Diffeent federations provide states with different levels of autonomy in what regard their capacity to frame their own constitutions and define their own constitutional rules. What differentiate federations in what concern this issue?
I see three aspects which seem to be important in this issue: history, tradition and constitutional experience in the relations making between federation and states, provinces, regions etc. I believe that a real test of the autonomy of regions, provinces, states, etc. may be the way how are they provided by the constitutions of their federations to the powers and competencies to carry out activities falling within the scope of foreign policy. I see also three very representative examples which I’d like mention in this discussion: Switzerland, Germany and Russia. And this is not a random order.
For the first time the relationship resembling a federation with regard to Switzerland, we can talk after the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Very loose relationship 13 municipalities formed the nucleus of the Swiss federalist tradition. Only for a short while was the constitution of the Helvetic Republic (1798), which changed cantons into ordinary administrative units, and made Switzerland a unified and unified state in the form of Napoleonic solutions. But the constitutions of 1848 and 1874 restored the tradition of federalist solutions, which also adheres to the Swiss constitution in force. With this long tradition, the basic principle of mutual relations between Swiss cantons and the federation is the principle of cooperation and mutual support (Article 44). The cantons cooperate, in accordance with the Federal Constitution, in shaping the will of the Federation, in particular in lawmaking (Article 45). ). In the context of our interest, it is very distinctive that the cantons may, within the scope of their competence, conclude agreements with foreign countries. These agreements may not be in conflict with the interests of the Federation, as well as other cantons. Cantons are required to notify the Federation before entering into contracts. With lower level foreign cantons, the cantons can maintain relations directly. In other cases the relations of cantons abroad are held through the Federation (Article 56).
We will not find such solutions in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany of May 23, 1949 (as of January 1, 2007). Although it is difficult not to notice the considerable autonomy of the German Länder on many issues, the constitution stipulates that the maintenance of relations with other states belongs to the Federation (Article 32). The German federal states may conclude agreements with other states within their legislative powers only with the consent of the federal government. This is undoubtedly the qualitative difference of German constitutional solutions in relation to those we would see in the case of Switzerland.
And last but not the least important case of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation consists of republics, countries, districts, cities of federal importance, autonomous regions and autonomous regions (Article 5 of the Constitution of 12 December 1993). In the same article 5 of the Russian Constitution, we find somewhat paradoxical in this context the statement that the federal structure of the Russian Federation is based on its state integrity and unity of the system of state authority. Despite the fact that a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation was in its constitution (Article 65) called autonomous republics and autonomous circuits, foreign policy and international relations of the Russian Federation, international agreements, war and peace issues, as well as foreign economic relations are exclusively within the scope of the activities of the Russian Federation (Article 71).
Of course tradition and history play very important roles in cases of Germany and Russia. Although in Germany we can legitimately talk about the inheritance and experience of the autonomy of their respective regions in different periods of history, we can certainly also note that they interfere with the fear of divisions or even divide the state into a number of smaller entities. Hence the limited German autonomy of foreign lands. It is difficult to judge how much the experience and heritage of the Nazi totalitarian state, which for some time was present in German history, has influenced this situation. In this dimension, Russia has similar traditions with the element of experiencing a strong, authoritarian and even totalitarian communist state. The differences in the attitude of the German and Russian Federation model to the issue of the autonomy of their components appear to be more interesting. But this is how I think about the topic for another debate.
Best regards!