This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
"The American Civil War was a by-product of the formation of the break-away Confederate States of America by U.S. states allied in their desire to form a looser political union and retain more states' rights for themselves."
I believe it is unclear that states' rights was the reason the confederate states secede. In fact, if you read the confederate constitution, it appears to strengthen the central government, taking away certain powers left to the states under the US constitution.(For example, it disallows states the right to let non-citizen residents vote.)
"The European Union ... is a confederation of sovereign states without a central government"
Is this true? There's the Parliament, the Court of Justice, the Commission (which has a President and executive powers), and the Central Bank. What else do you need to form a government?
Here is an exert removed from the main article:
It was replace by:
I don't know who wrote it, but Canada is a federation and has never considered itself a confederation. The Confederation of Canada never existed. It has always been more properly called the Dominion of Canada, or earlier the Canadas ( Upper and Lower Canada). Just because it has a Confederation Day doesn't mean it has ever called itself a confederation.
Also, Germany is known as the Federal Republic of Germany, if it has ever called itself a confederation, it was back when it was a confederation. Much like the United States of America could very well be called a federation now, but started out as a confederacy. Whether or not it is a federation or confederation is up to debate.
Before it is used as a rebuttal, the only time states tried to separate from the union, the war was described as a war on slavery, not a war to prevent succession. Although most other languages and many other cultures call it a succession war the American public usually considers it simply for abolitionism. It could therefore be considered (and is implied by the way the union government described the war at the time,) as a sovereign entity attacking a de facto sovereign entity for the imposition of moral values (proper emancipation or abolitionism,) and annexation of territory.
Canada is officially called the Confederation of Canada and even though it is now a federation it was originally a confederation of British colonies. -- Numerousfalx 12:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does the Kingdom of the Netherlands count as a confederation? It doesn't meet the "many regions" criterion. But if it's not a confederation, what is it exactly? Peking Duck 20:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the part about the Confederate States of America not being a Confederation as it was deliberately organized on the basis of the Articles of Confederation. The result being their subsequent loss to the Union due to their disorganization of their war effort. -- Numerousfalx 12:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find this article extremely butchered. Looking at this page, the definition of what is a Confederacy is ridiculously vague. It's completely indistinguishable from a Federation. Mind trying to clean it up? - Kade 00:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK - I am sorry if this is not in a more sensible place, but... I also believe the explaination of the differences/similarities between a confederationand a federation are unclear. Can't there be a more simplified, summarized answer? - Anonymous
Was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a confederation or federation ? Having common parliament and foreign policy but separate armies ? Lysy 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PLC never had common foreign policy. Commonwealth is simply Commonwealth. See discussions in Talk: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ringaudas
Smotrisj v knigu - videsj figu. Please study History of Lithuania and you find hundreds examples which show that in PLC never was common foreign policy. Antimonkey
Lysy own up, are you tutejszy? Its very interesting for me. From bezdany, geni or vorniany? Antimonkey
Lysy I ask very seriously - are you tutejszy or not? Antimonkey
I think you understand very good. And I think you are tuteišas Antituteišas
Here's an idea- why don't we just remove any reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from this page, so that this silly conflict can be had elsewhere, and this poor page in very sore need of improvement can be unlocked and editted?-- Conwiktion 03:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC
Why did you protect false polish version, but not discussed (see Talk:confederation -> above) last version? 85.206.193.33 10:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits here and when consensus has been reached the article will be unprotected-- nixie 10:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
When this discussion has been resolved I'd like to note here that Canada has to be further included in the revised article. It wasn't just an event or word that can describing the amalgamation of the British North American colonies. Canada is in fact, the only surviving confederation in the world today(according to the World factbook). Though we are a parliamentary democracy, "all of Canada's sovereignty can theoretically be exercised by either the federal or provincial governments; there is nothing that one or the other government cannot do." -- Canadian law:Constitutional law (Wikibooks)
I'm not aware of another country that has states or provinces that have that much control over their jurisdictions. Quebec is an example, of the hieght of the power in which Canadian provinces can wield. Provinces don't have to participate in federal programs or in federal positions. Once again using quebec as an example, there is very little the province is involved in federally. Most of their programs are Quebec created and they have become so "independant" there have been many sovereigntist moves there.
Could the editors of this page please comment on the necessity of the inclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on this page. If we can reach concensus the page will be unprotected.-- nixie 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was classical confederation (See this article) - it had:
It never had common capital. There were capitals of both Nations - Vilnius of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Cracow, later Warsaw of Kingdom of Poland. It had common monarch - Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland, common Parliament ( Seimas, Sejm) and common currency. Zivinbudas 14:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Halibu tt 14:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Was Prussia part of PLC?(!) After that nothing is to discuss about with you. All what you said above simply isn't truth. Zivinbudas 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
This seized by poles part of Prussia wasn't all Prussia. In Koenigsberg article polish falsificators state that Koenigsberg ( Karaliaučius) was part of PLC as well. Wikipedia is full of such cheap polish falsifications. History won't change because of that rubbish. Zivinbudas 16:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the difference between federation and confederation and then between confederation and international organization might be hard to define, because evry political entity is unique with it's own laws and way of relationships between different parts of that entity. Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth might be called confederation probably because of various already mentioned reasons (as for laws BTW: Lithuanian statutes were sometimes even going against Polish laws and such). I think the solution might be to explain in this article better what I said here, that the naming of federation/confederation/international organization is quite relative and such, and also instead of just giving "examples of confederations" to separate those examples into several bunches depending on level and types of confederation (what was common and what wasn't), or, perhaps even better, in the list after each example explain that shortly (e.g. Serbia and Montenegro, this and this is common between both parts, this and this is kept separate). Maybe make a table. The name "List of historical cofederations" could then be changed to "List of entities considered to be confederations" or something like that. PLC could then also be included, and in that explaination explained what was common between GDL and crown and what was separate. I think it would be a good solution DeirYassin 19:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Deir Yassin, your suggestion makes sense and would so some way to cleaning up the page. I'll wait to hear from Zivinbudas to see if he agrees, and other if any other interested parties have somwthing to add, then there shouldn't be any problem unblocking the page-- nixie 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The proposal of DeirYassin is logical. Zivinbudas 06:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The article has been unprotected as there seems to be a concensus to discuss the PLC in a section on this page. -- nixie 07:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I started implementing this; expplained the relativity of term confederation, also added EU to the list section and changed name of list to "entities considered confederations". I tried to write some explaination on what is controlled by states and what by central government in EU; however of coruse that is not complete; those who knows thinsg on this subject as well as other confederations, please add similar info in brackets everywhere. DeirYassin 09:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Its your POV. I don't change my position - PLC was classical confederation. As to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article, I repeat again - there wasn't common capital in PLC, personal union between Lithuania and Poland existed with considerable breakes and there were many official languages in PLC (not only polish and Latin) - for example polish became an official (wrighting) language in GDL only in 1697 (replacing Old Russian Chancellary Language). Zivinbudas 10:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The definition of "confederation" in this sense may need revision. Such an organization was not a "privilege" but an entity formed to attain a certain end. Nor was it limited to the nobility; a number of "confederations" were formed by cities. logologist 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
This is incomplete. There are plenty of private organisations that are called Confederations. One famous example is the Confederation of British Industry.
Morwen - Talk 13:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, ie Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists. Zivinbudas 13:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Here is another one: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise 83.177.143.118 ( talk) 09:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There was a translation of Fete du Canada as Feast of Canada. It is obvious that the correct translation is Canada Day. -- 60.229.83.163 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I distinctly remember that Dominion Day was called Confederation Day between Centennial Year (1967) and 1982. It was not really an official name, but a popular name, probably because 'Dominion Day' sounded so archaic and because the national pride generated by Centennial Year was still fresh in our minds. We didn't feel tied to Mother Britain, after 100 years, and a new name for our very own holiday was appropriate. Grandma Roses
Confederacy and Confederation are two different things! A confederation is an established republic where the states have more power than the federal government. A confederacy is an organization against a (or the concept of) federation. Confederation is a government, Confederacy is an organiztion against a government.
The United Arab Republic is listed as "de facto" confederacy, while nominally it was a unitary state. The same happens for other countries too. I think the "de facto" label should be explained (what does it means and why this definition was retained for each of the concerned countries). Otherwise those "de facto" nations should be removed.
193.253.199.143 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a comment: u ppl hav no life if u edit wikapedia...no offence but its kind of true unless its a school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.231 ( talk) 04:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that you should add the prime ministers n the parties they represented during conferation? i mean, it is during that time, right? And I think you should add the timeline of when the provinces entered conferation, the conferences, the 72 revolutions, fathers of con...so on. please?
Why did John A.macDonald want confederation, can someone help me out and answer please...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhock ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the EU qualify? I would love to hear the arguments on both sides to the argument, common currency , there is an EU president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.64.93 ( talk) 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A confederation is a group of empowered states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. Confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A confederation, in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.[1] The main differences with a federation are: (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation. (2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member). (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.
If the Euopean Union is what it says it is, does that also hold true for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and other Democratic People's Republics? On a broader note: I came here expecting to see a reference to the EU which used to be in this article, and I was surprised to see the reference was gone. Regardless of whether the EU is a confederation or not, the EU's nature is so closely related to the concept of a confederation that no mention whatsoever in the main article seems incomplete. -- Eric
The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. It was established in 1993 by the Treaty of Maastricht, adding new areas of policy to the existing European Community founded in 1957.
(Article European Union). Is that what you wanted?
It is not the United States of Europe - the reason for the edit notes directing people to " Federal Europe" was because that article gives the many ways in which it is not a confederation. -- Red King ( talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am unhappy with the line in the definition "...without however constituting a new state on top of the member states". Surely this cannot apply in the case of Switzerland which acts and is recognised as a "state" in it's own right whle at the same time being a confederation of its constiuent "states" (Cantons). I can't change it to a better definition without some authoriative resources. Is it possibly the case that Switzerland, despite being called a confederation is in reality more of a weak federation? (it's a genuine question not a presumption of fact so feel free to explain why this is or isn't the case). My own understanding is that a Federation is an organisation that devolves certain significant powers from the central government to its constituent states/regions, whereas a Confedeation is where a group of autonomous states devolve certain significant powers to a central government to act for them as a whole. I use the word significant in both cases: 1. to contrast a genuine federation to what are simply tiers of national and regional/local government 2. to contrast a genuine confederation to a looser arrangement of cooperation such as customs union or shared defence strategy. Dainamo ( talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"...Canada, however, is a federation, not a confederation."
Canada is indeed a confederation, because the Canadian Crown defines it as such. Queen Elizabeth II is simultaneously The Queen of each of all the Provinces, as well as the entity known as 'Canada;' she is not Queen of, say, British Colombia because she is Queen of Canada, but rather she is Queen of both British Colombia and Canada. Structurally, this clearly makes Canada a confederation of Crowns - which is to say, legally distinct political entities - which all happen to be 'worn,' if you will, by the same individual. Additionally, The Queen is the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand, et cetera, but it would be a distinct misunderstanding to say these countries were in a Federal system of some sort.
The manifold Crown is the result of how Canada developed, as being an amalgamation of separately governed Provinces of the British Crown; each Province still has powers resultant from this process, notably the codified process of secession from Canada.
Camden Rennis ( talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"Canada is a federal state and not a confederate association of sovereign states, the usual meaning of Confederation." "Provinces and territories that became part of Canada after 1867 are also said to have joined, or entered into, Confederation (but not the Confederation). Confederation is, loosely translated, a confederation of colonies."
From the Canadian Confederation page.
It seems the page is confused on this point as well. Using the first quote, Canada is indeed a confederation of sovereign states, because the sovereignty of each Province is not lost upon Confederation. The Queen remains Queen of British Colombia, whether or not BC is part of Canada.
We could be locked in a war of semantics for quite some time, so I'll sidestep that for a different approach. There is an obvious spectrum of centralised government, from highly unitary systems, such as France, on one side, and a highly decentralised system like Canada (or indeed Switzerland, which also calls itself a Confederation). France is so highly centralised it doesn't even make claim on being a Federal system; it is, quite simply, a unitary State. Switzerland is the functional opposite of this system, but still maintains elements of Federalism, such as a unitary foreign policy, federalised monetary and banking systems, et cetera, as well as federally-binding plebiscites. Canada, although a bit more centralised than Switzerland, is definitely much closer to that end of the spectrum than where the French system lays, or even American system.
It would be very easy to argue semantically over whether or not Switzerland is a true confederation. In such circumstances, perhaps it is best to go with what a country calls itself, unless it seems an obvious bold-faced lie. This is clearly not the case in either Switzerland, or Canada.
Camden Rennis ( talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Canada is a federation (like the United States or Australia), not a confederation. The confusion comes from the fact that confederation has a different meaning in Canada. In Canada, confederation means "the act of forming a federation". (This usage is unique to Canada.) Hence, we often talk about the "Canadian Confederation" (or the "Fathers of Confederation"), which was the time when Canada became a federation. But Canada is not a confederation. The "Canadian Confederation" was an event, not a system of government. 99.227.60.36 ( talk) 14:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson referred to America as a "confederation" during his presidency. I don't know how late this usage hung around, but should it be noted? source: http://mises.org/daily/4473
Cameron Nedland ( talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) -- 115.113.127.130 ( talk) 09:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph as it was insufficiently sourced: "By definition when defined as? the difference between confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. [1]" While that definition may obtain for that source, I am not at all certain that it would be accepted by most other authorities. -- Khajidha ( talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The article says many refer to Belgium as having aspects of a Confederation but does not say what they are we should add them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The Introduction could be more clear about the distinction between "confederation" and "federation". Someone work on this please. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Should the Soviet Union be listed as a technical confederation, in how it claimed to be structured (with its individual republics as de jure independent states - hence why Ukraine and Belarus could be founding members of the UN, despite not achieving true independence until half a century later)? 66.180.191.23 ( talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This section seems to be a description of a military alliance formed to fight a particular battle rather than a confederation as used in the rest of the article. It also seems to be the work of a single editor.
I think it should be removed but does anyone else have an opinion? 92.251.83.81 ( talk) 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone center the dates for the new sections because I can't figure out how to do that.
Freedom4U ( talk) 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Among the earliest known confederations are: - Assuwa was a confederation (or league) of 22 ancient Anatolian states that formed some time before 1400 BC, when it was defeated by the Hittite Empire - The Israelites (/ˈɪzriəlaɪts/; Hebrew: בני ישראל Bnei Yisra'el) were a confederation of Iron Age Semitic-speaking tribes of the ancient Near East, who inhabited a part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods
This needs to be fixed!
Bronze Age collapse related to formation of confederations... Philip.e.kahn ( talk) 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A confederation is a revocable association between sovereigns which includes mutual defense, whereas a league need not have sovereigns. A confederation is a form of a treaty including multiple sovereign parties. The Sea Peoples are described as a confederation. The pentapolis of the Philistines was a confederation of city state kings. Were they too small to be considered a sovereign? At least a note about this distinction is needed I think. Philip.e.kahn ( talk) 00:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed many trade union federations in the historical confederations list. While these are confederations in a sense, they have little to do with confederations of states which is the subject of the particle per the lead. With the exception of Spanish unions who controlled territory during the civil war, the trade union federations should be removed Benboy250 ( talk) 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, many of them are listed as continuing to exist so they are not historical Benboy250 ( talk) 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
So, I had noticed that in the list of historical confederations, when it mentions the Powhatan, it directs to the page for the Powhatan people, instead of the Powhatan Confederacy, I would like to know if this is intentional, and if not, could I edit it to direct to the Powhatan Confederacy? AU Fan V2 ( talk) 16:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There were plenty of tribal confederations in Africa. See Tuareg people, Sanhaja and Aro Confederacy among others. List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history also includes confederations. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it worth merging Confederation and List of confederations, as Confederation also has a fairly comprehensive list. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
"The American Civil War was a by-product of the formation of the break-away Confederate States of America by U.S. states allied in their desire to form a looser political union and retain more states' rights for themselves."
I believe it is unclear that states' rights was the reason the confederate states secede. In fact, if you read the confederate constitution, it appears to strengthen the central government, taking away certain powers left to the states under the US constitution.(For example, it disallows states the right to let non-citizen residents vote.)
"The European Union ... is a confederation of sovereign states without a central government"
Is this true? There's the Parliament, the Court of Justice, the Commission (which has a President and executive powers), and the Central Bank. What else do you need to form a government?
Here is an exert removed from the main article:
It was replace by:
I don't know who wrote it, but Canada is a federation and has never considered itself a confederation. The Confederation of Canada never existed. It has always been more properly called the Dominion of Canada, or earlier the Canadas ( Upper and Lower Canada). Just because it has a Confederation Day doesn't mean it has ever called itself a confederation.
Also, Germany is known as the Federal Republic of Germany, if it has ever called itself a confederation, it was back when it was a confederation. Much like the United States of America could very well be called a federation now, but started out as a confederacy. Whether or not it is a federation or confederation is up to debate.
Before it is used as a rebuttal, the only time states tried to separate from the union, the war was described as a war on slavery, not a war to prevent succession. Although most other languages and many other cultures call it a succession war the American public usually considers it simply for abolitionism. It could therefore be considered (and is implied by the way the union government described the war at the time,) as a sovereign entity attacking a de facto sovereign entity for the imposition of moral values (proper emancipation or abolitionism,) and annexation of territory.
Canada is officially called the Confederation of Canada and even though it is now a federation it was originally a confederation of British colonies. -- Numerousfalx 12:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does the Kingdom of the Netherlands count as a confederation? It doesn't meet the "many regions" criterion. But if it's not a confederation, what is it exactly? Peking Duck 20:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the part about the Confederate States of America not being a Confederation as it was deliberately organized on the basis of the Articles of Confederation. The result being their subsequent loss to the Union due to their disorganization of their war effort. -- Numerousfalx 12:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find this article extremely butchered. Looking at this page, the definition of what is a Confederacy is ridiculously vague. It's completely indistinguishable from a Federation. Mind trying to clean it up? - Kade 00:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK - I am sorry if this is not in a more sensible place, but... I also believe the explaination of the differences/similarities between a confederationand a federation are unclear. Can't there be a more simplified, summarized answer? - Anonymous
Was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a confederation or federation ? Having common parliament and foreign policy but separate armies ? Lysy 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PLC never had common foreign policy. Commonwealth is simply Commonwealth. See discussions in Talk: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ringaudas
Smotrisj v knigu - videsj figu. Please study History of Lithuania and you find hundreds examples which show that in PLC never was common foreign policy. Antimonkey
Lysy own up, are you tutejszy? Its very interesting for me. From bezdany, geni or vorniany? Antimonkey
Lysy I ask very seriously - are you tutejszy or not? Antimonkey
I think you understand very good. And I think you are tuteišas Antituteišas
Here's an idea- why don't we just remove any reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from this page, so that this silly conflict can be had elsewhere, and this poor page in very sore need of improvement can be unlocked and editted?-- Conwiktion 03:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC
Why did you protect false polish version, but not discussed (see Talk:confederation -> above) last version? 85.206.193.33 10:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please discuss your edits here and when consensus has been reached the article will be unprotected-- nixie 10:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
When this discussion has been resolved I'd like to note here that Canada has to be further included in the revised article. It wasn't just an event or word that can describing the amalgamation of the British North American colonies. Canada is in fact, the only surviving confederation in the world today(according to the World factbook). Though we are a parliamentary democracy, "all of Canada's sovereignty can theoretically be exercised by either the federal or provincial governments; there is nothing that one or the other government cannot do." -- Canadian law:Constitutional law (Wikibooks)
I'm not aware of another country that has states or provinces that have that much control over their jurisdictions. Quebec is an example, of the hieght of the power in which Canadian provinces can wield. Provinces don't have to participate in federal programs or in federal positions. Once again using quebec as an example, there is very little the province is involved in federally. Most of their programs are Quebec created and they have become so "independant" there have been many sovereigntist moves there.
Could the editors of this page please comment on the necessity of the inclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on this page. If we can reach concensus the page will be unprotected.-- nixie 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was classical confederation (See this article) - it had:
It never had common capital. There were capitals of both Nations - Vilnius of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Cracow, later Warsaw of Kingdom of Poland. It had common monarch - Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland, common Parliament ( Seimas, Sejm) and common currency. Zivinbudas 14:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Halibu tt 14:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Was Prussia part of PLC?(!) After that nothing is to discuss about with you. All what you said above simply isn't truth. Zivinbudas 14:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
This seized by poles part of Prussia wasn't all Prussia. In Koenigsberg article polish falsificators state that Koenigsberg ( Karaliaučius) was part of PLC as well. Wikipedia is full of such cheap polish falsifications. History won't change because of that rubbish. Zivinbudas 16:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the difference between federation and confederation and then between confederation and international organization might be hard to define, because evry political entity is unique with it's own laws and way of relationships between different parts of that entity. Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth might be called confederation probably because of various already mentioned reasons (as for laws BTW: Lithuanian statutes were sometimes even going against Polish laws and such). I think the solution might be to explain in this article better what I said here, that the naming of federation/confederation/international organization is quite relative and such, and also instead of just giving "examples of confederations" to separate those examples into several bunches depending on level and types of confederation (what was common and what wasn't), or, perhaps even better, in the list after each example explain that shortly (e.g. Serbia and Montenegro, this and this is common between both parts, this and this is kept separate). Maybe make a table. The name "List of historical cofederations" could then be changed to "List of entities considered to be confederations" or something like that. PLC could then also be included, and in that explaination explained what was common between GDL and crown and what was separate. I think it would be a good solution DeirYassin 19:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Deir Yassin, your suggestion makes sense and would so some way to cleaning up the page. I'll wait to hear from Zivinbudas to see if he agrees, and other if any other interested parties have somwthing to add, then there shouldn't be any problem unblocking the page-- nixie 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The proposal of DeirYassin is logical. Zivinbudas 06:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The article has been unprotected as there seems to be a concensus to discuss the PLC in a section on this page. -- nixie 07:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I started implementing this; expplained the relativity of term confederation, also added EU to the list section and changed name of list to "entities considered confederations". I tried to write some explaination on what is controlled by states and what by central government in EU; however of coruse that is not complete; those who knows thinsg on this subject as well as other confederations, please add similar info in brackets everywhere. DeirYassin 09:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Its your POV. I don't change my position - PLC was classical confederation. As to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article, I repeat again - there wasn't common capital in PLC, personal union between Lithuania and Poland existed with considerable breakes and there were many official languages in PLC (not only polish and Latin) - for example polish became an official (wrighting) language in GDL only in 1697 (replacing Old Russian Chancellary Language). Zivinbudas 10:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The definition of "confederation" in this sense may need revision. Such an organization was not a "privilege" but an entity formed to attain a certain end. Nor was it limited to the nobility; a number of "confederations" were formed by cities. logologist 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
This is incomplete. There are plenty of private organisations that are called Confederations. One famous example is the Confederation of British Industry.
Morwen - Talk 13:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, ie Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists. Zivinbudas 13:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Here is another one: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise 83.177.143.118 ( talk) 09:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There was a translation of Fete du Canada as Feast of Canada. It is obvious that the correct translation is Canada Day. -- 60.229.83.163 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I distinctly remember that Dominion Day was called Confederation Day between Centennial Year (1967) and 1982. It was not really an official name, but a popular name, probably because 'Dominion Day' sounded so archaic and because the national pride generated by Centennial Year was still fresh in our minds. We didn't feel tied to Mother Britain, after 100 years, and a new name for our very own holiday was appropriate. Grandma Roses
Confederacy and Confederation are two different things! A confederation is an established republic where the states have more power than the federal government. A confederacy is an organization against a (or the concept of) federation. Confederation is a government, Confederacy is an organiztion against a government.
The United Arab Republic is listed as "de facto" confederacy, while nominally it was a unitary state. The same happens for other countries too. I think the "de facto" label should be explained (what does it means and why this definition was retained for each of the concerned countries). Otherwise those "de facto" nations should be removed.
193.253.199.143 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a comment: u ppl hav no life if u edit wikapedia...no offence but its kind of true unless its a school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.3.231 ( talk) 04:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that you should add the prime ministers n the parties they represented during conferation? i mean, it is during that time, right? And I think you should add the timeline of when the provinces entered conferation, the conferences, the 72 revolutions, fathers of con...so on. please?
Why did John A.macDonald want confederation, can someone help me out and answer please...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhock ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the EU qualify? I would love to hear the arguments on both sides to the argument, common currency , there is an EU president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.64.93 ( talk) 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A confederation is a group of empowered states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. Confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A confederation, in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.[1] The main differences with a federation are: (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation. (2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member). (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.
If the Euopean Union is what it says it is, does that also hold true for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and other Democratic People's Republics? On a broader note: I came here expecting to see a reference to the EU which used to be in this article, and I was surprised to see the reference was gone. Regardless of whether the EU is a confederation or not, the EU's nature is so closely related to the concept of a confederation that no mention whatsoever in the main article seems incomplete. -- Eric
The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. It was established in 1993 by the Treaty of Maastricht, adding new areas of policy to the existing European Community founded in 1957.
(Article European Union). Is that what you wanted?
It is not the United States of Europe - the reason for the edit notes directing people to " Federal Europe" was because that article gives the many ways in which it is not a confederation. -- Red King ( talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am unhappy with the line in the definition "...without however constituting a new state on top of the member states". Surely this cannot apply in the case of Switzerland which acts and is recognised as a "state" in it's own right whle at the same time being a confederation of its constiuent "states" (Cantons). I can't change it to a better definition without some authoriative resources. Is it possibly the case that Switzerland, despite being called a confederation is in reality more of a weak federation? (it's a genuine question not a presumption of fact so feel free to explain why this is or isn't the case). My own understanding is that a Federation is an organisation that devolves certain significant powers from the central government to its constituent states/regions, whereas a Confedeation is where a group of autonomous states devolve certain significant powers to a central government to act for them as a whole. I use the word significant in both cases: 1. to contrast a genuine federation to what are simply tiers of national and regional/local government 2. to contrast a genuine confederation to a looser arrangement of cooperation such as customs union or shared defence strategy. Dainamo ( talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"...Canada, however, is a federation, not a confederation."
Canada is indeed a confederation, because the Canadian Crown defines it as such. Queen Elizabeth II is simultaneously The Queen of each of all the Provinces, as well as the entity known as 'Canada;' she is not Queen of, say, British Colombia because she is Queen of Canada, but rather she is Queen of both British Colombia and Canada. Structurally, this clearly makes Canada a confederation of Crowns - which is to say, legally distinct political entities - which all happen to be 'worn,' if you will, by the same individual. Additionally, The Queen is the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand, et cetera, but it would be a distinct misunderstanding to say these countries were in a Federal system of some sort.
The manifold Crown is the result of how Canada developed, as being an amalgamation of separately governed Provinces of the British Crown; each Province still has powers resultant from this process, notably the codified process of secession from Canada.
Camden Rennis ( talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"Canada is a federal state and not a confederate association of sovereign states, the usual meaning of Confederation." "Provinces and territories that became part of Canada after 1867 are also said to have joined, or entered into, Confederation (but not the Confederation). Confederation is, loosely translated, a confederation of colonies."
From the Canadian Confederation page.
It seems the page is confused on this point as well. Using the first quote, Canada is indeed a confederation of sovereign states, because the sovereignty of each Province is not lost upon Confederation. The Queen remains Queen of British Colombia, whether or not BC is part of Canada.
We could be locked in a war of semantics for quite some time, so I'll sidestep that for a different approach. There is an obvious spectrum of centralised government, from highly unitary systems, such as France, on one side, and a highly decentralised system like Canada (or indeed Switzerland, which also calls itself a Confederation). France is so highly centralised it doesn't even make claim on being a Federal system; it is, quite simply, a unitary State. Switzerland is the functional opposite of this system, but still maintains elements of Federalism, such as a unitary foreign policy, federalised monetary and banking systems, et cetera, as well as federally-binding plebiscites. Canada, although a bit more centralised than Switzerland, is definitely much closer to that end of the spectrum than where the French system lays, or even American system.
It would be very easy to argue semantically over whether or not Switzerland is a true confederation. In such circumstances, perhaps it is best to go with what a country calls itself, unless it seems an obvious bold-faced lie. This is clearly not the case in either Switzerland, or Canada.
Camden Rennis ( talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Canada is a federation (like the United States or Australia), not a confederation. The confusion comes from the fact that confederation has a different meaning in Canada. In Canada, confederation means "the act of forming a federation". (This usage is unique to Canada.) Hence, we often talk about the "Canadian Confederation" (or the "Fathers of Confederation"), which was the time when Canada became a federation. But Canada is not a confederation. The "Canadian Confederation" was an event, not a system of government. 99.227.60.36 ( talk) 14:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson referred to America as a "confederation" during his presidency. I don't know how late this usage hung around, but should it be noted? source: http://mises.org/daily/4473
Cameron Nedland ( talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) -- 115.113.127.130 ( talk) 09:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph as it was insufficiently sourced: "By definition when defined as? the difference between confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. [1]" While that definition may obtain for that source, I am not at all certain that it would be accepted by most other authorities. -- Khajidha ( talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The article says many refer to Belgium as having aspects of a Confederation but does not say what they are we should add them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The Introduction could be more clear about the distinction between "confederation" and "federation". Someone work on this please. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Should the Soviet Union be listed as a technical confederation, in how it claimed to be structured (with its individual republics as de jure independent states - hence why Ukraine and Belarus could be founding members of the UN, despite not achieving true independence until half a century later)? 66.180.191.23 ( talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This section seems to be a description of a military alliance formed to fight a particular battle rather than a confederation as used in the rest of the article. It also seems to be the work of a single editor.
I think it should be removed but does anyone else have an opinion? 92.251.83.81 ( talk) 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone center the dates for the new sections because I can't figure out how to do that.
Freedom4U ( talk) 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Among the earliest known confederations are: - Assuwa was a confederation (or league) of 22 ancient Anatolian states that formed some time before 1400 BC, when it was defeated by the Hittite Empire - The Israelites (/ˈɪzriəlaɪts/; Hebrew: בני ישראל Bnei Yisra'el) were a confederation of Iron Age Semitic-speaking tribes of the ancient Near East, who inhabited a part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods
This needs to be fixed!
Bronze Age collapse related to formation of confederations... Philip.e.kahn ( talk) 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A confederation is a revocable association between sovereigns which includes mutual defense, whereas a league need not have sovereigns. A confederation is a form of a treaty including multiple sovereign parties. The Sea Peoples are described as a confederation. The pentapolis of the Philistines was a confederation of city state kings. Were they too small to be considered a sovereign? At least a note about this distinction is needed I think. Philip.e.kahn ( talk) 00:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed many trade union federations in the historical confederations list. While these are confederations in a sense, they have little to do with confederations of states which is the subject of the particle per the lead. With the exception of Spanish unions who controlled territory during the civil war, the trade union federations should be removed Benboy250 ( talk) 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, many of them are listed as continuing to exist so they are not historical Benboy250 ( talk) 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
So, I had noticed that in the list of historical confederations, when it mentions the Powhatan, it directs to the page for the Powhatan people, instead of the Powhatan Confederacy, I would like to know if this is intentional, and if not, could I edit it to direct to the Powhatan Confederacy? AU Fan V2 ( talk) 16:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There were plenty of tribal confederations in Africa. See Tuareg people, Sanhaja and Aro Confederacy among others. List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history also includes confederations. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it worth merging Confederation and List of confederations, as Confederation also has a fairly comprehensive list. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)