权力与责任:联邦制度的政治道德

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Virginia Law Review Pub Date : 2004-04-16 DOI:10.2307/3202399
Daniel Halberstam
{"title":"权力与责任:联邦制度的政治道德","authors":"Daniel Halberstam","doi":"10.2307/3202399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article addresses whether a level or unit of government in a federal system must act only on political self-interest or on an understanding of the needs of the system as a whole. To address this question, this Article compares the dominant U.S. \"entitlements\" approach, which looks only to political self-interest, with the dominant \"fidelity\" approach in the European Union and in Germany, which demands that institutional actors temper political self-interest by considering the well-being of the system as a whole. This Article demonstrates that the fidelity approach actually comes in two significantly different versions: (1) a \"conservative\" fidelity approach, which undermines democratic federalism by seeking to align the diverse interests throughout the federal system, and (2) a \"liberal\" fidelity approach, which promotes democratic federalism by preserving constructive democratic intergovernmental engagement throughout the system. This Article concludes that the former should be rejected, but that the latter warrants our attention in the United States as a promising and hitherto neglected alternative to the dominant U.S. approach based on institutional \"entitlements.\"","PeriodicalId":47840,"journal":{"name":"Virginia Law Review","volume":"90 1","pages":"731"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2004-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3202399","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Of Power and Responsibility: The Political Morality of Federal Systems\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Halberstam\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3202399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article addresses whether a level or unit of government in a federal system must act only on political self-interest or on an understanding of the needs of the system as a whole. To address this question, this Article compares the dominant U.S. \\\"entitlements\\\" approach, which looks only to political self-interest, with the dominant \\\"fidelity\\\" approach in the European Union and in Germany, which demands that institutional actors temper political self-interest by considering the well-being of the system as a whole. This Article demonstrates that the fidelity approach actually comes in two significantly different versions: (1) a \\\"conservative\\\" fidelity approach, which undermines democratic federalism by seeking to align the diverse interests throughout the federal system, and (2) a \\\"liberal\\\" fidelity approach, which promotes democratic federalism by preserving constructive democratic intergovernmental engagement throughout the system. This Article concludes that the former should be rejected, but that the latter warrants our attention in the United States as a promising and hitherto neglected alternative to the dominant U.S. approach based on institutional \\\"entitlements.\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":47840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"731\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3202399\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3202399\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3202399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

本文讨论的是联邦系统中的一级政府或政府单位是否必须仅根据政治自身利益行事,还是根据对整个系统需求的理解行事。为了解决这个问题,本文比较了占主导地位的美国“权利”方法,只关注政治上的自身利益,而在欧盟和德国占主导地位的“忠诚”方法,要求制度参与者通过考虑整个体系的福祉来缓和政治上的自身利益。本文表明,忠诚方法实际上有两个明显不同的版本:(1)“保守”忠诚方法,通过寻求在整个联邦系统中协调各种利益来破坏民主联邦制;(2)“自由”忠诚方法,通过在整个系统中保持建设性的民主政府间参与来促进民主联邦制。本文的结论是,前者应该被拒绝,但后者值得我们在美国关注,因为它是美国基于制度“权利”的主导方法的一种有希望的、迄今为止被忽视的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Of Power and Responsibility: The Political Morality of Federal Systems
This Article addresses whether a level or unit of government in a federal system must act only on political self-interest or on an understanding of the needs of the system as a whole. To address this question, this Article compares the dominant U.S. "entitlements" approach, which looks only to political self-interest, with the dominant "fidelity" approach in the European Union and in Germany, which demands that institutional actors temper political self-interest by considering the well-being of the system as a whole. This Article demonstrates that the fidelity approach actually comes in two significantly different versions: (1) a "conservative" fidelity approach, which undermines democratic federalism by seeking to align the diverse interests throughout the federal system, and (2) a "liberal" fidelity approach, which promotes democratic federalism by preserving constructive democratic intergovernmental engagement throughout the system. This Article concludes that the former should be rejected, but that the latter warrants our attention in the United States as a promising and hitherto neglected alternative to the dominant U.S. approach based on institutional "entitlements."
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country.
期刊最新文献
The God Cure: Spirituality as Therapy. Designing Business Forms to Pursue Social Goals Isolated Lambdoid Craniosynostosis. Unconstitutionally Illegitimate Discrimination Sovereign Immunity and the Constitutional Text
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1