unity (one people) and democratic administration (a political constitution).[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
Constitutionalism. where the modern political concept of constitutionalism establishes the law as supreme over the private will, by integrating nationalism, democracy, and limited government. The political legitimacy of constitutionalism derives from popular belief and acceptance that the actions of the government are legitimate because they abide by the law codified in the political constitution. The political scientist Carl Joachim Friedrich (1901–1984) said that, in dividing political power among the organs of government, constitutional law effectively restrains the actions of the government[28] (see checks and balances).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh
In a paper delivered to the Aristotelian Society on 12 March 1956,[1] Walter Bryce Gallie (1912–1998) introduced the term essentially contested concept to facilitate an understanding of the different applications or interpretations of the sorts of abstract, qualitative, and evaluative notions[2]—such as "art", "philanthropy",[3] "power"[4] and "social justice"—used in the domains of aesthetics, sustainable development, political philosophy, philosophy of history, and philosophy of religion.
Garver (1978) describes their use as follows:
The term essentially contested concepts gives a name to a problematic situation that many people recognize: that in certain kinds of talk there is a variety of meanings employed for key terms in an argument, and there is a feeling that dogmatism ("My answer is right and all others are wrong"), skepticism ("All answers are equally true (or false); everyone has a right to his own truth"), and eclecticism ("Each meaning gives a partial view so the more meanings the better") are none of them the appropriate attitude towards that variety of meanings.[5]
Essentially contested concepts involve widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., "fairness"), but not on the best realization thereof.[6] They are "concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users",[7] and these disputes "cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone".[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclecticism
In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field. The word paradigm is Greek in origin, meaning "pattern", and is used to illustrate similar occurrences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episteme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma#Dogma_outside_of_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eminent_domain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_developed_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Imperialism_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Third-Worldism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_trade_imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_inequality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_digital_divide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Imperialism_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude:_War_and_Democracy_in_the_Age_of_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_system_(world-systems_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage_of_Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds_Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_exchange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uneven_and_combined_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_irredentist_claims_or_disputes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_state_mergers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_dispute
A territorial dispute or boundary dispute is a disagreement over the possession or control of land between two or more political entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_dispute
The Illyrians (Ancient Greek: Ἰλλυριοί, Illyrioi; Latin: Illyrii) were a group of Indo-European-speaking peoples who inhabited the western Balkan Peninsula in ancient times. They constituted one of the three main Paleo-Balkan populations, along with the Thracians and Greeks.
The territory the Illyrians inhabited came to be known as Illyria to later Greek and Roman authors, who identified a territory that corresponds to most of Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo,[a] much of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, western and central Serbia and some parts of Slovenia between the Adriatic Sea in the west, the Drava river in the north, the Morava river in the east and the Ceraunian Mountains in the south.[1] The first account of Illyrian peoples dates back to the 6th century BC, in the works of the ancient Greek writer Hecataeus of Miletus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardani
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neocolonialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-colonial_copyright_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recolonization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neocolonialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_conservation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonial_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenbourgeoisie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grabbing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-colony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_regime_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion_and_containment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_regime_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dependency_theorists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-imperialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Holocaust_(book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetical_Essay_on_the_Existing_State_of_Things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917%E2%80%931923
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_to_the_Hills
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_patriotism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_arrogance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_and_Palestine_Solidarity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93South_cooperation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_mandate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_association
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_(sovereignty_transfer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_according_to_higher_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_consent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
The Great Satan (Persian: شيطان بزرگ; Shaytân-e Bozorg) is a demonizing epithet for the United States of America in Iranian foreign policy statements. Occasionally, these words have also been used toward the government of the United Kingdom.
The term was used by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his speech on November 5, 1979 to describe the United States, which he accused of imperialism and the sponsoring of corruption throughout the world.[1] The speech occurred one day after the onset of the Iran hostage crisis.
Ayatollah Khomeini also occasionally used the term "Iblis" (the primary devil in Islam) to refer to the United States and other Western countries.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Satan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensor_pacis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_division
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorate_(Russia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaggregated_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_governance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_governance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_regime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sovereignty_referendums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Autonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Euthanasia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_euthanasia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Autonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-territorial_autonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_personal_autonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_persons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_of_risk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner_autonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-individualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism_(political_doctrine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Royal_prerogative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Commission_of_1686
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the sovereign and which have become widely vested in the government.[note 1] It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
In most constitutional monarchies, prerogatives can be abolished by Parliament as the courts apply the constitutional near-absolute of the supremacy of Parliament. In the Commonwealth realms this draws on the constitutional statutes at the time of the Glorious Revolution when William III and Mary II were invited to take the throne.
In the United Kingdom the remaining powers of the royal prerogative are devolved to the head of the government which for more than two centuries has been the Prime Minister; the benefits, equally, such as mineral rights in all gold and silver ores, vest in (belong to) the government.[1]
In Britain, prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch acting, without an observed requirement for parliamentary consent (after its empowerment in certain matters following Magna Carta). Since the accession of the House of Hanover these powers have been, with minor exceptions in economically unimportant sectors, exercised on the advice of the prime minister or the Cabinet, who are accountable to Parliament, exclusively so, except in matters of the Royal Family, since at least the time of William IV.
Typically in liberal democracies that are constitutional monarchies as well as nation states, such as those of Denmark, Norway, or Sweden, the royal prerogative serves in practice as a prescribed ceremonial function of the state power.
Ministerial exercise of the monarch's prerogatives
Today, prerogative powers fall into two main categories:
- Those directly exercised by ministers without the approval of parliament, including, in some countries such as the UK, the powers to regulate the civil service, issue passports and grant honours.[2]
- Those exercised nominally by the monarch, "on the advice of" (that is, by constitutional convention, however so requested by) the prime minister and on the advice of the cabinet.
Some key areas of government are carried out by the royal prerogative but its usage is falling as functions are progressively made statutory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
As foreign affairs are a matter of royal prerogative,[14] the power to declare war and deploy the armed forces belongs to the Crown, though only in its federal Cabinet (the federal government), as outlined in sections 9 and 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867.[13] Neither legislation nor any other type of parliamentary approval, beyond budgetary matters, is required for such actions, though the Cabinet has on occasion consulted parliament before engaging Canada or extending Canada's involvement in a conflict.[14] Additionally, the federal Crown may ratify treaties. Again, the endorsement of Parliament is not necessary for these agreements to have force in an international sense, but the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures must pass statutes in order for them to have domestic effect, under the division of powers set out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Proposed treaties have also occasionally been presented to parliament for debate before ratification.[14] Members of Parliament have tabled bills seeking to curtail the use of the royal prerogative in foreign affairs by legislating a greater role for parliament, as have Senate standing committees, from time to time, called for the same.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Proclamations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_in_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Armed_Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolutions_of_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolutions_of_empires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolution_of_Austria-Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolutions_of_empires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fall_of_the_Byzantine_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Offshoots_of_the_Macedonian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolution_of_the_Russian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolutions_of_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Partitions_of_Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Separatism_in_Iraq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fall_of_the_Republic_of_Venice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Breakup_of_Yugoslavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Successor_states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_partition_of_Belgium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Prussia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_breakup_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dissolutions_of_political_entities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(territory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disestablishments_by_former_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disestablishments_by_former_colony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disestablishments_by_colonial_empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Overseas_empires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disestablishments_by_former_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2nd-millennium_disestablishments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disestablishments_in_Prussia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Disestablishments_in_the_Russian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sovereignty
In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty.[1][2] The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation[3] would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.[4]
It is a protected value at Common Law that Parliament has legislative supremacy[note 1][6] even to the point that the sovereign power extends to the breaking of treaties, if need be.[7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrogation_in_public_law
Scope of constitutional right
Within the United Kingdom, the notion of a constitutional right exists despite there being no written constitution.[15] The scope of such a constitutional right is particularly narrow and the State cannot abrogate their power except where a specific piece of legislation or regulation specifically provides for the power to abrogate. As observed in Witham, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor [1997], Laws J made it clear that ″General words will not suffice.″[16] This was applied in Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003].[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrogation_in_public_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrogation_in_public_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality#Examples_of_unconstitutional_actions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconstitutional_constitutional_amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_terminology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Constitutional_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#Ignoring_relevant_considerations_or_taking_irrelevant_considerations_into_account
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_legal_terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirant_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_unrecognized_states_and_dependencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvion_(Roman_law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_integrity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_(sovereignty_transfer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Prohibitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Tribunal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_revolts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Suspects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_4_February_1794
Levée en masse (French pronunciation: [ləve ɑ̃ mɑs] or, in English, "mass levy"[1]) is a French term used for a policy of mass national conscription, often in the face of invasion.
The concept originated during the French Revolutionary Wars, particularly for the period following 16 August 1793,[2] when able-bodied men aged 18 to 25 were conscripted. It formed an integral part of the creation of national identity, making it distinct from forms of conscription which had existed before this date.
The term is also applied to other historical examples of mass conscription.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev%C3%A9e_en_masse
Conscription (also called the draft in the United States) is the state-mandated enlistment of people in a national service, mainly a military service.[1] Conscription dates back to antiquity and it continues in some countries to the present day under various names. The modern system of near-universal national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s, where it became the basis of a very large and powerful military. Most European nations later copied the system in peacetime, so that men at a certain age would serve 1–8 years on active duty and then transfer to the reserve force.
Conscription is controversial for a range of reasons, including conscientious objection to military engagements on religious or philosophical grounds; political objection, for example to service for a disliked government or unpopular war; sexism, in that historically men have been subject to the draft in the most cases; and ideological objection, for example, to a perceived violation of individual rights. Those conscripted may evade service, sometimes by leaving the country,[2] and seeking asylum in another country. Some selection systems accommodate these attitudes by providing alternative service outside combat-operations roles or even outside the military, such as Siviilipalvelus (alternative civil service) in Finland, Zivildienst (compulsory community service) in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Several countries conscript male soldiers not only for armed forces, but also for paramilitary agencies, which are dedicated to police-like domestic only service like internal troops, border guards or non-combat rescue duties like civil defence.
As of 2023, many states no longer conscript soldiers, relying instead upon professional militaries with volunteers. The ability to rely on such an arrangement, however, presupposes some degree of predictability with regard to both war-fighting requirements and the scope of hostilities. Many states that have abolished conscription still, therefore, reserve the power to resume conscription during wartime or times of crisis.[3] States involved in wars or interstate rivalries are most likely to implement conscription, and democracies are less likely than autocracies to implement conscription.[4] With a few exceptions, such as Singapore and Egypt, former British colonies are less likely to have conscription, as they are influenced by British anti-conscription norms that can be traced back to the English Civil War; the United Kingdom abolished conscription in 1960.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription
The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions.[1] It is a military reserve force composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. It is officially created under Congress's Article 1 Section 8 ability to "raise and support armies".[2] All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of state governments and the federal government.[1]
The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[3][4] These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve (AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (ART) in the Air National Guard.
The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard[3] and the Air National Guard, respectively.[3]
Colonial militias were formed during the British colonization of the Americas from the 16th century onward. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small, older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used in 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and has specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933.
Origins
The first muster of militia forces in what is today the United States took place on September 16, 1565, in the newly established Spanish military town of St. Augustine. The militia men were assigned to guard the expedition's supplies while their leader, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, took the regular troops north to attack the French settlement at Fort Caroline on the St. Johns River.[5] This Spanish militia tradition and the English tradition that was established to the north provided the basic nucleus for Colonial defense in the New World.
The militia tradition continued with the New World's first permanent English settlements. Jamestown Colony (established in 1607) and Plymouth Colony (established in 1620) both had militia forces, which initially consisted of every able-bodied adult male. By the mid-1600s every town had at least one militia company (usually commanded by an officer with the rank of captain), and the militia companies of a county formed a regiment (usually commanded by an officer with the rank of major in the 1600s or a colonel in the 1700s).
The first federal laws regulating the militia were the Militia acts of 1792.
From the nation's founding through the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias, directly related to the earlier Colonial militias to supply the majority of its troops.[6] As a result of the Spanish–American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate state militias' training and qualification.
In 1903, with passage of the Dick Act, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.[7]
During World War I, Congress passed the National Defense Act of 1916, which required the use of the term "National Guard" for the state militias and further regulated them. Congress also authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guards deployed by the federal government.[8]
In 1933, with passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force. The National Defense Act of 1947 created the Air Force as a separate branch of the Armed Forces and concurrently created the Air National Guard of the United States as one of its reserve components, mirroring the Army's structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Royal_prerogative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_general%27s_warrant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impositions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Proclamations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_of_Prohibitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_on_the_Law_of_the_Prerogatives_of_the_Crown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_(law)
The Personal Rule (also known as the Eleven Years' Tyranny) are terms to describe the period in England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1629 to 1640, when King Charles I ruled as an autocratic absolute monarch over the three nations without recourse to Parliament.[1] Charles claimed that he was entitled to do this under the royal prerogative and that he had a divine right.
Charles had already dissolved three Parliaments by the third year of his reign in 1628.[2] After the murder of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, who was deemed to have a negative influence on Charles' foreign policy, Parliament began to criticize the king more harshly than before. Charles then realized that, as long as he could avoid war, he could rule without the need of Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rule
Royal instructions[1] are formal instructions issued to governors of the United Kingdom's colonial dependencies, and past instructions can be of continuing constitutional significance in a former colonial dependency or Dominion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_instructions
Royal instructions[1] are formal instructions issued to governors of the United Kingdom's colonial dependencies, and past instructions can be of continuing constitutional significance in a former colonial dependency or Dominion.
Content
Traditionally the royal instructions were issued to a governor to:
- tell him how the Executive Council and legislative council were to be constituted, how their procedure was to be regulated, and how he was to work with them
- set out the how legislation was to be framed
- instruct him as to which classes of legislation he must refuse his assent
- regulate precedence
- set out how copies of certain formal documents and records were to be communicated to the British government
Legal status
Royal instructions were a commonly used legal instrument of British imperial law used in the governing of the empire's colonies. Royal instructions delegated to colonial governors the legal capacity to exercise the Crown's royal prerogative and set out the limits and conditions within which that prerogative was to be exercised.[2]
The royal instructions given to a colonial governor were one of three documents normally used for constituting the government of a colony,[3] the others being the letters patent or order in council constituting the office of governor and commander-in-chief, and the governor's commission obliging him to follow the instructions he received from the Privy Council in London.[4] As explained in the book, Royal Government in America, it is "The British authorities clearly looked upon the instructions as constitutional documents of the greatest importance which all members of the colonial government were expected to obey."[5] For example, when, in the late 1750s, the Governor of Virginia approved three Acts in contravention of regulations incorporated into his royal instructions, the Privy Council struck down the Acts and admonished the Governor, reminding him that his instructions in this regard were "coeval with the Constitution of the British Colonies" and formed "an Essential part of that Constitution and cannot be sett aside a without subverting Fundimental Principle of it."[6]
As at 1945 there were eight legislative councils which had been constituted by royal instructions: the Falkland Islands, the Gambia, Hong Kong, Kenya, Nyasaland, Seychelles, the Straits Settlements and Uganda; while others had been constituted by order in council, letters patent, local ordinance or by act of the imperial parliament at Westminster.[7]
 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (July 2018) |
Continuing importance in Canada
With Confederation, Canada inherited a Constitution "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom".[8] Thus, those elements of the constitution of the Provinces of Canada that were not displaced by the Constitution Act, 1867 or subsequent legislation continue in force in the country.[9] At the time of Confederation and still to this day, certain subjects matters remain within the scope of the Crown's prerogative powers, such as international treaty making and the creation of Indian reserves.[10] However, the limits on those powers and the guidelines for their use that were set out in the instructions to the governors of Canada's constituent colonies were incorporated into Canada's constitution and, unless displaced, bind the Crown in Right of Canada's actions.
The continued importance of Royal Instructions can has been noted by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in St. Catherines Milling, in which it was stated that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 must be read "together with the Royal instructions given to the Governors as to its strict enforcement" and that, when taken together, these constitute "the Indian Bill of Rights".[11][12] Numerous contemporary decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada refer to Royal Instructions given to colonial governors, without necessarily analysing their legal status.[13][14][15][16]
Canada after Confederation
Initially the form of royal instructions remained essentially unchanged after the development of responsible government. Detailed criticism in 1876 by Edward Blake (Canada's federal Minister of Justice) of the wording of both the letters patent appointing the Governor General of Canada and the royal instructions issued to him led to changes to both sets of instruments for each of the dominions, to better reflect how they were actually governed.
See also
References
- R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, 2005 SCC 43, [2005] 2 SCR 220, Ottawa: Queen's Printer of Canada, 20 July 2005, retrieved 8 August 2013
External links
- Instructions to Royal Governors by David A. Norris, 2006 [1]
- Hong Kong Royal Instructions, 1917, Wikisource s:Hong Kong Royal Instructions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_instructions
A prerogative instrument is a legal instrument issued in the United Kingdom under the royal prerogative, in contrast with a Statutory Instrument (which is made under the authority of an Act of Parliament).
Examples of prerogative instruments include letters patent (including most royal charters), royal instructions, royal warrants, and some orders in council.
The use of prerogative instruments has declined considerably both as a result of the transfer of political power from the Sovereign to the House of Commons, and with the expanded use since the nineteenth century of delegated legislation under the authority of parliament.
Prerogative instruments were often used as the basis for the constitutions of British colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prerogative_instrument
"Prerogative writ" is a historic term for a writ (official order) that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court.[1] It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies.[2]
Six writs are traditionally classified as prerogative writs:[2]
- certiorari, an order by a higher court directing a lower court to send the record in a given case for review;
- habeas corpus, a demand that a prisoner be taken before the court to determine whether there is lawful authority to detain the person;
- mandamus, an order issued by a higher court to compel or to direct a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory duties correctly;
- prohibition, directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits;
- procedendo, to send a case from an appellate court to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment;
- quo warranto, requiring a person to show by what authority they exercise a power.
Additionally, scire facias, one of the extraordinary writs, was once known as a prerogative writ.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prerogative_writ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_by_the_Crown_Act_1539
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Declarations_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_of_war_legal_terminology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:War_crimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravi_de_pugna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_military_unit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_conduct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_peace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_enemy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_in_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_environmental_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_trophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodchopping_platoon_of_the_Orne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlimentaire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_city
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_longer_enemy_combatant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hearing_hearings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diktat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custodian_of_Enemy_Property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-belligerence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieber_Code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Eliot_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_pacificatoria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsturm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_foederis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_(surrender)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfield_Claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honours_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPCR_Manual_on_International_Law_Applicable_to_Air_and_Missile_Warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association
No comments:
Post a Comment