Esto es la Universidad.... pública




Este blog está dirigido a vosotros, los estudiantes que acabáis de llegar a la Universidad. A la Universidad pública. A la universidad de todos. La que costeamos entre todos para que independientemente del nivel de vuestros ingresos familiares tengáis la oportunidad de aprender y de transformar vuestra vida. Para que aprendáis Derecho y, sobre todo, os convirtáis en personas pensantes y críticas, dispuestas a integraros inteligentemente en el mundo que os ha tocado vivir.

En este blog encontraréis primero las instrucciones para sacar el máximo provecho de "nuestro" esfuerzo conjunto a lo largo de estas semanas de clase. Pero también algo más: una incitación permanente a aprender, un estímulo para que vayáis más allá de la mera superación del trámite administrativo del aprobado. Escribía el piloto, escritor y filósofo francés Antoine de Saint Exupéry (1900-1944) en El Principito, que "sólo se conocen las cosas que se domestican". Por eso voy a tratar de convenceros de lo importante que es "domesticar" lo que vais a estudiar. Para que sintáis lo apasionante que es descubrir el mundo a través del Derecho. Pero no del Derecho a secas, sino del Derecho en su trayectoria histórica, en el marco cultural de la civilización en la que aparece. Para que comprendáis como sugería José Ortega y Gasset, que preservar nuestra civilización depende de que cada generación se adueñe de su época y sepa vivir "a la altura de los tiempos".

Para ello cada semana os diré qué tenéis que estudiar y cómo, os proporcionaré lecturas y os recomendaré ejercicios. También compartiré con vosotros pensamientos y consideraciones que vengan a cuento, al hilo de lo que vayamos estudiando.

Tendremos que trabajar mucho, vosotros y un servidor. Pero eso dará sentido a vuestro -nuestro- paso por la Universidad. Será un esfuerzo muy rentable para vuestro -mi- engrandecimiento como personas. Os lo aseguro.

Ánimo, y a por ello.

Un saludo cordial

Bruno Aguilera-Barchet

miércoles, 2 de abril de 2025

THE FEDERAL MODEL

George Washington looking at the first US Flag 

 The three models of territorial integration we analyzed in Teaching Guide 8: namely the Composite monarchies, the Swiss Confederation and the German Customs Union (Zollverein) were not efficient enough for guaranteeing a strong union. 

 This is why a stronger model of integration appeared at the end of the 18th century. It was created overseas, in a brand new country called the United States. Recognized internationally in 1783 in the Treaty of Versailles, signed after the British Crown lost the Independence war, the initial 13 colonies, transformed in independent states, had only a loose bond: the Articles of Confederation.

                                                                                                                                            The 13 American British colonies before 1776

 Created provisionally in 1777 for ensuring a united action in the military field of the 13 rebel colonies that were at war against England, The Articles of Confederation were not an efficient operational structure for times of peace. Something that the founders of the new nation found out soon, when they realized that not developping a stronger union could jeopardize the new Nation, as it could not stand against the two powerful monarchies standing at its borders: The Spanish Monarchy in the South and the United Kingdom in the North. 

 The Founding Fathers were very pragmatic and this is why they came up with a new type of bond: the Federal Union. It created a supra State over the 13 individual States with a common strong Executive: the President of the United States.  This is why the system was also called "Presidential"

1. Federalism: an effective way to enable different states to act together 

"Federalism" comes from the Latin word, foedus, meaning 'treaty', 'compact' or 'contract'. Foedus comes itself from the word, fides, meaning 'trust'.

We have already seen in Teaching Guide 8 different ways in which independent territories : -kingdoms, states, cantons- agree to cooperate to get stronger. Under a same sovereign (Composite monarchies), signing an agreement of confederation like the Swiss Rutli Oath of 1291, or adopting a “treaty” of economic cooperation, as it was the case of the Zollverein, the 19th century German Customs Union. 

The Federal union goes a step further. Some independent states decide to act together, and for strengthening their union, they decide to have a common legal link; a Federal constitution that creates a new State over the preexistent cooperating states. The federal model turned out to be a very efficient way of making a really strong union.   

All this seems a little complicated and confusing in theory. But it becomes much simpler if we follow a concrete historic example, concretely if we look at how appeared the first modern Federal state: The United States of America.    


2. A Confederation of 13 States to fight the British. 

 We already know from Teaching Guide 4 how the British colonization of North America ended up founding 13 different colonies and how these, after the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, got together to fight the British Crown. In order to lead war against their common enemy the 13 different colonies agreed on signing in 1777 a cooperation agreement: the Articles of Confederation.       

The first 13 united states (1783)      

 Once they won the War in 1783 this Agreement became the first US common Constitution as it was compulsory for the new 13 independent States. But it was a very weak legal bond, because every state kept its own constitution, government institutions and legal system. The only common institution that kept this bunch of states together was the Continental Congress, a non permanent Assembly where the 13 States sent elective representatives. 

The Second Continental Congress voting independence on July 4, 1776

 The problem was that the new 13 States only met in Congress when they were in trouble, and even so, if they agreed on anything it was extremely difficult to implement the common decision as they had not a common budget, nor a common executive to enforce the agreement. 

 That Congress was clearly not a very operative instrument for facing crisis was evident when one of the new State Massachusetts had to face its own “revolution” in 1786: the Shay Rebellion

 Daniel Shay, an angry farmer that had lost his property for not having been able to pay his mortgage, decided to rebel against Massachusetts government with other farmers that were in the same situation.  The anarchy resulting from the rebellion could not be prevented by the Congress under the regime of the Articles of Confederation. They had not a strong executive and did not have common taxes for raising an army. Finally the mess created by Shay had to be solved by the wealthy citizens of Massachusetts who paid from their pocket an army to reduce the rebels. 

A US newspaper includes a drawing of the repression of Shay's rebellion

The good news was that the Shay Rebellion was a lousy precedent that rendered the US Founding Fathers nervous and forced them to lobby for reaching a stronger union creating a Federal bond. But they had to overcome a strong opposition of the Anti-Federalists that wanted to preserve at any cost the independence of the 13 States.  

3. The Federal Debate

George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and some other capital figures of the new US nation considered that the 13 Colonies could not survive a major crisis, especially if the British, the French or the Spanish –in this time countries much more powerful than the United States- decided to attack them. So they understood they needed a tighter union to get stronger. 

 A big debate started between, on one side those defending that states should remain completely autonomous, and others that considered that disunited they would not survive against the Big European Monarchies, and therefore they considered the “Federal way” the best option for consolidating a more solid tie among the confederate states. To make it short: they wanted a stronger union more operative that would ensure a greater protection over internal anarchy situations like Shay’s rebellion or external dangers from apossible attack coming from international powerful nations. 

 The federalists considered that the only way to create a stronger and more permanent union was to approve a new common constitution as this "basic agreement" (Grundnorm) was necessary to create "legally" a brand new super state. Of course as many members of the Continental Congress were very reluctant to accept a superior power over the individual member states, the federal union was limited only to certain areas expressly defined in the constitutional text. 

 The Federal debate was long and fierce as the representatives of some States did not want to give up their full autonomy. But finally, adversaries reached a compromise that was set in writing in a very short new common constitution (September 1787). 

The US Constitution

The new Union had a strong President elected by the States and a powerful Congress integrated by a double legislature: one representing the states (Senate) and another one representing the citizens (House of Representatives). And then there was a US Supreme Court that represented the Judicial power of the new Super State. There was a very strict separation of powers in order to avoid the new Federal state being too powerful and ensure that the new structure would be controlled by the states integrated in it. 

Diagram of the organisation of the US Federal State

Finally the US Constitution, after being approved in 1787 required a complex ratification process, that included the enactment of a Bill of Rights (1791) that became legal limits to the power of the new Federal state.  They ended up having constitutional value as they became the first 10 amendments to the new Constitution. When all the 13 colonies got finally into the Federal Union, they elected as first President George Washington (1789-1797). 

George Washington (1732-1799)

The US Federal State was however still not fully consolidated when the Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson was elected as the third US President in March 1801. Jefferson thought that the Federal Union had gone too far and was far too strong. So he tried to weaken it by giving back power to the States

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

But fortunately for the US Federal Union, the former President John Adams (1797-1801) had put in office as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall (1801-1835) who was a convinced federalist and did not share the antifederalist views of Jefferson. 

 So when Thomas Jefferson tried to give back power to the states in detriment of the Federal Union, John Marshall decided that he could not do so at the Legislative level because it was a violation of the US Constitution. Through the landmark decision of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) Marshall established that the US Supreme Court was the top power in the Federal State as it had the power of interpreting the US Constitution. And no law from the Legislature or no decision from the US President could in any case violate the constitution. Marshall invented what technically was called: the Judicial Review principle that established the supremacy of the constitution over politics. This strict application of the Rule of Law preserved the Federal Union. Law is the best remedy against social disintegration.  

John Marshall, the first US Chief Justice

But the Judicial Review was not enough to consolidate the federal way, because states remained deeply divided about one crucial question: Slavery. Some States (essentially in the South) relied economically on slaves of the big plantations, while others (in the North) had small properties and a lot of industry. The expansion of the Union from the 13 initial States to the actual 50, was performed mainly through the legal instrument called the Northwest Ordinance of July 1787, (implemented two months before the approval of the US Constitution), because initially it was provided for the lands situated in the Northwest Territory that includes the actual states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. But at the end, as it was fully operational, was used to integrate most of the new 37 states to the Union.

Originally there was a balance between Slave and Free States in the common federal institutions as the Missouri Compromise (1820) established that new states could be added only if was respected the balance between slave and free states. But as the US kept on growing, were added new territories and new states and the moment arrived when the Free States outnumbered the Slave States. As the latter could not accept the sitution they decided to secede from the Union and create a new Union not as tight as the Federal, that was called The Confederation.


4. Preventing the dismantlement of the Federal Union through Civil War

The secession of the Southern Slave States was not accepted by the Northern Fee States and that led to a devastating Civil War (1861-1865) between the Slave and the Free States. At the end, Lincoln won the war and the Federal Union was preserved, but at what cost.    

Map of the American Civil War (1861-1865)

 The North and the Federal States won and the US were saved as a strong country. Nevertheless the causes that brought the US Civil War persist to a certain extent. Despite the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery in some states Black people endure a difficult situation. I would recommend two movies if you want to realize what all this meant: Lincoln (2012) from Steven Spielberg starring Daniel Day-Lewis

 And Free State Jones (2016) of Gary Ross starring Matthew McConaughey. Both impressive. 


 The huge fight for civil rights that Malcolm X, Angela Davies or Martin Luther King endured during the 1960’s persist with movements like Black Lives Matters. 

And as far as the Federal Government is concerned, there are still today tensions between the Republicans that defend the independence of the States and the Democrats who on the contrary are always willing to reinforce the Federal power

5. Copying the American Federal Union

 The important point for us Europeans is that, despite all these problems, the US are a World power because they have been able to consolidate a very useful legal tool: a strong Federal Union that is compatible with a considerable autonomy of its member states. Despite the difficulties of its consolidation, the American Federal State has become a very Powerful Union that in our days still has a determinant influence in the whole World. 

The last version (1960) of the official US Flag
13 stripes (the original 13 colonies) and 50 stars (the actual members states).  

 The Federal way has definitely worked in the American case, and this is why “plural states” all over the world have chosen the Federal model and the Presidential System to consolidate the union among its parts. This is why, besides the United States of America, the Federal Model was finally adopted by some important states as Mexico (since 1824), Argentina (since 1853), Canada (since 1867), Brazil (1889), Australia (since 1891), Germany (since 1949), the Republic of India (since 1950), or the Russian Federation (since 1991). 

It is not the case of Spain, a country that, as you know, come from a composite monarchy model, and has not achieved the unification of all its t-historical territories in a centralized model of state. Spain tried to become a Federal State in 1873, but it was failure. Since 1931 Spain tried a weird formula: a unitary state but highly decentralized in Autonomies. The Spanish Second Republic (1931-1939) was organized as a sort of decentralised model of state under the weird name of “Integral State”. At least after 1978 Constitutional Spain is officially dubbed the State of the Autonomies. Clearer but fstil far from being fully operational, as this ambiguous system does not prevent that in some “Autonomies” there are strong movements in favour of total independence: Namely the Bask Provinces and Catalonia.

The Spanish State of Autonomies

 The Federal Union in principle was not appropriate for European States. As they were far too powerful at the end of the 18th century and during the 19th century to even consider the possibility of getting together in a federal way. However, after the two disastrous World Wars of the first half of the 20th century that destroyed European States, European Governments started considering the possibility of adopting the Federal model, as a way of unite and get back the possibility of having some influence at the World level after 1945. 

6. A Federal option for a disunited Europe

Adopting the Federal model in Europe so far, however, has proven to be very difficult for several reasons: 1) European States had been independent for centuries, 2) they did not share the language, 3) they had a private history, and 4) they did not have common institutions. 

 Remember that after the signing of the Westphalia Treaty (1648), the Universal model (Roman Universalism) gave  way to a Europe of independent States that fought each other (from 1648 to 1945) to reach the supremacy in the Old continent. And after the French Revolution and the appearance of the nation-state, "patriotism" and "nationalism" made things far more difficult. This is why, as you have seen in Teaching Guide 5, all along the 19th century European Nation-States were extremely keen in keeping intact their sovereignty in the context of the Colonial expansion. A situation that brought the Armed Peace, and, finally, World War I, the disaster of the Versailles Treaty (1919), World War II and the disappearance of Europe as a World power. 

  The Europe of the Versailles Treaty (1919)

 Only when Europe was in ruins in 1918, some eminent figures started considering that European States they should get together in order to form a powerful union at the world level to confront the US and the USSR. 

Richard Coudenhove Kalergi (1894-1972)

 There were some theoretical approaches at integration, like the Pan-European Movement of Count Coudenhove Kalergi (1923) or the Briand’s proposal for a European Union (1929). But they failed due to the rising tensions of strong nationalisms, especially on the part of Italy and Germany. Hitler's Lebensraum led to another European suicide: World War Two.

Aristides Briand (1862-1932)

It is interesting however that even between 1939 and 1945 each side tried to reinforce some kind of union of States to get stronger. On the allies side we have to mention the short attempt for a Franco-British Union (June 1940) tried by De Gaulle and Churchill. 

The Franco-British Union of 1940

On the Hitler's side the Third Reich tried to create a United Europe under the banner of National-Socialism creating a network of Vassal States

Hitlerian Europe

As a reaction there was also a anti-hitlerian Europe with different initiatives to develop a way for European integration. The most effective one was the customs and economic union created by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg: the BENELUX (5 September 1944).     

                                                             


After the end of the war in the spring of 1945, followed some years of disarray for Europe. A period in which the destroyed European States were initially obliged to ask Americans for money in order to survive. First in total disorder creating a Dollar gap, and, finally, in 1947, thanks to the initiative  Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall they got a coordinated aid. 

George C. Marshall (1880-1959)

 You already have heard about the Marshall Plan. But let me underline that it was a great idea. Not only because of the money, but because it obliged the needing European States to work together if they wanted to receive any American aid for reconstruction. The Marshall Plan could be considered from this perspective the first step towards a united Europe after World War II. 

President Truman signing the Marshall Plan

 The success of the Marshall Plan gave way to the first real attempt of creating an integrated Europe. I am talking about the Congress of The Hague (may 1948), aimed at establishing a Federal Europe.  At the end it was a failure, but at least it enabled the foundation of the Council of Europe (1949), with its extremely useful Human Rights Court that from Strasbourg protect Europeans citizens from the abuses of their respective governments. 

One of the sessions of the Hague Congress (7-10 May 1948)

 Nevertheless it was clear that in 1949 the World belonged to the Americans and the Russians. If Europeans wanted to survive they had to get together. But once discarded the federal model, they had to find their own way: the Communitarian Method. And this is what we are going to see in the three last Teaching Guides of the present course 


INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 211 to 252), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 253-254) You should get familiar with all the dates. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Would you like a Federal option for Europe? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Understand the essence of the Federal model of State integration. Consider the differences with other models: Empire, Composite monarchies or Confederation.

2. Consider the US Federal approach. Why it appeared. Which were the main difficulties it faced for assuring its consolidation. How work the relationship between the States and the Federal State. 

3. How should European States proceed in order to move to a Federal Europe.  

Churchill speech at the Hague Congress











martes, 25 de marzo de 2025

SOME HISTORIC MODELS OF STATE INTEGRATION


The European Union is today a Community of States

Map of the European Union

Though the present 27 States members are not as homogeneous as they apparently appear. On the one hand the states comprise “regions”. In fact we have not only a Europe of States we also have a Europe of Regions

Map of the main European Regions

And to make things more complicated, in some of these regions a large part of the population are eager to become part of an independent state. And the are a bunch of these irredent regions as we see in the following map that show were are located European separatisms

European Regions that want to become independent States 

 If I mention that is because, generally speaking, the State today is the most common political unit in the World. In fact the World is divided in 192 fully recognized States grouped in the United Nations. States have been the basic unit in Europe for a while. Concretely since the disappearance of the Universal model in the European continent that was consecrated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). From then on we live in a Europe of States, with the annoying consequence that these states since then have been constantly quarrelling trying to impose their hegemony on the other states for almost 300 years. Up to 1945. 

Europe after the Westphalia Treaty (1648)

But on the other hand it is true that States are an efficient way of getting organized as a human group. And a complex one that required a long process of formation. States did not appear overnight with their actual limits. In fact, in order to be more powerful states have always tried to expand territorially. Actual European States are mostly the result of a long integration process, in which kings did their best to incorporate as much territories to their realms as they could by wars or marriages. For instance the Spanish State is the consequence of the Marriage in 1469 of Elisabeth of Castile with Ferdinand of Aragon. 

 However, one thing is to incorporate territories and another to integrate them permanently into a larger political unit. Some states are better integrated than others. Concerning the history of Spain the level of integration of territories was different in Castile and in Aragon. Castilian kings did a jolly good job in integrating Castile, Leon, Galicia, Extremadura, Murcia or Andalucia into a one firmly united realm.

 This is why the kings of the Crown of Castile were really more powerful than the kings of the Crown of Aragon as Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, Catalonia, Sicily or Naples never fully integrated as one single unit.  

Territories of the Crown of Aragon in the 16th century

Depending on the “model of integration” some states are more powerful than others. So it is about time to study different models of integration prior to the process of the Communitarian European integration started in 1950.  We will examine today in Teaching Guide 8 some of them. And some others in Teaching Guide 9. Let’s start with the Composite Monarchy.

THE COMPOSITE MONARCHY

 The oldest European model of integration of European States was the Composite monarchy. This occurs when a king becomes simultaneously the monarch of different kingdoms, a situation that does not mean however full unification as, at least initially, in Composite monarchies every member kingdom originally keeps its own “constitutional” status intact. And that includes: their own political institutions (Assembly of States), their own law and courts, and also, usually, a set of customs barrier protection. To understand how a Composite Monarchy works lets analyze two examples: The Spanish Monarchy and the United Kingdom. 

a) The Spanish Monarchy

Spain is not a completely unified state because historically it was formed as a result of the Reconquest, that is the fight against the Muslims to retrieve the peninsular territory. As it lasted from 711 to 1492 the final result was that at the end the unity of the Visigothic kingdom of Toledo fully disappeared, and was replaced by different kingdoms or territories that became separate political units

The Spanish Reconquest in the 11th century

 From the conquest of the Muslim kingdom of Granada, in january 1492, to the present, Spain was not a unity but an amalgam of different kingdoms. This is why the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset speaks of an "Invertebrated Spain". And this for such a long period of its history that it explains that the actual 1978 Constitution has defined Spain as the “State of the Autonomies” (a structure created by the "Integral State" constructed by the 1931 Second Republic Constitution). Lets say that "Autonomies" are territories with a very large self government. There are 17 actually, as you can see in the following map.

The actual map of Spanish Autonomies

 The actual situation is largely due to the fact that the Catholic Kings (1474-1504) did not integrate Castile and Aragon. The Crown of Castile was a unified state and the Crown of Aragon a Composite monarchy. Isabel (Queen of Castile) and Fernando (King of Aragon) did not unify their Spanish domains. In fact the Catholic Monarchy (it was the official name of the Spanish Monarchy) became itself a Composite Monarchy.  

The Catholic Kings: Isabella and Ferdinand

And neither did change this state of things Isabel and Fernando's grandson Carlos I (V). Castile was a fully integrated State and the Crown of Aragon was not. This is why in the Catholic Composite Monarchy Castille ended being the dominant kingdom, and the common language was Castilian. In Spain we speak Castilian an not Catalan because of this. Because the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon: Aragón Valencia, Mallorca and the Principate of Catalonia, remained separated and not integrated during the 16th and 17th centuries the monarchy relied on the strength of the Castilian State

Spain at the end of the Middle Ages

It was not until the Spanish Succession War (1704-1715) that ended with the defeat of Aragon, Valencia, Aragon and Mallorca that these kingdoms lost their autonomy and self government. In fact they were integrated and unified in Castile thanks to the "Decretos de Nueva Planta". Because Philip V as victorious king imposed on the defeated the unification. Only were spared Navarre and the Basks provinces because they had not rebelled against Philip V. Therefore they could keep their own separate constitutional and legal frame. At least until the Carlists wars (1833-1876) in which both territories, as they did not want a woman but a man in the spanish throne, rebelled against Elisabeth II. As they lost the three wars, as punishment they got integrated in the Spanish State: Navarre in 1841, and Alava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya in 1876. 

Navarre and the Bask Provinces today

 Spain was more or less an integrated State in 1900.  Especially because after 1833, Javier de Burgos, a Minister of the Regent Maria Cristina, Ferdinand VII’s widow, divided Spain in the provinces that still  today exist. 

Map of Spanish provinces in 1833

But the tradition of the Composite monarchy did not disappear entirely and Spain is not today a completely unified state as the independentists movements of Catalonia and the Basq country show. A part of these Territories’s population want to secede from Spain, France and Italy and become citizens of a new state: the Bask and the Catalan Republics. But easier said than done. Independentists so far are not, by far, the majority of the population. 

 The conclusion however of the territorial history of Spain is that the composite monarchy model as far as integration is concerned has not been a fully operative model, and this why Spain, unlike France, is not  today a strong and unified state

Another example of a composite monarchy is the United Kingdom (integrating England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) a State that despite its name is not as fully integrated as it seems. This is why, for instance in soccer international competitions we have a national team for England and another for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, for instance. So far the Bask and Catalan soccer players play with the Spanish national team. 

b) The UK

Besides the Spanish State, another interesting State is the UK which originally was another omposite monarchy. The center of the Monarchy, England, integrated Wales in the 16th century and Scotland in the 17th-18th centuries, forming the United Kingdom with the Union Jack

They also integrated Ireland from 1800 to 1922. Though now it integrates only Northern Ireland, as the Ireland Act of 1949 established that the region would not cease to be part of the United Kingdom unless its own Parliament decides otherwise. 

 But the British union is not as solid as it appears. Ireland became in the 20th century an independent State (with the exception of Northern Ireland). Scotland has since 1998 its own Parliament and its own government, and many Scottish want to be independent from the UK, though the referendum of 2014 failed.  Also in 1998 Northern Ireland, as a result of the Belfast Agreement, intended to bring together the two communities (nationalists and unionists), was created the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont Belfast and a Northern Ireland Executive.

It is interesting that Scotland and Northern Ireland citizens were not happy with the Brexit as they preferred to “Bremain” in the EU. In fact the Northern Irish are so unhappy with Brexit that they required a special status concerning customs: the Northern Ireland Protocol or Backstop. In fact it means that despite Brexit Northern Ireland is still in the Common European Market

Map of the Irish Backstop

 Again in the case of the UK, the Composite monarchy system does not guarantee a strong unified State. This is why some other models of integration appeared. One of them is the Confederation of States. The best example is Switzerland, the land of “cantons”. 

THE SWISS CONFEDERATION

 The Confederation formula is a stronger union than the Composite Monarchy. It was the first system of integration in the United States, from 1777 to 1787, before the establishment of the Federal Union that we will study in TG 9. Also during the American Civil War (1861-1865) the Southern States seceded from the US Federal State (the Union) and formed a new Confederation. 

But the idea of a Confederation is not American it appeared in Europe. And more concretely in Switzerland.

 The origins of the Swiss Confederation, get back to the Rutli Oath in 1291 that initially concerned only three cantons: Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden. Switzerland as a Confederation received full international recognition in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Today 26 cantons are member states of the Swiss Confederation (Confederatio Helvetica).

 

 If it is mopre efficient than the Composite monarchy, however, the Confederation it is not a powerful way of integration. In fact it gives an extremely decentralized model of integration. This is why in the Helvetic Confederation the 26 cantons have more power than the federal government in Bern. Even today. A Confederation is therefore also a quite weak form of integration. And this is why the United States in 1787 gave up the Confederate model and opted for a Federal Union, as we will see in the next Teaching Guide. 

 As integrating different States is a difficult task, sometimes rulers try an easiest way that only requires partial unification. A system that usually concerns only economics, as it is easier to agree on money than in politics. The first example was the German Custom Union called Zollverein.   

THE "ZOLLVEREIN": A FIRST APPROACH TO PARTIAL INTEGRATION 

 Integrating politically the European states was an impossible task in the 19th century, and age of fierce nationalisms. But sometimes the political or economic needs forced some states to get together for developing ways of partial integration. It was the case of the Metternich System based in the Holy Alliance of 1815 that disappeared completely in 1848.  Another example was the very interesting Customs Union of the German speaking States headed by Prussia and called the Zollverein. It was created in 1818 and consolidated by 1834, and constitutes an important precedent of the present Communitarian Europe.  



INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 191 to 203), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 205-209) the crucial dates are the following: 

Survival of the Universal Model: 

800, 962, 1804, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918 and 1933-1945. 

Crown of Aragon: 

1137, 1164-1196, 1276, 1283, 1349, 1442, 1474-1504 (Catholic kings), 1517-1556 (Carlos I), 1707-1716 (Nueva Planta Decrees), 1841 (Navarra Ley Paccionada), 1876 (Full integration of Basq Provinces), 18178 (Concierto económico), 1931 (Estado integral), 1978 (Estado de las autonomías).

The United Kingdom: 

1535-1542 (Integration of Wales), 1603, 1707, 1800-1922 (Irish integration in the UK), 1997 and 2014, September 18. 

Swiss Confederation: 

1291, 1648 , 1848. 

Holy Alliance:

1815-1848

Zollverein: 

1818, 1834. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Advantages and disadvantages of unified and decentralized states? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think of the “España de las Autonomías”. Consider the positive aspects of this extreme decentralized system and the inconveniences. For instance looking at how Spain faced the Covid pandemic. Do you find fair that the citizens of the Basks provinces and from Navarre pay less taxes that the rest of Spaniards? Do you think a common education and language should be guaranteed everywhere in the State?

2. Compare with the most centralized state in the world: France. Do you think education, taxing, Social Security, Courts and Law should be the same for every one? Responding to the idea that all citizens should be equal before the law?

3. Consider what is the ethnic background of Ukrainian present State that has led to Putin's invasion. You can inspire yourself in the following map of the languages spoken in Ukraine.