Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical framework developed in the book along with a short history of ratification. International treaties are defined as public, legal mechanisms by ...
More
This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical framework developed in the book along with a short history of ratification. International treaties are defined as public, legal mechanisms by which states demonstrate their commitment to address common problems. The study presents a post-commitment politics approach building on theories of two-level games and double-edged diplomacy. Research questions to be examined include: How do the political requirements for ratification of an international agreement compare across democratic systems? What conditions influence the likelihood of ratification success? What conditions lead to failure? Why would treaty ratification processes ever fail if the chief negotiators are fully aware of domestic political constraints?Less
This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical framework developed in the book along with a short history of ratification. International treaties are defined as public, legal mechanisms by which states demonstrate their commitment to address common problems. The study presents a post-commitment politics approach building on theories of two-level games and double-edged diplomacy. Research questions to be examined include: How do the political requirements for ratification of an international agreement compare across democratic systems? What conditions influence the likelihood of ratification success? What conditions lead to failure? Why would treaty ratification processes ever fail if the chief negotiators are fully aware of domestic political constraints?
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This chapter surveys the countries and treaties in the study. It outlines the comparative case study method that will be used throughout the book to explore episodes of treaty ratification struggles, ...
More
This chapter surveys the countries and treaties in the study. It outlines the comparative case study method that will be used throughout the book to explore episodes of treaty ratification struggles, including breakdowns and near-breakdowns of international cooperation. Selection of the types of case studies to examine is based upon several criteria, including their fit to the relevant variables in the study and representation of contemporary debates on treaty ratification. Cases represent a range of democratic political systems, in three distinct regions of the world, with key institutional differences. Finally, the chapter examines the actual treaty ratification processes in the five democracies under study: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the United States.Less
This chapter surveys the countries and treaties in the study. It outlines the comparative case study method that will be used throughout the book to explore episodes of treaty ratification struggles, including breakdowns and near-breakdowns of international cooperation. Selection of the types of case studies to examine is based upon several criteria, including their fit to the relevant variables in the study and representation of contemporary debates on treaty ratification. Cases represent a range of democratic political systems, in three distinct regions of the world, with key institutional differences. Finally, the chapter examines the actual treaty ratification processes in the five democracies under study: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the United States.
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This book studies international treaty ratification processes in multiple issue areas. This study sets out to fill a gap in political science scholarship by investigating the role that international ...
More
This book studies international treaty ratification processes in multiple issue areas. This study sets out to fill a gap in political science scholarship by investigating the role that international and domestic political actors and conditions play in the critical, post-commitment phase of cooperation. The book employs the comparative case study method, drawing on original research, elite interviews, and discursive analyses of government documents in Europe, Australia, and North America. Cases examine a select number of treaties on trade cooperation, the environment, European integration, and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. It concludes that the role of norms and executive strategies play an especially significant role in shaping ratification outcomes. It is argued that the book will appeal to a broad audience interested in the question of whether international treaties remain powerful instruments for cooperation in the twenty-first century.Less
This book studies international treaty ratification processes in multiple issue areas. This study sets out to fill a gap in political science scholarship by investigating the role that international and domestic political actors and conditions play in the critical, post-commitment phase of cooperation. The book employs the comparative case study method, drawing on original research, elite interviews, and discursive analyses of government documents in Europe, Australia, and North America. Cases examine a select number of treaties on trade cooperation, the environment, European integration, and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. It concludes that the role of norms and executive strategies play an especially significant role in shaping ratification outcomes. It is argued that the book will appeal to a broad audience interested in the question of whether international treaties remain powerful instruments for cooperation in the twenty-first century.
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This chapter examines the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It begins with a survey of the history of the treaty and the negotiation process. The chapter then ...
More
This chapter examines the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It begins with a survey of the history of the treaty and the negotiation process. The chapter then systematically reviews Canadian and U.S. ratification processes, exploring the role of international and domestic political conditions in shaping the positive ratification outcomes. It is argued that while the Canadian government provided general support for the treaty, NAFTA was highly controversial in the United States and nearly failed to attain sufficient support in the Congress.Less
This chapter examines the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It begins with a survey of the history of the treaty and the negotiation process. The chapter then systematically reviews Canadian and U.S. ratification processes, exploring the role of international and domestic political conditions in shaping the positive ratification outcomes. It is argued that while the Canadian government provided general support for the treaty, NAFTA was highly controversial in the United States and nearly failed to attain sufficient support in the Congress.
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
The 1991 Maastricht Treaty on European Union (TEU) represented a dramatic new phase of European integration. The treaty called for intensified political integration, greater centralization of power ...
More
The 1991 Maastricht Treaty on European Union (TEU) represented a dramatic new phase of European integration. The treaty called for intensified political integration, greater centralization of power in Brussels, and monetary union. Leading states including France and Germany made clear their commitment to see the treaty through to full implementation rapidly. However, controversial ratification processes soon unfolded in the post-commitment politics phases in both countries. In France, the TEU ratification struggle led to the near collapse of popular support for integration, and in a referendum in September 1992 passed by a narrow majority. Germany was one of the architects of the Treaty on European Union, yet it, too, experienced serious domestic political debates in the ratification phase.Less
The 1991 Maastricht Treaty on European Union (TEU) represented a dramatic new phase of European integration. The treaty called for intensified political integration, greater centralization of power in Brussels, and monetary union. Leading states including France and Germany made clear their commitment to see the treaty through to full implementation rapidly. However, controversial ratification processes soon unfolded in the post-commitment politics phases in both countries. In France, the TEU ratification struggle led to the near collapse of popular support for integration, and in a referendum in September 1992 passed by a narrow majority. Germany was one of the architects of the Treaty on European Union, yet it, too, experienced serious domestic political debates in the ratification phase.
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This chapter examines the history of global environmental policies as foundation for a focused examination of ratification struggles over the Kyoto Protocol to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Five ...
More
This chapter examines the history of global environmental policies as foundation for a focused examination of ratification struggles over the Kyoto Protocol to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Five case studies are presented. Struggles over the Kyoto agreement in Australia and the United States may represent classic cases of domestic constraints on international commitments. In early 2001 both governments announced their decision not to ratify the treaty. The Kyoto Protocol also touched off an intense debate over international environmental policy and sovereignty in Canada. At the same time, France and Germany were leading players in international diplomacy that helped to develop the Kyoto Protocol, and they were instrumental in pushing for ratification by all EU member states.Less
This chapter examines the history of global environmental policies as foundation for a focused examination of ratification struggles over the Kyoto Protocol to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Five case studies are presented. Struggles over the Kyoto agreement in Australia and the United States may represent classic cases of domestic constraints on international commitments. In early 2001 both governments announced their decision not to ratify the treaty. The Kyoto Protocol also touched off an intense debate over international environmental policy and sovereignty in Canada. At the same time, France and Germany were leading players in international diplomacy that helped to develop the Kyoto Protocol, and they were instrumental in pushing for ratification by all EU member states.
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This chapter examines the development of the 2004 Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). Government leaders who completed negotiations on the treaty in 2004 believed that it would be ...
More
This chapter examines the development of the 2004 Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). Government leaders who completed negotiations on the treaty in 2004 believed that it would be a “win–win” deal for the two advanced industrialized nations; they would build on an already-strong bilateral trade relationship to create a plan that eliminated tariff barriers stretching across the Pacific Ocean. Yet AUSFTA became the most controversial trade agreement in Australia's history, and the government nearly failed to ratify it.Less
This chapter examines the development of the 2004 Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). Government leaders who completed negotiations on the treaty in 2004 believed that it would be a “win–win” deal for the two advanced industrialized nations; they would build on an already-strong bilateral trade relationship to create a plan that eliminated tariff barriers stretching across the Pacific Ocean. Yet AUSFTA became the most controversial trade agreement in Australia's history, and the government nearly failed to ratify it.
Jeffrey S. Lantis
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199535019
- eISBN:
- 9780191715952
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535019.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
This chapter analyzes data from eighteen case studies and draws conclusions regarding the significance of ratification processes. Broad lessons of this study are that the ratification process can be ...
More
This chapter analyzes data from eighteen case studies and draws conclusions regarding the significance of ratification processes. Broad lessons of this study are that the ratification process can be highly controversial, produce a significant amount of political exchange, and alter state behavior. Indeed, eleven out of eighteen case studies showed signs of moderate or high amounts of political controversy during the ratification stage. The chapter also summarizes insights on the puzzle of treaty near-failures and failures in democratic systems, illuminating the importance of system pressures, executive strategies for ratification, interest group mobilization, and regime type (manifest in executive–legislative relations). Evidence showing increasing controversy in democratic systems regarding multilateral treaties raises difficult questions for international cooperation in the 21st century. Finally, the chapter discusses avenues for additional investigation including empirical study of the links between ratification mechanisms and outcomes.Less
This chapter analyzes data from eighteen case studies and draws conclusions regarding the significance of ratification processes. Broad lessons of this study are that the ratification process can be highly controversial, produce a significant amount of political exchange, and alter state behavior. Indeed, eleven out of eighteen case studies showed signs of moderate or high amounts of political controversy during the ratification stage. The chapter also summarizes insights on the puzzle of treaty near-failures and failures in democratic systems, illuminating the importance of system pressures, executive strategies for ratification, interest group mobilization, and regime type (manifest in executive–legislative relations). Evidence showing increasing controversy in democratic systems regarding multilateral treaties raises difficult questions for international cooperation in the 21st century. Finally, the chapter discusses avenues for additional investigation including empirical study of the links between ratification mechanisms and outcomes.
Iain Mclean
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199546954
- eISBN:
- 9780191720031
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546954.003.0015
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, UK Politics
Summary of previous discussion. Can Diceyanism be revived without Dicey? The case for Parliamentary sovereignty—but that must entail an elected Parliament. The case for counter‐majoritarianism. ...
More
Summary of previous discussion. Can Diceyanism be revived without Dicey? The case for Parliamentary sovereignty—but that must entail an elected Parliament. The case for counter‐majoritarianism. Strong entrenchment of EU law. Justified on pragmatic, not democratic, grounds. EU polices supranational public goods and bads, and therefore needs some supranational powers. Weak entrenchment of human rights law: the model for entrenchment of other constitutional laws. What is a constitutional statute?—the list in Thoburn. Discrete and insular minorities. Origin of the phrase in the United States; its applicability in United Kingdom. Comity between courts and parliament. How we the people of the United Republic might ordain to ourselves a constitution.Less
Summary of previous discussion. Can Diceyanism be revived without Dicey? The case for Parliamentary sovereignty—but that must entail an elected Parliament. The case for counter‐majoritarianism. Strong entrenchment of EU law. Justified on pragmatic, not democratic, grounds. EU polices supranational public goods and bads, and therefore needs some supranational powers. Weak entrenchment of human rights law: the model for entrenchment of other constitutional laws. What is a constitutional statute?—the list in Thoburn. Discrete and insular minorities. Origin of the phrase in the United States; its applicability in United Kingdom. Comity between courts and parliament. How we the people of the United Republic might ordain to ourselves a constitution.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
In this new interpretation of America's origins, the author argues that during the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a state able to act vigorously in ...
More
In this new interpretation of America's origins, the author argues that during the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a state able to act vigorously in defense of American national interests. By transferring the powers of war making and resource extraction from states to the national government, the US Constitution created a nation‐state invested with all the important powers of Europe's eighteenth‐century “fiscal‐military states.” However, the political traditions and institutions of America, whose people had a deeply ingrained distrust of unduly concentrated authority, were incompatible with a strong centralized government based on the European pattern. To secure the adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists needed to build a very different state – they had to accommodate the formation of a powerful national government to the strong current of anti‐statism in the American political tradition. They did so by designing an administration that would be powerful in times of crisis, but would make limited demands on citizens and entailed sharp restrictions on the physical presence of the national government in society. The Constitution was the Federalists’ promise of the benefits of government without its costs – statecraft rather than strong central authority as the solution to governing. The book takes advantage of a newly published edition of the constitutional debates in recovering a neglected strand of Federalist argument, and making a case for rethinking the formation of the federal American state. It is arranged in three main parts: I. Interpreting the Debate over Ratification (four chapters); II. Military Powers (five chapters); and III. Fiscal Powers (five chapters).Less
In this new interpretation of America's origins, the author argues that during the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were primarily concerned with building a state able to act vigorously in defense of American national interests. By transferring the powers of war making and resource extraction from states to the national government, the US Constitution created a nation‐state invested with all the important powers of Europe's eighteenth‐century “fiscal‐military states.” However, the political traditions and institutions of America, whose people had a deeply ingrained distrust of unduly concentrated authority, were incompatible with a strong centralized government based on the European pattern. To secure the adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists needed to build a very different state – they had to accommodate the formation of a powerful national government to the strong current of anti‐statism in the American political tradition. They did so by designing an administration that would be powerful in times of crisis, but would make limited demands on citizens and entailed sharp restrictions on the physical presence of the national government in society. The Constitution was the Federalists’ promise of the benefits of government without its costs – statecraft rather than strong central authority as the solution to governing. The book takes advantage of a newly published edition of the constitutional debates in recovering a neglected strand of Federalist argument, and making a case for rethinking the formation of the federal American state. It is arranged in three main parts: I. Interpreting the Debate over Ratification (four chapters); II. Military Powers (five chapters); and III. Fiscal Powers (five chapters).
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Argues that the role of debate in the struggle over ratification was significant to the adoption of the US Constitution because public debate was a necessary step in the decision‐making process ...
More
Argues that the role of debate in the struggle over ratification was significant to the adoption of the US Constitution because public debate was a necessary step in the decision‐making process leading to its ratification. It was a necessary step because adoption would not have been legitimate without the possibility of public debate, but the debate was also significant in another way: it provided the first widely shared and detailed interpretation of important clauses of the Constitution. This original elucidation of the meaning of the Constitution later served as the point of origin for constitutional interpretation in the political life of the early republic – an authoritative source for establishing the meaning of the Constitution.Less
Argues that the role of debate in the struggle over ratification was significant to the adoption of the US Constitution because public debate was a necessary step in the decision‐making process leading to its ratification. It was a necessary step because adoption would not have been legitimate without the possibility of public debate, but the debate was also significant in another way: it provided the first widely shared and detailed interpretation of important clauses of the Constitution. This original elucidation of the meaning of the Constitution later served as the point of origin for constitutional interpretation in the political life of the early republic – an authoritative source for establishing the meaning of the Constitution.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
The first two sections of this chapter discuss the two main approaches to the analysis of the ratification debate over the US Constitution. Until the late 1960s, the predominant interpretation ...
More
The first two sections of this chapter discuss the two main approaches to the analysis of the ratification debate over the US Constitution. Until the late 1960s, the predominant interpretation described the debate over ratification as a conflict between “aristocratic” and “democratic” ideals and interests, but at about that time, scholars began to shift to a second approach that used the terms “liberalism” and “classical republicanism” to account for ideological differences during the revolutionary era; this shift was also accompanied by a change in the interpreters’ concerns away from social struggle toward the study of the development of political ideas. The argument presented here is that the terminology so far favored by historians and political scientists has obscured important aspects of the ideological differences between the Federalists and their opponents because it has drawn attention away from the actual issues debated during the ratification struggle. This claim can be supported in different ways, but the approach used here is to look closely at what prominent interpreters say about the limits of their own interpretation, even though this it risks being unfair to the perspectives reviewed. The last two sections of the chapter present an approach that promises better to capture the essence of the ideological disagreement between the Federalists and the Antifederalists as presented in the debate over ratification, and suggest that the debate is best seen as neither about democracy nor about liberalism, but about state formation.Less
The first two sections of this chapter discuss the two main approaches to the analysis of the ratification debate over the US Constitution. Until the late 1960s, the predominant interpretation described the debate over ratification as a conflict between “aristocratic” and “democratic” ideals and interests, but at about that time, scholars began to shift to a second approach that used the terms “liberalism” and “classical republicanism” to account for ideological differences during the revolutionary era; this shift was also accompanied by a change in the interpreters’ concerns away from social struggle toward the study of the development of political ideas. The argument presented here is that the terminology so far favored by historians and political scientists has obscured important aspects of the ideological differences between the Federalists and their opponents because it has drawn attention away from the actual issues debated during the ratification struggle. This claim can be supported in different ways, but the approach used here is to look closely at what prominent interpreters say about the limits of their own interpretation, even though this it risks being unfair to the perspectives reviewed. The last two sections of the chapter present an approach that promises better to capture the essence of the ideological disagreement between the Federalists and the Antifederalists as presented in the debate over ratification, and suggest that the debate is best seen as neither about democracy nor about liberalism, but about state formation.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
In order to interpret the debate over the ratification of the US Constitution as a debate over state formation, it is necessary to know something both about the development of the European state in ...
More
In order to interpret the debate over the ratification of the US Constitution as a debate over state formation, it is necessary to know something both about the development of the European state in the early modern period and about the ideological response that this development generated. The aim of this chapter is therefore to provide a historical sociology of state building. The first three sections discuss the development of the British state after the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 (the deposition of James II and the accession of William III and Mary II to the English throne), concentrating on Britain not because it was by far the most common point of reference in the ratification debate, but rather because no other government was nearly as successful as the British when it came to raising taxes and mobilizing resources and men. The emphasis on discussion of Britain is not meant to imply that the Constitution was adopted in order to introduce a British “fiscal‐military state” in America, but rather to demonstrate that there were certain limits to the expansion of the central government in the USA that did not apply in Britain. Precisely for this reason, the state created by the Federalists was very different from the contemporary British state, and the last two sections of the chapter address the basis of these differences.Less
In order to interpret the debate over the ratification of the US Constitution as a debate over state formation, it is necessary to know something both about the development of the European state in the early modern period and about the ideological response that this development generated. The aim of this chapter is therefore to provide a historical sociology of state building. The first three sections discuss the development of the British state after the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 (the deposition of James II and the accession of William III and Mary II to the English throne), concentrating on Britain not because it was by far the most common point of reference in the ratification debate, but rather because no other government was nearly as successful as the British when it came to raising taxes and mobilizing resources and men. The emphasis on discussion of Britain is not meant to imply that the Constitution was adopted in order to introduce a British “fiscal‐military state” in America, but rather to demonstrate that there were certain limits to the expansion of the central government in the USA that did not apply in Britain. Precisely for this reason, the state created by the Federalists was very different from the contemporary British state, and the last two sections of the chapter address the basis of these differences.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Chapter 8 and the corresponding Ch. 13 in Part Three of the book show how the Federalists responded to the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, ...
More
Chapter 8 and the corresponding Ch. 13 in Part Three of the book show how the Federalists responded to the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, thereby creating an understanding of the kind of state that was proper to American conditions. In their defense of the military clauses of the US Constitution, the Federalists argued for the need to maintain a peace establishment of regulars, also arguing that the national government had to possess an unrestricted power over mobilization; in Federalist minds, both military professionalism and the unlimited power over mobilization were necessary to preserve the independence, liberties, and interests of the American nation. The Antifederalists, by contrast, raised objections to the right of Congress to create and maintain a standing army in time of peace, and were also concerned about the unrestricted nature of Congress's military powers. Their objections can be subsumed under three headings: first, they believed that the new system of government would change the administration of the laws from an administration based on the consent of the governed to an administration based on coercion or the threat of force; second, they believed that the national government would create a large army while neglecting the state militia, so that as a consequence, the national government would become independent of the people and be able to establish tyrannical rule; and third, the critics of the Constitution believed that Congress had been granted too much power to interfere in the private lives of the citizens through its command over the militia. In the debate over ratification, the Federalists answered these objections, and in doing so, they argued that it was possible to create a strong state without abandoning traditional Anglo‐American ideals about free government; their answers are the subject of this chapter.Less
Chapter 8 and the corresponding Ch. 13 in Part Three of the book show how the Federalists responded to the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, thereby creating an understanding of the kind of state that was proper to American conditions. In their defense of the military clauses of the US Constitution, the Federalists argued for the need to maintain a peace establishment of regulars, also arguing that the national government had to possess an unrestricted power over mobilization; in Federalist minds, both military professionalism and the unlimited power over mobilization were necessary to preserve the independence, liberties, and interests of the American nation. The Antifederalists, by contrast, raised objections to the right of Congress to create and maintain a standing army in time of peace, and were also concerned about the unrestricted nature of Congress's military powers. Their objections can be subsumed under three headings: first, they believed that the new system of government would change the administration of the laws from an administration based on the consent of the governed to an administration based on coercion or the threat of force; second, they believed that the national government would create a large army while neglecting the state militia, so that as a consequence, the national government would become independent of the people and be able to establish tyrannical rule; and third, the critics of the Constitution believed that Congress had been granted too much power to interfere in the private lives of the citizens through its command over the militia. In the debate over ratification, the Federalists answered these objections, and in doing so, they argued that it was possible to create a strong state without abandoning traditional Anglo‐American ideals about free government; their answers are the subject of this chapter.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0014
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
Shows how the Federalists responded to the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, thereby creating an understanding of the kind of state that was ...
More
Shows how the Federalists responded to the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, thereby creating an understanding of the kind of state that was proper to American conditions. In the debate over ratification of the US Constitution there was little discussion about the exact way in which the Federalists intended to organize the revenue administration, but nevertheless, it is the argument of this chapter that with the important exception of the assumption of the state debts, the general outline of Hamiltonian public finance was in place in 1787, and widely shared by the supporters of the Constitution. Thus, the idea that the least oppressive tax was also the most productive, the claim that adoption of the Constitution would mean a change in the structure of taxation from direct to indirect taxes and a reliance on the impost (customs duties), and the ideal of the federal government as a “waterfront state” hardly noticed by the people, were all among the most important points made in Federalist rhetoric on the fiscal powers of the Constitution. In the ratifying debate, the Federalists presented a solution to the equation of how to create a sufficiently powerful government without making unacceptable demands on society: the federal government had the right to mobilize the full resources of society at will, but in peacetime it would keep a very low profile while assuming the payment of the union's debts and the cost of defense using money raised by taxation. This federal assumption of expenses that had earlier been carried by the states, and the mode of raising the taxes to pay for it ensured that overall taxation would not increase, as the Antifederalists claimed, but would become less burdensome to the majority of the people.Less
Shows how the Federalists responded to the Antifederalist objections to a stronger national government in the “fiscal‐military” sphere, thereby creating an understanding of the kind of state that was proper to American conditions. In the debate over ratification of the US Constitution there was little discussion about the exact way in which the Federalists intended to organize the revenue administration, but nevertheless, it is the argument of this chapter that with the important exception of the assumption of the state debts, the general outline of Hamiltonian public finance was in place in 1787, and widely shared by the supporters of the Constitution. Thus, the idea that the least oppressive tax was also the most productive, the claim that adoption of the Constitution would mean a change in the structure of taxation from direct to indirect taxes and a reliance on the impost (customs duties), and the ideal of the federal government as a “waterfront state” hardly noticed by the people, were all among the most important points made in Federalist rhetoric on the fiscal powers of the Constitution. In the ratifying debate, the Federalists presented a solution to the equation of how to create a sufficiently powerful government without making unacceptable demands on society: the federal government had the right to mobilize the full resources of society at will, but in peacetime it would keep a very low profile while assuming the payment of the union's debts and the cost of defense using money raised by taxation. This federal assumption of expenses that had earlier been carried by the states, and the mode of raising the taxes to pay for it ensured that overall taxation would not increase, as the Antifederalists claimed, but would become less burdensome to the majority of the people.
Max. M Edling
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195148701
- eISBN:
- 9780199835096
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195148703.003.0016
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
The conclusion ends the book with an explication of the Federalists’ idea of an American national state.It starts by pointing out that the ratification of the US Constitution did not mean the end of ...
More
The conclusion ends the book with an explication of the Federalists’ idea of an American national state.It starts by pointing out that the ratification of the US Constitution did not mean the end of politics, nor the end of the debate about the future course of the American republic, for now the Federalists faced the next step of state building: creating the institutions of government that would realize their ideas about a national state in America. The mainstream interpretation of the Federalist argument presents it as a call for limited government and protection of minority rights, but this study has offered a different interpretation. It sees the Federalist argument as an attempt to convince the American public about the need to build a powerful state and to explain how this state would work – the idea of an American national state that the Federalists developed during the ratification debate was the result of creative thinking in the face of serious challenges. This conclusion is devoted to an explication of both the challenge that the Federalists faced and the concept of the state they developed, but the basic issue may be summed up as follows: what the Federalists had to do, and what they did, in the debate over ratification, was to develop a conceptual framework that made it possible to accommodate the creation of a powerful national government to the strong anti‐statist current in the American political tradition.Less
The conclusion ends the book with an explication of the Federalists’ idea of an American national state.
It starts by pointing out that the ratification of the US Constitution did not mean the end of politics, nor the end of the debate about the future course of the American republic, for now the Federalists faced the next step of state building: creating the institutions of government that would realize their ideas about a national state in America. The mainstream interpretation of the Federalist argument presents it as a call for limited government and protection of minority rights, but this study has offered a different interpretation. It sees the Federalist argument as an attempt to convince the American public about the need to build a powerful state and to explain how this state would work – the idea of an American national state that the Federalists developed during the ratification debate was the result of creative thinking in the face of serious challenges. This conclusion is devoted to an explication of both the challenge that the Federalists faced and the concept of the state they developed, but the basic issue may be summed up as follows: what the Federalists had to do, and what they did, in the debate over ratification, was to develop a conceptual framework that made it possible to accommodate the creation of a powerful national government to the strong anti‐statist current in the American political tradition.
Michael Banton
- Published in print:
- 1996
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198280613
- eISBN:
- 9780191598760
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198280610.003.0010
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
There appears to have been more genuine idealism in the approach of American states than in other regions. CERD has questioned states in this region concerning the implications of the Convention for ...
More
There appears to have been more genuine idealism in the approach of American states than in other regions. CERD has questioned states in this region concerning the implications of the Convention for the protection of indigenous peoples. The USA's ratification of the Convention in 1994 was subject to reservations that are controversial in international law.Less
There appears to have been more genuine idealism in the approach of American states than in other regions. CERD has questioned states in this region concerning the implications of the Convention for the protection of indigenous peoples. The USA's ratification of the Convention in 1994 was subject to reservations that are controversial in international law.
Michael Banton
- Published in print:
- 1996
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198280613
- eISBN:
- 9780191598760
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198280610.003.0011
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
The collection of census data on the ethnic origin of the population poses political problems for many black African states. The discrimination that led towards genocide in Rwanda and Burundi was of ...
More
The collection of census data on the ethnic origin of the population poses political problems for many black African states. The discrimination that led towards genocide in Rwanda and Burundi was of particular concern from 1989. South Africa had not ratified the ICERD at the time of writing.Less
The collection of census data on the ethnic origin of the population poses political problems for many black African states. The discrimination that led towards genocide in Rwanda and Burundi was of particular concern from 1989. South Africa had not ratified the ICERD at the time of writing.
Daniel Finke, Thomas König, Sven-Oliver Proksch, and George Tsebelis
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691153926
- eISBN:
- 9781400842506
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691153926.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
For decades the European Union tried changing its institutions, but achieved only unsatisfying political compromises and modest, incremental treaty revisions. In late 2009, however, the EU was ...
More
For decades the European Union tried changing its institutions, but achieved only unsatisfying political compromises and modest, incremental treaty revisions. In late 2009, however, the EU was successfully reformed through the Treaty of Lisbon. This book examines how political leaders ratified this treaty against all odds and shows how this victory involved all stages of treaty reform negotiations—from the initial proposal to referendums in several European countries. The book emphasizes the strategic role of political leadership and domestic politics, and it uses state-of-the-art methodology, applying a comprehensive data set for actors' reform preferences. The book looks at how political leaders reacted to apparent failures of the process by recreating or changing the rules of the game. While domestic actors played a significant role in the process, their influence over the outcome was limited as leaders ignored negative referendums and plowed ahead with intended reforms. The book's empirical analyses shed light on critical episodes: strategic agenda setting during the European Convention, the choice of ratification instrument, intergovernmental bargaining dynamics, and the reaction of the German Council presidency to the negative referendums in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland.Less
For decades the European Union tried changing its institutions, but achieved only unsatisfying political compromises and modest, incremental treaty revisions. In late 2009, however, the EU was successfully reformed through the Treaty of Lisbon. This book examines how political leaders ratified this treaty against all odds and shows how this victory involved all stages of treaty reform negotiations—from the initial proposal to referendums in several European countries. The book emphasizes the strategic role of political leadership and domestic politics, and it uses state-of-the-art methodology, applying a comprehensive data set for actors' reform preferences. The book looks at how political leaders reacted to apparent failures of the process by recreating or changing the rules of the game. While domestic actors played a significant role in the process, their influence over the outcome was limited as leaders ignored negative referendums and plowed ahead with intended reforms. The book's empirical analyses shed light on critical episodes: strategic agenda setting during the European Convention, the choice of ratification instrument, intergovernmental bargaining dynamics, and the reaction of the German Council presidency to the negative referendums in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland.
Craig T. Borowiak
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199778256
- eISBN:
- 9780199919086
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199778256.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory, International Relations and Politics
This chapter uses the eighteenth-century ratification debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to reflect upon competing accountability tendencies inherent in representative democracy. ...
More
This chapter uses the eighteenth-century ratification debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to reflect upon competing accountability tendencies inherent in representative democracy. Both sets of authors conceived of electoral accountability mechanisms as part of a politics of control designed to manage the various gaps separating representatives from citizens. However, they had different understandings of what such a politics should entail. Counterintuitively, the Federalists believed that expanding the distances between citizens and representatives could actually enhance the accountability of government. The Anti-Federalists, by contrast, placed greater emphasis upon the pacifying effects accountability institutions can have upon citizens. They believed republican accountability depends on the active participation of diverse citizens, a form of participation that is undermined when government grows distant. Drawn together, these competing visions illustrate numerous pitfalls of institutional design and how republican appeals to accountability can be made to serve conflicting agendas. They demonstrate the need to balance the effects accountability institutions have on government with the effects they have on citizens.Less
This chapter uses the eighteenth-century ratification debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to reflect upon competing accountability tendencies inherent in representative democracy. Both sets of authors conceived of electoral accountability mechanisms as part of a politics of control designed to manage the various gaps separating representatives from citizens. However, they had different understandings of what such a politics should entail. Counterintuitively, the Federalists believed that expanding the distances between citizens and representatives could actually enhance the accountability of government. The Anti-Federalists, by contrast, placed greater emphasis upon the pacifying effects accountability institutions can have upon citizens. They believed republican accountability depends on the active participation of diverse citizens, a form of participation that is undermined when government grows distant. Drawn together, these competing visions illustrate numerous pitfalls of institutional design and how republican appeals to accountability can be made to serve conflicting agendas. They demonstrate the need to balance the effects accountability institutions have on government with the effects they have on citizens.
