What is the difference between a unitary, composite, associated, federal or regional state?

The APROFED association is getting back to you this weekend following a question from one of its supporters who would like to know what the difference is between a unitary, composite, associated, federal, or regional state.

Although the association has already had the opportunity to produce certain articles on this theme, which you can find at the link below, we have once again asked the AI ​​to provide us with its insight, to which we have added our comments.

Difference between associated state and federated state – APROFED

Definition of a non-sovereign nation-state – APROFED

The principles of federalism – APROFED

Here is the answer provided by the AI:

State types are distinguished by the way power is organized between different territorial entities. Here are the main differences:

Unitary state

1. 1. • Power is centralized and exercised by a single government.

1. 1. • The subdivisions (regions, departments, provinces) have only administrative autonomy, and their powers are delegated by the central State.

1. 1. • Example: France, Portugal, Japan .

Compound state

1. 1. • It brings together several political entities under a common authority.

1. 1. • It can be federal or confederal , depending on the degree of autonomy left to the member entities.

federal state

1. 1. • The state is divided into entities (states, provinces, Länder, cantons) which have significant autonomy and their own constitution.

1. 1. • There is a sharing of sovereignty between the central government and local governments, defined by a constitution.

1. 1. • Example: United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Brazil .

Regional state

1. 1. • Between a unitary state and a federal state, it grants broad political and legislative autonomy to certain regions, which may even have their own parliament and government.

1. 1. • Unlike a federal state, the regions remain subordinate to the central state, which can in principle change their status.

1. 1. • Example: Spain, Italy, United Kingdom (including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) .

Associated State

1. 1. • It is a territory that is linked to another state by a special agreement, with a certain internal autonomy but without complete international sovereignty.

1. 1. • Often used for territories under the influence of a more powerful state, sometimes to prepare for independence.

1. 1. • Example: Puerto Rico (associated with the United States), Cook Islands (associated with New Zealand) .

These distinctions strongly influence how laws are passed, applied and interpreted according to levels of governance.

As you can see for yourselves, although France is classified as a unitary state, the fact that New Caledonia also has a government, significant autonomy, perhaps soon its own Constitution (or fundamental law) even if some already qualify the Noumea Accord as such, with a sharing of sovereignty and powers specific to New Caledonia, qualifies the French state as a federal-type composite state making New Caledonia, de facto, a federated state.

However, the possibility that the French state could modify the status of New Caledonia could also lead it to be classified as a regional state like Spain, Italy or the United Kingdom.

It is this difficulty in categorizing the situation of the NC which today gives it the status of “sui generis” (specific) within the French Constitution.

It is worth recalling here that a large number of experts describe the so-called regional states bordering France as actually federal states, making France the only state among its neighbors that is not yet federal or at least does not accept its transition. Hoping that France does not take the same fatal path as Portugal, also cited as an example of a unitary state, which, not wishing to turn the page on its bygone colonial empire, gave in to extreme nationalism, leading to a dictatorship, which triggered an armed conflict with its last colonies, resulting in many deaths on both sides, which ultimately led to a revolution (of the carnations) on the part of the Portuguese themselves and the independence of the last colonies (Angola in particular).

Because just as Léa Havard describes in her thesis on the associated State, the latter, like the regional State, are concepts created by the former colonial powers in order to maintain their domination over conquered lands for as long as possible. Not only in territories that are still colonized, as is the case overseas, or even formerly colonized, as in Africa, but also in their own regions that aspire to more freedom of decision on local issues that do not fall within the sovereign powers of the central power. Which imposes on them a centralism worthy of absolutism, thereby leading to an increasingly growing discontent not only among the population but also among these local representatives with regard to the State and a disinterest in it through the resignations of elected officials in large numbers and increasingly high abstention rates in elections among the population.

Regarding the associated state, Lea Havard also points out that it generally tends to associate with its former administering power. However, as she explains, this new state could very well associate with another state, perhaps an Oceanian one in the context of New Caledonia, or with Australia, for example, both located in the same region, the Pacific Ocean, thus allowing us to consider the formation of what some call the “United States of Oceania.”

We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.