text:
Separation of powers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Balance of powers" redirects here. For other uses, see Balance of power.
For other uses, see Separation of powers (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics[show]
Index of politics articles
Politics by country
Politics by subdivision
Political economy
Political history
Political history of the world
Political philosophy
Political systems[show]
Anarchy
City-state
Democracy
Federacy
Feudalism
Dictatorship
Directory
Meritocracy
Monarchy
Parliamentary
Presidential
Republic
Semi-parliamentary
Semi-presidential
Theocracy
Academic disciplines[show]
Political science
(political scientists)
International relations
(theory)
Comparative politics
Public administration[show]
Bureaucracy (street-level)
Adhocracy
Policy[show]
Public policy (doctrine)
Civil society
Public interest
Foreign policy
Organs of government[hide]
Separation of powers
Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
Election commission
Related topics[show]
Sovereignty
Theories of political behavior
Political psychology
Biology and political orientation
Political organisations
Foreign electoral intervention
Subseries[show]
Electoral systems
Elections (voting)
Federalism
Form of government
Ideology
Political campaigning
Political parties
v
t
e
The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state. Under this model, a state's government is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division is into three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, which is the trias politica model. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in some parliamentary systems where the executive and legislature are unified.
Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Antiquity
1.2 Early modern biparty systems
1.3 Montesquieu's separation of powers system
1.4 Checks and balances
2 Comparison between tripartite and bipartite national systems
2.1 Typical branches
2.1.1 Additional branches
2.2 Three branches
2.2.1 Australia
2.2.2 Austria
2.2.3 Czech Republic
2.2.4 Denmark
2.2.5 France
2.2.6 Hong Kong
2.2.7 India
2.2.8 Iran
2.2.9 Italy
2.2.10 Malaysia
2.2.11 Nepal
2.2.12 Pakistan
2.2.13 United Kingdom
2.2.14 United States
2.3 Other systems
2.3.1 Republic of China
2.3.2 Belgium
2.3.3 Costa Rica
2.3.4 European Union
2.3.5 Germany
2.3.6 Hungary
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links
History[edit]
Part of the Politics series on
Republicanism
Central concepts[show]
Anti-monarchism
Popular sovereignty
Republic
Res publica
Social contract
Schools[show]
Classical republicanism
Neo-republicanism
Important thinkers[show]
Hannah Arendt
Cicero
James Harrington
Thomas Jefferson
John Locke
James Madison
Montesquieu
Philip Pettit
Polybius
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Michael Sandel
Algernon Sidney
Quentin Skinner
Cass Sunstein
Mary Wollstonecraft
History[show]
Roman Republic
Gaṇa sangha
Classical Athens
Republic of Venice
Republic of Genoa
Republic of Florence
Dutch Republic
American Revolution
French Revolution
Spanish American wars of independence
Trienio Liberal
French Revolution of 1848
5 October 1910 revolution
Xinhai Revolution
Russian Revolution
German Revolution of 1918–19
Turkish War of Independence
Mongolian Revolution of 1921
11 September 1922 Revolution
Spanish Civil War
Birth of the Italian Republic
Egyptian Revolution of 1952
14 July Revolution
North Yemen Civil War
Zanzibar Revolution
1969 Libyan coup d'état
Cambodian coup of 1970
Third Hellenic Republic
Iranian Revolution
1987 Fijian coups d'état
Nepalese Civil War
By country[show]
Australia
Barbados
Canada
Ireland
Jamaica
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Related topics[show]
Communitarianism
Liberalism
Monarchism
Politics portal
v
t
e
Antiquity[edit]
Aristotle first mentioned the idea of a "mixed government" or hybrid government in his work Politics where he drew upon many of the constitutional forms in the city-states of Ancient Greece. In the Roman Republic, the Roman Senate, Consuls and the Assemblies showed an example of a mixed government according to Polybius (Histories, Book 6, 11–13).
Early modern biparty systems[edit]
John Calvin (1509–1564) favoured a system of government that divided political power between democracy and aristocracy (mixed government). Calvin appreciated the advantages of democracy, stating: "It is an invaluable gift if God allows a people to elect its own government and magistrates."[1] In order to reduce the danger of misuse of political power, Calvin suggested setting up several political institutions which should complement and control each other in a system of checks and balances.[2]
In this way, Calvin and his followers resisted political absolutism and furthered the growth of democracy. Calvin aimed to protect the rights and the well-being of ordinary people.[3][need quotation to verify] In 1620, a group of English separatist Congregationalists and Anglicans (later known as the Pilgrim Fathers) founded Plymouth Colony in North America. Enjoying self-rule, they established a bipartite democratic system of government. The "freemen" elected the General Court, which functioned as legislature and judiciary and which in turn elected a governor, who together with his seven "assistants" served in the functional role of providing executive power.[4] Massachusetts Bay Colony (founded 1628), Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had similar constitutions – they all separated political powers. (Except for Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony, these English outposts added religious freedom to their democratic systems, an important step towards the development of human rights.[5][6]) Books like William Bradford's History of Plymoth Plantation (written between 1630 and 1651) were widely read in England.[citation needed] So the form of government in the colonies was well known in the mother country, including to the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). He deduced from a study of the English constitutional system the advantages of dividing political power into the legislative (which should be distributed among several bodies, for example, the House of Lords and the House of Commons), on the one hand, and the executive and federative power, responsible for the protection of the country and prerogative of the monarch, on the other hand. (The Kingdom of England had no written constitution.)[7][need quotation to verify]
Montesquieu's separation of powers system[edit]
Montesquieu
The term tripartite system is commonly ascribed to French Enlightenment political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, although he did not use such a term. In reality he referred to "distribution" of powers. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu described the various forms of distribution of political power among a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. Montesquieu's approach was to present and defend a form of government which was not excessively centralized in all its powers to a single monarch or similar ruler, form of government known then as "aristocracy". He based this model on the Constitution of the Roman Republic and the British constitutional system. Montesquieu took the view that the Roman Republic had powers separated so that no one could usurp complete power.[8][9][10] In the British constitutional system, Montesquieu discerned a separation of powers among the monarch, Parliament, and the courts of law.
Montesquieu did actually specify that "the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not apparent merely". "The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers, independent and unchecked", and also was considered dangerous.[11]
Checks and balances[edit]
To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law. The following example of the separation of powers and their mutual checks and balances for the experience of the United States Constitution is presented as illustrative of the general principles applied in similar forms of government as well.
Legislative (Congress)
Executive (President)
Judicial (Supreme Court)
Passes bills; has broad taxing and spending power; regulates inter-state commerce; controls the federal budget; has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States (may be vetoed by President, but vetoes may be overridden with a two-thirds vote of both houses)
Has sole power to declare war, as well as to raise, support, and regulate the military.
Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers.
Defines by law the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in cases not specified by the Constitution
Ratification of treaties signed by the President and gives advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts (Senate only)
Has sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trial of impeachments (Senate); can remove federal executive and judicial officers from office for high crimes and misdemeanors
Is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces
Executes the instructions of Congress.
May veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses)
Executes the spending authorized by Congress.
Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders.
Makes executive agreements (does not require ratification) and signs treaties (ratification requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate)
Makes appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts with the advice and consent of the Senate. Has power to make temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate
Has the power to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
Determines which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case
Exercises judicial review, reviewing the constitutionality of laws
Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes
Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence
Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.
Comparison between tripartite and bipartite national systems[edit]
Constitutions with a high degree of separation of powers are found worldwide. The UK system is distinguished by a particular entwining of powers.[12] A number of Latin American countries have electoral branches of government.
Countries with little separation of power include New Zealand and Canada. Canada makes limited use of separation of powers in practice, although in theory it distinguishes between branches of government.
New Zealand's constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers through a series of constitutional safeguards, many of which are tacit. The Executive's ability to carry out decisions often depends on the Legislature, which is elected under the mixed member proportional system. This means the government is rarely a single party but a coalition of parties. The Judiciary is also free of government interference. If a series of judicial decisions result in an interpretation of the law which the Executive considers does not reflect the intention of the policy, the Executive can initiate changes to the legislation in question through the Legislature. The Executive cannot direct or request a judicial officer to revise or reconsider a decision; decisions are final. Should there be a dispute between the Executive and Judiciary, the Executive has no authority to direct the Judiciary, or its individual members and vice versa.
Complete separation of powers systems are almost always presidential, although theoretically this need not be the case. There are a few historical exceptions, such as the Directoire system of revolutionary France. Switzerland offers an example of non-Presidential separation of powers today: It is run by a seven-member executive branch, the Federal Council. However, some might argue[weasel words] that Switzerland does not have a strong separation of powers system, as the Federal Council is appointed by parliament (but not dependent on parliament) and although the judiciary has no power of review, the judiciary is still separate from the other branches.
Typical branches[edit]
executive
legislative
judicial
Additional branches[edit]
auditory
electoral – in which election commissions, tribunals or courts are maintained separately from other branches
prosecutory
civil service commission
Three branches[edit]
Australia[edit]
Main article: Separation of powers in Australia
Australia does not maintain a strict separation between the legislative and executive branches of government—indeed, government ministers are required to be members of parliament—but the federal judiciary strictly guards its independence from the other two branches. However, under influence from the American constitution, the Australian constitution does define the three branches of government separately, and this has been interpreted by the judiciary to induce an implicit separation of powers.[13] State governments have a similar level of separation of power, but this is generally on the basis of convention, rather than constitution.
Austria[edit]
Hans Kelsen was the principal author of the tripartite Constitution of Austria.
The Constitution of Austria was originally written by Hans Kelsen, the prominent constitutional scholar in Europe at that time. Kelsen was to serve as a part of the judicial court of review for Austria as part of its tripartite government.
Czech Republic[edit]
Main article: Constitution of the Czech Republic
The Constitution of the Czech Republic, adopted in 1992 immediately before the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, establishes the traditional tripartite division of powers[14] and continues the tradition of its predecessor constitutions. The Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920, which replaced the provisional constitution adopted by the newly independent state in 1918, was modeled after the constitutions of established democracies such as those of the United Kingdom, United States and France, and maintained this division,[15] as have subsequent changes to the constitution that followed in 1948 with the Ninth-of-May Constitution, the 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia as well as the Constitutional Act on the Czechoslovak Federation of 1968.
Denmark[edit]
Main articles: Constitution of Denmark and Government of Denmark
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
High Courts and lower courts – judiciary
France[edit]
Main article: Political system of France
According to the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, the government of France[16] is divided up into three branches:
Executive. This includes the popularly elected president as well as the prime minister and cabinet. The French Prime minister is nominated by the president, but the government is responsible to the lower house of the legislature, the National Assembly.
Legislature. A bicameral legislature that includes the Senate (upper house) and the National Assembly (lower house). The relationship between the two houses is asymmetric, meaning that in case of dispute, the National Assembly has the final word according to Article 45[17] of the Constitution.
Judiciary. This includes the judicial and administrative orders. It also includes a constitutional court.
Hong Kong[edit]
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region established in 1997 pursuant to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty made between Britain and China in 1984, registered with the United Nations. Currently, Hong Kong has three branches of government as codified in the Basic Law, its constitution, which largely preserved political structures of the British colonial era, under the doctrine of one country, two systems:
Legislative Council – legislature
Government – executive
Judiciary (Court of Final Appeal and other courts and tribunals) – judiciary
The Chief Executive, elected by a 1200-member Election Committee which historically was dominated by pro-Beijing establishment members, is both head of the region and head of government, and chairs the Executive Council which is composed of "unofficial" members and government secretaries.
The legislature consists of 70 members, 35 of whom are elected by "functional" constituencies represented by members within various industries rather than the public at large.[18] Separation of power between executive and legislature is, therefore, questionable.[citation needed]
The courts frequently exercise a power of judicial review of administrative actions and also decide matters of constitutionality of legislation, though this power is circumscribed under the power of the People's Republic of China's National People's Congress to make final determinations as to interpretation.[19] Hence, the separation of powers is again structurally weak.
It is worth noting that the branches' separation of power may not be intended within the Hong Kong Basic Law as leaders of the PRC have publicly called for the three branches to cooperate and be led by the Chief Executive.[20]
Further, Deng Xiaoping was quoted to have categorically dismissed Hong Kong having a "Trias Politica" system.[21]
India[edit]
Main articles: Lawmaking procedure in India, Constitution of India, and Supreme Court of India
India follows constitutional democracy which offers a clear separation of powers. The judiciary branch is fairly independent of the other two branches with the power to interpret the constitution. Parliament has the legislative powers. Executive powers are vested with the President who is advised by the Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The constitution of India vested the duty of protecting, preserving and defending the constitution with the President as common head of the executive, parliament, armed forces, etc. not only for the union government but also the various state governments in a federal structure. All three branches have "checks and balances" over each other to maintain the balance of power and not to exceed the constitutional limits.[22]
President can set aside a law passed by the legislative or an advise given by the Union Council of Ministers when it is inconsistent with the constitution of India.
Even president accepts a law passed duly by the legislative, it can be repealed by the Supreme Court after a fair trial if it is against the Basic structure of the constitution. Any citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court directly to repeal the unconstitutional laws made by the legislative or executive.
President can be impeached after conducting a fair trial by the parliament for his unconstitutional orders/decisions.
President can be asked to step down by the judiciary for his unconstitutional orders/decisions on the grounds of losing eligibility criteria of the president.
Parliament can impeach judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of states for their incompetence and mala fides. Higher bench of judges can set aside the incorrect judgements of smaller bench of judges to uphold the constitution.
Iran[edit]
Government – Executive
The legislature of Islamic Republic of Iran – Legislative
Judicial system – Judicial
Italy[edit]
Main article: Constitution of Italy
In Italy the powers are separated, even though the Council of Ministers needs a vote of confidence from both chambers of Parliament, that represents a large number of members (almost 1,000).[23]
Like every parliamentary form of government, there is no real separation between Legislature and Executive, rather a continuum between them due to the confidence link. By the way, the balance is protected by Constitution also between these two branches.[24] and, obviously, between them and the judiciary branch, which is really independent.
Malaysia[edit]
Main articles: Constitution of Malaysia and Government of Malaysia
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
Federal Courts and lower courts – judiciary
Nepal[edit]
Main articles: Constitution of Nepal and Government of Nepal
Legislative Parliament- Legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet of Minister and Government Departments - Executive
Supreme Court - Judiciary
Pakistan[edit]
Main articles: Constitution of Pakistan and Government of Pakistan
Parliament – Legislative
Prime Minister and his Cabinet – Executive
Supreme Court and lower courts – Judicial
United Kingdom[edit]
Main article: Separation of powers in the United Kingdom
Parliament – legislature
Prime Minister, Cabinet, Government Departments and Civil Service – executive
Courts – judiciary
The development of the British constitution, which is not a codified document, is based on this fusion in the person of the Monarch, who has a formal role to play in the legislature (Parliament, which is where legal and political sovereignty lies, is the Crown-in-Parliament, and is summoned and dissolved by the Sovereign who must give his or her Royal Assent to all Bills so that they become Acts), the executive (the Sovereign appoints all ministers of His/Her Majesty's Government, who govern in the name of the Crown) and the judiciary (the Sovereign, as the fount of justice, appoints all senior judges, and all public prosecutions are brought in his or her name).
Although the doctrine of separation of power plays a role in the United Kingdom's constitutional doctrine, the UK constitution is often described as having "a weak separation of powers" A. V. Dicey, despite its constitution being the one to which Montesquieu originally referred. For example, in the United Kingdom, the executive forms a subset of the legislature, as did—to a lesser extent—the judiciary until the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister, the Chief Executive, sits as a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, either as a peer in the House of Lords or as an elected member of the House of Commons (by convention, and as a result of the supremacy of the Lower House, the Prime Minister now sits in the House of Commons) and can effectively be removed from office by a simple majority vote. Furthermore, while the courts in the United Kingdom are amongst the most independent in the world,[citation needed] the Law Lords, who were the final arbiters of judicial disputes in the UK sat simultaneously in the House of Lords, the upper house of the legislature, although this arrangement ceased in 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom came into existence. Furthermore, because of the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty, while the theory of separation of powers may be studied there, a system such as that of the UK is more accurately described as a "fusion of powers".[citation needed]
Until 2005, the Lord Chancellor fused the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, as he was the ex officio Speaker of the House of Lords, a Government Minister who sat in Cabinet and was head of the Lord Chancellor's Department which administered the courts, the justice system and appointed judges, and was the head of the Judiciary in England and Wales and sat as a judge on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, the highest domestic court in the entire United Kingdom, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the senior tribunal court for parts of the Commonwealth. The Lord Chancellor also had certain other judicial positions, including being a judge in the Court of Appeal and President of the Chancery Division. The Lord Chancellor combines other aspects of the constitution, including having certain ecclesiastical functions of the established state church, making certain church appointments, nominations and sitting as one of the thirty-three Church Commissioners. These functions remain intact and unaffected by the Constitutional Reform Act. In 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act separated the powers with Legislative functions going to an elected Lord Speaker and the Judicial functions going to the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chancellor's Department was replaced with a Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor currently serves in the position of Secretary of State for Justice.
The judiciary has no power to strike down primary legislation, and can only rule on secondary legislation that it is invalid with regard to the primary legislation if necessary.
Under the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament can enact any primary legislation it chooses. However, the concept immediately becomes problematic when the question is asked; "If parliament can do anything, can it bind its successors?". It is generally held that parliament can do no such thing.
Equally, while statute takes precedence over precedent-derived common law and the judiciary has no power to strike down primary legislation, there are certain cases where the supreme judicature has effected an injunction against the application of an act or reliance on its authority by the civil service. The seminal example of this is the Factortame case, where the House of Lords granted such an injunction preventing the operation of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 until litigation in the European Court of Justice had been resolved.
The House of Lords ruling in Factortame (No. 1), approving the European Court of Justice formulation that "a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law, must disapply that rule", has created an implicit tiering of legislative reviewability; the only way for parliament to prevent the supreme judicature from injunctively striking out a law on the basis of incompatibility with Community law is to pass an act specifically removing that power from the court, or by repealing the European Communities Act 1972.
The British legal systems are based on common law traditions, which require:
Police or regulators cannot initiate complaints under criminal law but can only investigate (prosecution is mostly reserved for the Crown Prosecution Service), which prevents selective enforcement—e.g., the "fishing expedition" which is often specifically forbidden.
Prosecutors cannot withhold evidence from counsel for the defendant; to do so results in mistrial or dismissal. Accordingly, their relation to police is no advantage.
Defendants convicted can appeal, but only fresh and compelling evidence not available at trial can be introduced, restricting the power of the court of appeal to the process of law applied.
United States[edit]
Main article: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
George Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution
In the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section I gives Congress only those "legislative powers herein granted" and proceeds to list those permissible actions in Article I Section 8, while Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited for Congress. The vesting clause in Article II places no limits on the Executive branch, simply stating that, "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."[25] The Supreme Court holds "The judicial Power" according to Article III, and it established the implication of Judicial review in Marbury v. Madison under the Marshall court.[26]
The federal government refers to the branches as "branches of government", while some systems use "government" to describe the executive. The Executive branch has attempted[27] to claim power arguing for separation of powers to include being the Commander in Chief of a standing army since the American Civil War, executive orders, emergency powers and security classifications since World War II, national security, signing statements, and the scope of the unitary executive.
Other systems[edit]
Republic of China[edit]
Main article: Government of the Republic of China
According to Sun Yat-sen's idea of "separation of the five powers", the government of the Republic of China has five branches:
Executive Yuan – led by the premier but in actuality it is the president who sets policy – executive
Legislative Yuan – unicameral – legislature
Judicial Yuan – its Constitutional Court (highest) and Supreme Court have different jurisdictions – judiciary
Control Yuan – audit branch
Examination Yuan – civil service personnel management and human resources
The president and vice president as well as the defunct National Assembly are constitutionally not part of the above five branches. Before being abolished in 2005, the National Assembly was a constitutional convention and electoral college for the president and vice president. Its constitutional amending powers were passed to the legislative yuan and its electoral powers were passed to the electorate.
The relationship between the executive and legislative branches are poorly defined. An example of the problems this causes is the near complete political paralysis that results when the president, who has neither the power to veto nor the ability to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, cannot negotiate with the legislature when his party is in the minority.[28] The examination and control yuans are marginal branches; their leaders as well as the leaders of the executive and judicial yuans are appointed by the president and confirmed by the legislative yuan. The legislature is the only branch that chooses its own leadership. The vice president has practically no responsibilities.
Belgium[edit]
Belgium is currently a federated state that has imposed the trias politica on different governmental levels. The constitution of 1831, considered one of the most liberal of its time for limiting the powers of its monarch and imposing a rigorous system of separation of powers, is based on three principles (represented in the Schematic overview of Belgian institutions):
Trias Politica (horizontal separation of powers):
The legislative power is attributed to an elected parliamentary body elected with a representative general election system (one person one vote).
The executive power is attributed to the Council of Ministers. Ministers are formally appointed by the King, though in practice the prime minister decides the composition of his cabinet. The ministers are usually from the elected members of parliament (non-elected people can also be nominated). However, they must first resign from their elected seat.
The judicial power is in the hands of the courts. Magistrates are nominated by the minister (on proposal from a Council of the Magistrates).
Magistrates can be nominated to become a judge (sitting magistrates) or instructing judge (investigating judge) of Procureur (public prosecutor) (the standing magistrates).
The executive branch of the government is responsible to provide the physical means to execute its role (infrastructure, staff, financial means).
Judges and some other people cannot run for elected office while they are nominated to certain positions (military, police-officers, clergy, notaries, bailiffs).
Subsidiarity (vertical separation of powers):
Supranational directives (EU legislation) and international treaties are subjected to approval of the federal level (the federal level being Belgium the nation state)
The federal level is composed of the following:
A bicameral parliament (House of Representative and Senate) (in 2014 this will be a directly elected house and an indirectly appointed Senate of the regions)
A federal government (led by the Prime Minister and the ministers and secretaries of state)
Tasked with overseeing justice, defense, foreign affairs, and social security, public health
High Court, Constitutional Court, Cassation Court and Council of State
The regional level is composed of the following:
A monocameral parliament
A regional government led by the minister-president (ministers and secretaries of state) is tasked with regional matters.
Provinces also have similar structures:
A monocameral provincial council
A nominated provincial governor assisted by deputees is tasked with provincial matters.
Appellate Court, Assisses Court
An intermediate level of Arrondissements subdivides the provinces
it has only an executive level with an arrondissemental commissars
City and communal entities:
A city or communal council
A mayor, assisted by aldermen, is tasked with local matters.
Magistrates Court, Correctional Court (three judges).
Justice of the peace and Police Court judges (single judge courts)
Secularism (separation of state and religion):
The king, the head of state, holds no political authority and requires executive approval by a minister for every action and statement; he nominates the ministers but he does not choose them (his executive powers); he signs and decrees the laws voted in parliament (his legislative powers);
The head of state is commander in chief of the military (in title only), politically the military depends of the Minister of Defense and the chiefs of staff are responsible towards parliament and take their orders from the Minister of Defense and the government;
Certain functions are deemed incompatible and people must resign from their function if they want to assume responsibilities in another function (military commanders have never been government ministers, even during a war)
Costa Rica[edit]
In the aftermath of the 43-day civil war in 1948 (after former President and incumbent candidate Rafael Álgel Calderón Guardia tried to take power through fraud, by not recognising the results of the presidential election that he had lost), the question of which transformational model the Costa Rican State would follow was the main issue that confronted the victors. A Constituent Assembly was elected by popular vote to draw up a new constitution, enacted in 1949, and remains in force. This document was an edit of the constitution of 1871, as the constituent assembly rejected more radical corporatist ideas proposed by the ruling Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República (which, although having come to power by military force, abolished the armed forces). Nonetheless, the new constitution increased centralization of power at the expense of municipalities and eliminated provincial government altogether, at the time it increased the powers of congress and the judiciary.
It established the three supreme powers as the legislature, executive, and judicial branches, but also created two other autonomous state organs that have equivalent power, but not equivalent rank. The first is the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones de Costa Rica (electoral branch) which controls elections and makes unique, unappealable decisions on their outcomes.
The second is the office of the Comptroller General (audit branch), an autonomous and independent organ nominally subordinate to the unicameral legislative assembly. All budgets of ministries and municipalities must pass through this agency, including the execution of budget items such as contracting for routine operations. The Comptroller also provides financial vigilance over government offices and office holders, and routinely brings actions to remove mayors for malfeasance, firmly establishing this organization as the fifth branch of the Republic.
European Union[edit]
The European Union is a supranational polity, and is neither a country nor a federation; but as the EU wields political power it complies with the principle of separation of powers. There are seven institutions of the European Union. In intergovernmental matters, most power is concentrated in the Council of the European Union—giving it the characteristics of a normal international organization. Here, all power at the EU level is in one branch. In the latter there are four main actors. The European Commission acts as an independent executive which is appointed by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament; but the Commission also has a legislative role as the sole initiator of EU legislation.[29][30] [31] An early maxim was: "The Commission proposes and the Council disposes"; and although the EU's lawmaking procedure is now much more complicated, this simple maxim still holds some truth. As well as both executive and legislative functions, the Commission arguably exercises a third, quasi-judicial, function under Articles 101 & 102 TFEU (competition law ); although the ECJ remains the final arbiter. The European Parliament is one half of the legislative branch and is directly elected. The Council itself acts both as the second half of the legislative branch and also holds some executive functions (some of which are exercised by the related European Council in practice). The European Court of Justice acts as the independent judicial branch, interpreting EU law and treaties. The remaining institution, the European Court of Auditors, is an independent audit authority (due to the sensitive nature of fraud in the EU).
Council of the European Union – executive and legislative
European Commission – executive, legislative and quasi-judicial
European Council – executive
European Court of Auditors – audit
Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court – judicial
European Parliament – legislative
Germany[edit]
The three branches in German government are further divided into six main bodies enshrined in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany:
Federal President (Bundespräsident) – formally executive, but mainly representative in daily politics
Federal Cabinet (Bundesregierung) – executive
Federal Diet (Bundestag) & Federal Council (Bundesrat) – bicameral legislative
Federal Assembly (Bundesversammlung) – presidential electoral college (consisting of the members of the Bundestag and electors from the constituent states)
Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) – judiciary
Besides the constitutional court the judicial branch at the federal level is made up of five supreme courts—one for civil and criminal cases (Bundesgerichtshof), and one each for administrative, tax, labour, and social security issues. There are also state (Länder / Bundesländer) based courts beneath them, and a rarely used senate of the supreme courts.
Hungary[edit]
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2014)
The four independent branches of power in Hungary (the parliament, the government, the court system, and the office of the public accuser) are divided into six bodies:
Parliament (Magyar Országgyűlés): elected every 4 years by the people in a highly complex, two-round voting system
Government (Magyar Kormány): installed and removed by 50%+1 basic majority vote of the parliament, 4-year terms
Supreme Court (Legfelsőbb Bíróság): Chief justice elected by qualified (2/3) majority of the parliament, no government oversight
Constitutional court (Alkotmánybíróság): members elected by qualified majority of the parliament for 8 years, this body nullifies laws and has no government oversight.
Chief public accuser (Legfőbb ügyész): elected by qualified majority of the parliament, 6-year terms, office budget fixed, no government oversight.
The President of the Republic (Köztársasági Elnök) is elected by qualified majority of the Hungarian parliament for 5-year terms (cannot be reelected more than once). He/she has ceremonial powers only, signs laws into power and commands the military in time of peace.
The independent pillar status of the Hungarian public accuser's office is a unique construction, loosely modeled on the system Portugal introduced after the 1974 victory of the Carnation Revolution. The public accuser (attorney general) body has become the fourth column of Hungarian democracy only in recent times: after communism fell in 1989, the office was made independent by a new clausule XI. of the Constitution. The change was meant to prevent abuse of state power, especially with regards to the use of false accusations against opposition politicians, who may be excluded from elections if locked in protracted or excessively severe court cases.
To prevent the Hungarian accuser's office from neglecting its duties, natural human private persons can submit investigation requests, called "pótmagánvád" directly to the courts, if the accusers' office refuses to do its job. Courts will decide if the allegations have merit and order police to act in lieu of the accuser's office if warranted. In its decision No. 42/2005 the Hungarian constitutional court declared that the government does not enjoy such privilege and the state is powerless to further pursue cases if the public accuser refuses to do so.
See also[edit]
Arm's length principle
Absolute power
Constitutional economics
Constitutionalism
Corruption Perceptions Index
Fourth Estate
Fifth power
Fusion of powers
Judicial activism
Judicial independence
Legal reform
Mixed government
Philosophy of law
Pith and substance
Power sharing
Reserve power
Rule of Law
Rule According to Higher Law
Separation of church and state
Separation of duties
Signing statement
Unitary executive theory
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Quoted in Jan Weerda, Calvin, in Evangelisches Soziallexikon, Third Edition (1960), Stuttgart (Germany), col. 210
Jump up ^ Ward, Lee (2014). Modern Democracy and the Theological-Political Problem in Spinoza, Rousseau, and Jefferson. Recovering Political Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 25–26. ISBN 9781137475053. Retrieved 2015-11-03. Calvin's republican sympathies derived from his view of human nature as deeply flawed. Compound or mixed governments reflect the reality that human frailty justifies and necessitates institutional checks and balances to the magistrate's presumed propensity to abuse power. It was this commitment to checks and balances that became the basis of Calvin's resistance theory, according to which inferior magistrates have a duty to resist or restrain a tyrannical sovereign.
Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), History of Religion in the United States, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 9–10
Jump up ^ Fennell, Christopher. "Plymouth Colony Legal Structure". Histarch.uiuc.edu.
Jump up ^ Hanover Historical Texts Project
Jump up ^ Clifton E. Olmstead, History of Religion in the United States, pp. 69–76, 99–105, 114–16
Jump up ^ Otto Heinrich von der Gablentz, Gewalt, Gewaltenteilung, In Evangelisches Soziallexikon, col. 420
Jump up ^ Price, Sara (22 February 2011), The Roman Republic in Montesquieu and Rousseau – Abstract, SSRN 1766947
Jump up ^ Schindler, Ronald, Montesquieu's Political Writings, retrieved 19 November 2012
Jump up ^ Lloyd, Marshall Davies (22 September 1998), Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers, retrieved 17 November 2012
Jump up ^ Montesquieue, Charles-Louie. The Spirit of Laws.
Jump up ^ See Government accused of 'waging war' on Parliament by forcing through key law changes without debate, Independent, 19 Jan. 2016.
Jump up ^ See Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth [1951] HCA 5, AustLII
Jump up ^ "Constitution of the Czech Republic". Parliament of the Czech Republic.
Jump up ^ "The 1920 Constitution – 90th anniversary of the adoption of the first Czechoslovak Constitution". The Office of the Government of the Czech Republic.
Jump up ^ Duguit, Leon (1911). Traite de droit constitutionnel, vol. 1, La regle du droit: le probleme de l'Etat, Paris: de Boccard, p. 645.
Jump up ^ "Constitution du 4 octobre 1958". Retrieved 11 October 2013.
Jump up ^ http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/intro/about_lc.htm
Jump up ^ "Chief Justice's Speech at Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2010". Hong Kong Judiciary. Retrieved 2011-03-07.
Jump up ^ "Mature Enough for Democracy, And Sensible Too" (PDF). Global Asia. Retrieved 2011-03-06.
Jump up ^ http://zg.people.com.cn/BIG5/33839/34943/34944/34947/2617694.html
Jump up ^ Jain, M.P. (2010). Indian Constitutional Law. LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur. p. 921. ISBN 978-81-8038-621-3.
Jump up ^ For the most recent developments see (in Italian) D.Argondizzo-G.Buonomo, Spigolature intorno all’attuale bicameralismo e proposte per quello futuro, in Mondoperaio.net, aprile 2014, p. 9.
Jump up ^ The parliamentary dialectic is a legally significant and a protected value, as evidenced by the decision no. 32 of 2014 and the favor with which you see in it the maintenance "within the constitutional framework" of "institutional relations between the Government, Parliament and President of the Republic in the performance of the legislative function": Buonomo, Giampiero (2014). "Governo e revisione costituzionale". Mondoperaio edizione online. – via Questia (subscription required)
Jump up ^ "Constitution of the United States". Archives.gov. 2000-09-15. Retrieved 2013-05-05.
Jump up ^ Madison, James. (8 February 1788) "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments" The Federalist Papers No. 51
Jump up ^ See Bruce P. Frohnen, George W. Carey, Constitutional Morality and the Rise of Quasi-Law, Harvard University Press, 2016.
Jump up ^ Shelley Rigger (18 April 2002). "E-Notes: Why Taiwan's Political Paralysis PersistsFPRI". Foreign Policy Research Institute. Archived from the original on 10 February 2005. Retrieved 2008-10-29.
Jump up ^ Bomberg, Elizabeth, Peterson, John, and Richard Corbett, eds. The European Union: How Does it Work? (3rd ed) (2012, Oxford University Press). ISBN 978-0-19-957080-5 and ISBN 0-19-957080-9.
Jump up ^ Corbett, Richard; Jacobs, Francis; Shackleton, Michael (2011). The European Parliament (8th ed.). London: John Harper Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9564508-5-2.
Jump up ^ Craig, Paul; de Búrca, Gráinne (2007). EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927389-8.
Further reading[edit]
Peter Barenboim, Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers, Moscow, Letny Sad, 2005. ISBN 5-94381-123-0, Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578
Biancamaria Fontana (ed.), The Invention of the Modern Republic (2007) ISBN 978-0-521-03376-3
W. B. Gwyn, The Meaning of the Separation of Powers (1965) (no ISBN)
Bernard Manin, Principles of Representative Government (1995; English version 1997) ISBN 0-521-45258-9 (hbk), ISBN 0-521-45891-9 (pbk)
José María Maravall and Adam Przeworski (eds), Democracy and the Rule of Law (2003) ISBN 0-521-82559-8 (hbk), ISBN 0-521-53266-3 (pbk)
Paul A. Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty (2009) ISBN 978-0-300-14125-2 (hbk), ISBN 978-0-300-16808-2 (pbk)
Iain Stewart, "Men of Class: Aristotle, Montesquieu and Dicey on 'Separation of Powers' and 'the Rule of Law'" 4 Macquarie Law Journal 187 (2004)
Iain Stewart, "Montesquieu in England: his 'Notes on England', with Commentary and Translation" (2002)
Alec Stone Sweet, Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe (2000) ISBN 978-0-19-829730-7
M. J. C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (1967, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998) Second edition. ISBN 0-86597-174-9 (hbk), ISBN 0-86597-175-7 (pbk)
Reinhold Zippelius, Allgemeine Staatslehre/Politikwissenschaft (= Political Science), 16th edition, § 31, C.H. Beck, Munich, 2010, ISBN 978-3-406-60342-6
External links[edit]
Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers
Arbitrary Government Described and the Government of the Massachusetts Vindicated from that Aspersion (1644)
[show]
v
t
e
Separation of powers
Typical branches
Executive
Legislature
Judiciary
Atypical branches
Civil service commission
Auditory
Electoral
Prosecutory
By country
Australia
United Kingdom
United States
Singapore
See also
Fusion of powers
Separation of duties
Judicial independence
Judicial review
Dual mandate
Authority control
GND: 4071817-7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separation_of_powers&oldid=802925331"
Categories:
Constitutional law
Philosophy of law
Separation of powers
Political science terminology
Hidden categories:
Articles with Italian-language external links
Articles containing Italian-language text
Subscription required using via
Pages containing links to subscription-only content
Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from November 2015
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from November 2015
All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from September 2017
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2016
Articles with unsourced statements from April 2014
Articles with unsourced statements from January 2009
Articles with obsolete information from August 2014
All Wikipedia articles in need of updating
Use dmy dates from January 2011
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Wikiquote
Languages
Acèh
Afrikaans
العربية
Aragonés
Asturianu
Bân-lâm-gú
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Basa Jawa
Қазақша
Kiswahili
ລາວ
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
मराठी
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Occitan
Plattdüütsch
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Scots
සිංහල
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
Winaray
ייִדיש
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 29 September 2017, at 10:19.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values:
/wiki/Balance_of_power_(disambiguation)
mw-redirect mw-disambig
Balance of power (disambiguation)

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: tr

value: th

values: padding:0.2em 0 0.4em;padding:0.4em 0 0.4em;

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle1
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
/wiki/Politics_by_country
mw-redirect
Politics by country

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle2
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle3
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values: padding:0.2em 0.4em; line-height:1.2em; line-height:1.15em;

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle4
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle5
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle6
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle7
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
NavToggle
NavToggle8
#
color: rgb(58, 95, 205);

values:
/wiki/Voting_system
mw-redirect
Voting system

values:
/wiki/Forms_of_government
mw-redirect
Forms of government

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.2em;padding-top:0;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em;font-size: 200%; font-weight: normal;

values: font-size:105%;background:transparent;text-align:left;background:transparent; border-top: 1px solid #aaa; text-align: center; padding-left: 0.4em; padding-right: 2.4em;

values:
/wiki/Jean_Jacques_Rousseau
mw-redirect
Jean Jacques Rousseau

values:
/wiki/Michael_Sandel
mw-redirect
Michael Sandel

values:
/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_1952
mw-redirect
Egyptian Revolution of 1952

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;text-align: center;

values: Edit section: Early modern biparty systems

values:
/wiki/Checks_and_balances
mw-redirect
Checks and balances

values: Quotation needed from source to verify. (November 2015)

values:
/wiki/Pilgrim_Fathers
mw-redirect
Pilgrim Fathers

values:
/wiki/Religious_freedom
mw-redirect
Religious freedom

values: William Bradford (Plymouth Colony governor)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (November 2015)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: Edit section: Montesquieu's separation of powers system

values: Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu

values:
/wiki/Political_philosopher
mw-redirect
Political philosopher

values:
/wiki/Political_power
mw-redirect
Political power

values: Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

values:
/wiki/Presidential_System
mw-redirect
Presidential System

values:
/wiki/Veto_override
mw-redirect
Veto override

values:
/wiki/U.S._Military
mw-redirect
U.S. Military

values:
/wiki/United_States_federal_courts
mw-redirect
United States federal courts

values: United States federal executive departments

values:
/wiki/United_States_armed_forces
mw-redirect
United States armed forces

values:
/wiki/Appeal_(law)
mw-redirect
Appeal (law)

values: Edit section: Comparison between tripartite and bipartite national systems

values:
/wiki/Electoral_branch
mw-redirect
Electoral branch

values:
/wiki/Swiss_politics
mw-redirect
Swiss politics

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
mw-redirect
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

values:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

values: Constitutional Act on the Czechoslovak Federation

values:
/wiki/Government_of_Denmark
mw-redirect
Government of Denmark

values:
/wiki/Political_system_of_France
mw-redirect
Political system of France

values:
/wiki/Prime_minister_of_france
mw-redirect
Prime minister of france

values:
/wiki/National_Assembly_of_France
mw-redirect
National Assembly of France

values:
/wiki/Parliament_of_France
mw-redirect
Parliament of France

values:
/wiki/French_Senate
mw-redirect
French Senate

values:
/wiki/Constitutional_Council_of_France
mw-redirect
Constitutional Council of France

values:
/wiki/Special_Administrative_Region
mw-redirect
Special Administrative Region

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2016)

values:
/wiki/Constitutional_democracy
mw-redirect
Constitutional democracy

values:
/wiki/Vote_of_confidence
mw-redirect
Vote of confidence

values: Separation of powers in the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/British_House_of_Commons
mw-redirect
British House of Commons

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (April 2014)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (January 2009)

values: Judicial Committee of the House of Lords

values:
/wiki/Ministry_of_Justice
mw-redirect
Ministry of Justice

values: Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons

values:
/wiki/Factortame_litigation
mw-redirect
Factortame litigation

values:
/wiki/Court_of_appeal
mw-redirect
Court of appeal

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

values:
/wiki/Executive_order
mw-redirect
Executive order

values:
/wiki/Five-Power_Constitution
mw-redirect
Five-Power Constitution

values: National Assembly of the Republic of China

values: Constitutional convention (political meeting)

values: Schematic overview of Belgian institutions

values: Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones de Costa Rica

values: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

values:
/wiki/Bundesversammlung_(Germany)
mw-redirect
Bundesversammlung (Germany)

values: Joint Senate of the Supreme Courts of Germany

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Update

values:
/wiki/Legal_reform
mw-redirect
Legal reform

values:
/wiki/Rule_of_Law
mw-redirect
Rule of Law

values:
/wiki/Rule_According_to_Higher_Law
mw-redirect
Rule According to Higher Law

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=1766947

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: font-size:0.95em; font-size: 90%; color: #555

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external free
http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.bartleby.com/43/9.html

values:
/wiki/Attorney_General
mw-redirect
Attorney General

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values:
nofollow
external text
http://d-nb.info/gnd/4071817-7

values: Category:Articles with Italian-language external links

values: Category:Articles containing Italian-language text

values: Category:Subscription required using via

values: Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from November 2015

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2015

values: Category:All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

values: Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from September 2017

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2016

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2014

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2009

values: Category:Articles with obsolete information from August 2014

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles in need of updating

values: Category:Use dmy dates from January 2011

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Separation_of_powers
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: فصل السلطات – Arabic

values: Падзяленне ўлады – Belarusian

values: Падзяленьне ўлады – Belarusian (Taraškievica orthography)

values: Разделение на властите – Bulgarian

values: Διάκριση των εξουσιών – Greek

values: تفکیک قوا – Persian

values: Իշխանությունների բաժանում (ուսմունք) – Armenian

values: शक्तियों का पृथक्करण – Hindi

values: הפרדת הרשויות – Hebrew

values: Биліктердің бөлінуі – Kazakh

values: ການແຍກໃຊ້ອຳນາດ – Lao

values: Valdžių padalijimo principas – Lithuanian

values: A hatalmi ágak szétválasztása – Hungarian

values: Поделба на власта – Macedonian

values: അധികാര പൃഥക്കരണം – Malayalam

values: राज्यकारभाराच्या शाखा – Marathi

values: Maktfordelingsprinsippet – Norwegian Nynorsk

values: Разделение властей – Russian

values: බලතල බෙදීමේ න්‍යාය – Sinhala

values: Подјела власти – Serbian

values: Paghihiwalay ng mga kapangyarihan – Tagalog

values: அதிகாரப் பிரிவினை – Tamil

values: การแยกใช้อำนาจ – Thai

values: Розподіл державної влади – Ukrainian

values: רעגירונגס מאכט אבטייל – Yiddish

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Separation_of_powers rootpage-Separation_of_powers vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view