IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v37yi4p551-577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Montesquieu on Federalism and Anglo-Gothic Constitutionalism

Author

Listed:
  • Lee Ward

Abstract

The common perception that Montesquieu is not a major theorist of federalism is due both to the peripheral nature of his account of confederate republics and his praise of the unitary British Constitution in the Spirit of the Laws. This study challenges this view by arguing that, despite his endorsement of the separation of powers, Montesquieu had serious reservations about England's highly centralized system of parliamentary sovereignty. Moreover, his most significant reflections on federalism were not contained in his brief treatment of confederate republics, but rather in his lengthy consideration of Gothic constitutionalism. I conclude that Montesquieu's complex constitutional theory involves two distinct dimensions including both the separation of powers exemplified in England and the federal principles in the decentralized Gothic system of medieval France. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee Ward, 0. "Montesquieu on Federalism and Anglo-Gothic Constitutionalism," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 37(4), pages 551-577.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:37:y::i:4:p:551-577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjm018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:37:y::i:4:p:551-577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.