Talk:Federacy

message: Is this term actually used anywhere besides in the book referenced at the bottom of the article? Argyriou 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In research in the field of comparative federalism. Elazar is not just some book but one of the authoritative sources in field of comparative federalism. See his site for his reputation. But see also Stepan in the Journal of Democracy 10 (4) 1999 pp.19-34, for some theoretical background on federacies. -- C mon 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the adjective of "federacy"? If I want to call the United Kingdom a "... kingdom", I can't say "federated kingdom", since that would imply a federation, but what *should* I use instead? —Nightstallion (?) 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I don't know what the adjective is, I'm not a native speaker. In other texts I have used "federacy-like". -- C mon 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I s'pose Elazar doesn't use any kind of adjective for federacy in his books and texts? —Nightstallion (?) 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea! Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use

message: Should this be merged into the confederation article, which although does talk more about confederation of states, it would be an appropriate term for provinces in a federacy as well. The only difference I can see is that states within confederations still have their own constitution, while provinces in a federacy do not, although they do seem to have a sort of law autonomy. Intangible 15:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against the merger, as this is obviously a terminus technicus distinct from both federations and confederations. —Nightstallion (?) 18:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with Nightstallion that the terms mean different things and should not be merged (the main point is that in a confederation each state has got equal powers, and in a federacy powers are distributed assymetrically), I feel I should say that two terms are etimologically linked with federacy according to some dictionaries being short for confederacy. The terms have got different meanings now. --C mon 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand pretty well the different meanings of the words federation, confederation and federacy, but what about confederacy? Is it the same as a confederation? I have never heard about this word before (actually I had not heard the word federation either, although I knew the principle it describes. I wrote a similar question at Talk:Confederacy. Take a look there as well for reference. --Oddeivind (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confederation, confederacy, federacy, federation 

message: Would the US be a federacy, in light of entities like Puerto Rico and Micronesia? Nik42 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the original list, because of Puerto Rico, but some-one removed it citing that "Puerto Rico has no specified consititutional status, and can have its status changed at whim by Congress" and therefore it is not a federacy. Micronesia is an associated state which leads to a completely different constitutional status. -- C mon 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who removed Puerto Rico.  Puerto Rico is, from a constitutional standpoint, a straight-up dependency, albeit one with a great deal of  home rule. --Jfruh (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US? 

message: The SAR is a temporary provision for the return of Hong Kong and Macao to PRC, and is different from a federation system. In particular, the status is temporary and the autonomy is not guaranteed under the PRC's constitution. --Vsion 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  case of PRC is interesting because it is to new to appear in the handbooks. I see the case is disputed, and your point that the autonomy is not guaranteed in the constitution is valid. I'll move it. C mon 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! The way you organise it is great.  --Vsion 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (response to Vsion's comment at 00:00, August 31) How do you know it is a temporary provision? Who can tell at the present moment whether it is temporary or not? The PRC was established in 1949 - how can Hong Kong and Macao be returned to the PRC? Is the autonomy of Greenland and Faroe Islands, Åland, Niue and Cook Islands, guaranteed in the constitution of Denmark, Finland and New Zealand? Please substantiate your bold assertions, especially when you're trying to make a point. Thanks in advance. :-) — Instantnood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Hong Kong Basic Law, and Constitution of the People's Republic of China. --Vsion 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the Basic Law did it state that a special administrative region were a temporary provision? (Which to my knowledge isn't true.) How could Hong Kong and Macao be returned to the People's Republic of China, that the People's Republic of China did not even exist when Hong Kong and Macao were ceded/leased? Is the autonomy of Greenland and Faroe Islands, Åland, etc., guaranteed in the constitution of Denmark and Finland, etc.? Present the evidence if your serious with your claims. — Instantnood 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you first present reference that Hong Kong's relation with PRC is that of a federation, and that it is not your own imagination. --Vsion 00:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification. Let me try to rephrase or correct my earlier sentence: the autonomy of SAR is not guaranteed by PRC constitution, and after 50 years, could be withdrawn as PRC government wishes. --Vsion 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed: SARs 

message: - That's the point. None of those listed (well, except the case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which setup is pretty close to federation) are truly close to conventional federations. — Instantnood 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Vision's comment

message: In this webpage   Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas (with the United States) is used as an example of federacy arrangements. Is this what this article on Wikipedia discusses? — Instantnood 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above.  If the scholar who came up with the Federacy term thinks PR has some special constitutional status within the US, then I question the validity of the term and the research.  Puerto Rico and the Marianas Islands have been devolved a great deal of home rule, but they are not full participants in the US Federal government (since they aren't states), nor do they have some special constitutional status.  They are unincorporated territories under the absolute jurisdiction of Congress.  While from a political viewpoint, it is extremely unlikely that Congress would revoke their devolved governments (as doing so would be extremely undemocratic and would look very colonialist), Congress has the constitutional right to do so, in a way that it does not in the case of the States. --Jfruh (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not entirely certain this term deserves a separate article, it appears that the definition of "federacy" does not require that the arrangements be constitutionally difficult to alter, merely that they exist and are moderately stable. Therefore, I'm inclined to keep U.S./Puerto Rico, and PRC/Hong Kong/Macau. Argyriou 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual meaning of ''federacy''

message: I just read the article on Home Rule. It states that federal systems, or federacies, differ from home rule in that sub-state government is guaranteed in the constitution. However, both the Finish and Danish examples use the term "home rule". It's a bit confusing. Boreanesia 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Rule 

message: Shouldn't the Basque regions of Spain be included in here? Aren't they autonomous?
:No, Spain is an asymmetrical federation. C mon 11:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basque Country? 

message: I believe that the changes in the relationship of some constituent countries in the United Kingdom versus the government are correctly labelled under the heading for devolution, but shouldn't the United Kingdom by virtue of its Acts of Union be considered a federacy?
How can it be that Scotland has the right to indefinitely retain its own independent judiciary, and uphold its own distinctly separate legal system, while the United Kingdom is still considered a unitary state? -- Domino theory 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't that part of the terms of the Act of Union in 1707? And a separate judiciary and legal system doesn't constitute guaranteed autonomy because the the judiciary cannot make or implement laws, so while a separate judiciary will always be maintained a separate government is not guaranteed.72.27.24.167 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: Is Belgium a federacy? TRBlom
: no, it's a federation C mon (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium 

message: I have yet to find the definition given in this article in any reputable dictionary. It's generally defined as an archaic form of confederacy. Though the term seems to be used in by academics in the "field of comparative federalism", it does not app3ear to be in the mainstream as yet, and as such the application of the term is not fixed, judging by the various opinons throughout the talk page. In fact, there isn't even any real consensus on nations actually qualify as federacies. The article still only has two cites based on one obscure source. Wikipedia doesn't contain Original Research: It reports using reliable sources. Elazar appears to be reputable (judging by his own site!, but that's not an RS), but two citations do not make an article well-sourced. This needs to be addressed, and other reliable sources need to be added. - BillCJ (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I see no evidence federacy has acquired a meaning distinct from confederacy. Superm401 - Talk 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The spectrum of philosophical jurisprudence in the direction of federalism's taxonomy and typification is a growing and quickly entrenching field of endeavors. With its fecundity for a criterion of distinctions from real world instances and that need for classifying and distinguishing minor valid differences betwixt them. I'm sure if Federacy doesn't have extant in instances of the academia and establishments of governmental law wisdom a particular and unique coloration of meaning in the federative spectrum then it is heading in that direction due to its prevalence and need to compete with alternative equivalent terms with the burgeoning vacuum it makes if to remain a static generality by definition when the generality covers such a diversity along its definition. Especially in an age of imposed consociational states and intertwined interdependencies of statehood becoming the model of legal-liberal dichotomy for ever new manners reciprocation (federating) on the level of international interactionism. 67.171.248.22 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition and OR

message: I have added Barbuda, Nevis and the Norfolk Islands to the list. Peter Geatings (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added Príncipe and Tobago  to the list. But I've found Barbuda, Nevis and Tobago to be quite comparable to Scotland and Wales. Peter Geatings (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies to Rotuma. Is it a federacy arrangement, or is it devolution? Peter Geatings (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: Is the status of Jammu and Kashmir within India more like assymetric federation rather than federacy? See Jammu and Kashmir#Politics and government. Peter Geatings (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir

message: Is Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha a federacy or an asymmetric federation in nature? Or is it following the devolution model? Peter Geatings (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Helena 

message: Spain is both: an asymmetric federation and a federacy of 17 Autonomous Communities and 2 Autonomous Cities (Estado de las Autonomías). Spain grants further devolved government to its autonomous areas than most countries listed here. All Spanish Autonomous regions have their own Statute of Autonomy (self-government and devolved government). This is non sense, why excluding Spain and its autonomous areas? Spanish is also an asymmetric federation because regions range from a higher to a lower degree of self-government, but ALL of them have devolved powers, even more returned home rule than some real Federal states. Spain is a unitary state but VERY decentralised country, just like the United Kingdom and contrary to France. 178.109.153.131 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain is a [[Federacy]] of Autonomous Communities, called ''Estado de las Autonomías'' (State of Autonomy), with an [[Asymmetric federalism]]

message: What's the relationship between Guernsey and Alderney, and between Guernsey and Sark? Peter Geatings (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Guernsey

message: The section about Portugal is blatant original research. Portuguese regional autonomies are not a case of asymmetric federalism or a federacy, but only of partial devolution or semi-devolution. The Constitution of the Republic also stresses that the unitary nature of the state shall be inviolable. Furthermore, regionalist political parties are forbidden. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Federacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004012255/http://www.nos.nl:80/nosjournaal/artikelen/2009/10/1/011009_antillen.html to http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2009/10/1/011009_antillen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article states that the UK is not a federacy since devolved powers can be revoked 'without changing the constitution'
If we are (as the usual consensus is) that the UK does have a defined constitution, then any change in the laws that govern the country is a change in the constitution (the phrase "the constitution is what happens" springs to mind). On that basis, the UK is a federacy. If that basis is not accepted, then it must surely be the case that the UK can never be a federacy!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nw12398 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom and its constitution 

message: I would like to remove Denmark from the list. In the description of a federacy it is stated that the autonomy is guaranteed in the country's constitution. Similar to the UK, Denmark is an unitary state and the Danish constitution does not guarantee the autonomy of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Unlike Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the autonomy of the municipalities in Denmark is in fact guaranteed in the constitution. Kisualk (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Denmark