Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct Participation of the People in Public Power—Advantages and Disadvantages of a Referendum, Croatian and European Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rule of Law, Human Rights and Judicial Control of Power

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 61))

Abstract

The fundamental role of referendum in modern democracies is the role of a contre-pouvoir, as an instrument limiting the scope of operation of legislative and executive power. Democracy, especially when exercised through a referendum, vests the electorate with the quality of a state body. When the electorate acts as a pouvoir constitué, its intervention must be limited in a way that respects the constitutional balance of powers and the imperatives connected to the proper functioning of the state. The necessity to protect the other public powers and ensure the continuity of state is fundamental, in accordance with the principles of separation of powers and national sovereignty. When the electorate acts as a public power via referendum, it must respect the constitution. Despite the idiosyncrasies of that power, respect for the rule of law demands that there exists a functioning system for constitutional review of its acts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Constitution of Massachusetts (1790, Art. XLVIII, part II, Section 2), the section which lists matters excluded from direct decision-making encompasses religion, religious practices or religious institutions, appointment, terms of tenure, recall or compensation of judges, as well as the reversal of a judicial decision, powers, creation or abolition of courts, and limitation of rights contained in the Declaration of rights or any modification of specified exemptions.

  2. 2.

    The Constitutional Court of Italy (Decisions Nos. 27 and 28 in 1987 and 29 in 1987) explains that constitutional bodies cannot be exposed to a possible paralysis of their functions. The proposals are deemed unacceptable because of the risk of legal loopholes that would prevent operation of institutions.

  3. 3.

    Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, Article 87. At such referenda, decisions shall be made by a majority of voters taking part therein. Decisions made at referenda shall be binding. A law shall be adopted on any such referendum.

  4. 4.

    On 20 April 2000, the leaders of the Central Headquarters for the defence of the dignity of the Homeland War delivered to Z. Tomčić, the President of Croatian Parliament a petition with over 400,000 signatures that required a referendum on the Constitutional Act on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court for war crimes, and the result of the referendum decision would be exclusion of Croatia from the international community.

  5. 5.

    Art. 95, Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, NN 99/1999, 29/2002, 49/2002.

  6. 6.

    Priopćenje o narodnom ustavotvornom referendumu o definiciji braka, No: SuS-1/2013, November 14, 2013.

  7. 7.

    The rules regarding the form of proposals are determined. For example, each section of the petition must have an official title and summary, followed by the full text of the proposed initiative; each page intended for the voters’ signatures must contain an official title and summary of the purpose of the proposal. In the space above the space for voters’ signatures on the list, the warning that voters have the right to ask whether volunteers or paid professionals collect signatures must be highlighted.

  8. 8.

    Loi organique no 2013- 1114, 6/12/ 2013, portant application de l'article 11 de la Constitution, JORF No 284 7/12/2013.

  9. 9.

    B. Mirkin-Guetzévitch coined the term parlementarisme rationalisé describing the evolution of the European constitutional systems in the first half of the 20th century and various proposals for amending the Constitution in order to limit the power of the parliament by strengthening the executive power, modifying the right of dissolution of parliament, as well as introducing referendum and judicial review. French parliamentarism between the two World Wars had all the characteristics of the assembly system.

References

  • Angelesco, Constantin C. 1933. La consultation directe du peuple, en dehors de l̕élection, d̀apres la Constitutin de Weimar. Paris: Libraire des Facultés Ēmile Muller

    Google Scholar 

  • Auer, A. 1989. Le référendum et l`initiative populaire aux États-unis. Basel: éd. Helbing –Lichtenhahn. pg. 113

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, Sam. 2011. Tight Budgets Mean Squeeze in Classrooms, N.Y. Times, March 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Escarras, J.-C. 1993. Aprés le bing-bang référendaire de la Cour constitutionnelle, le trou noir pour l`Italie? R.F.D.C. 13: 183

    Google Scholar 

  • Eule, Julian N. 1990. Judicial Review of Direct Democracy, Yale Law Journal 99: 1526–1527

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Fatin-Rouge Stéfanini, Le côntrole du référendum par la justice constitutionelle, Economica, Paris, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatin-Rouge Stéfanini, Marthe. 2014a. 25 ans de débats et de réformes sur les référendums en France: entre apparences et réalités. RFDC 100: 909–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatin-Rouge Stéfanini, Marthe. 2014b. L’encadrement des procédés de démocratie directe: entre nécessité et opportunité. https://www.jus.uio.no/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences/2014/wccl-cmdc/wccl/papers/ws16/w16-stefanini.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2014

  • Fatin-Rouge Stéfanini, Marthe. 2015. Le recours au référendum à l’heure de la globalisation. Internationalisation des constitutions et constitutionnalisation du droit international, Réflexions sur quelques interactions entre droit constitutionnel et droit international. Les cahiers de l’Institut Louis Favoreu 4:31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Florin V. Ivan. 2011. Revising judicial application of the single subject rule. NYU ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW, Vol. 66:85

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardašević, Đorđe. 2014. Neustavni ustavni amandmani i Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske. In Konstitucionalizacija demokratske politike, ed. Bačić, A. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. pg.87

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamon, Francis. 1995. Le référendum. Etude comparative. Paris: L.G.D.J, E.J.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamon, Francis. 2007. Le référendum, Documents réunis et commentés, La documentation Francaise, pg. 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamon, Francis. 2012. L’inachèvement du statut juridique du referendum. In Théorie et pratiques du référendum, ed. Sociéte de législation comparée, Paris, Collection colloques 17: 89–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvat Vuković, Ana. 2014. Referendum narodne inicijative 2013. – ustavni identitet kao osnova ustavnosudskog aktivizma, In: Referendum narodne inicijative u Hrvatskoj i Sloveniji – Ustavnopravno uređenje, iskustva i perspektive (Podolnjak, R.; Smerdel, B. - ed.). Zagreb: Hrvatska udruga za ustavno pravo

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvat Vuković, Ana. 2016. Referendum on outsourcing – Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia and fettering of popular sovereignty. https://www.pravo.unizg.hr/USTP/seminar. Accessed 25 February 2016

  • IRI. Initiative and Referendum Institute. 2013. Overview of Initiative Use, 1900–2012.http://www.iandrinstitute.org/IRI%20Initiative%20Use%20(2013-1).pdf. Accessed 1 June 2014

  • Kaufmann, B., Büchi, R., N. Braun. 2010. Guidebook to Direct Democracy in Switzerland and beyond, Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe, pg. 208

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostadinov, Biljana. 2001. Referendum građanske inicijative. Zbornik PFZ 51 (6) 1381–1394

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostadinov, Biljana. 2007. E pluribus unum: ustavnost država članica američke federacije. Zbornik PFZ 57 (2) 291–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostadinov, Biljana. 2011. Ustavni identitet. Dvadeseta obljetnica Ustava Republike Hrvatske (Bačić, A.-ed.) Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb. pg. 305–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostadinov, Biljana. 2014. Ususret Odluci Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske o referendumskoj promjeni izbornog sustava. Informator, 6331. Zagreb. pg.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostadinov, Biljana. 2015. Načelo jasnoće referendumskog pitanja. Zbornik PFZ 65 (1) 55–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, John G. and Richard L. Hasen. 2010.Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule. http://weblaw.usc.edu/assets/docs/Matsusaka_Aggressive_Enforcement.pdfAccessed 21 June 2014

  • Mratović, V. Obvezujući referendum na zahtjev 10 posto biraća je teror manjine nad većinom, Vjesnik, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Omejec, Jasna. 2010. Kontrola ustavnosti ustavnih normi (ustavnih amandmana i ustavnih zakona). Godišnjak Akademije pravnih znanosti Hrvatske. 1: 22–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Portelli, Hugues. 2001. Le référendum abrogatif en Italie, In Mélanges Pierre Avril, Montchrestien

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, R. 1996. Le procés constitutionnel en Italie, Economica, P.U.A.M. pg. 105

    Google Scholar 

  • Taillon, Patrick. 2012. Le référendum expression directe de la souveraineté du peuple?. Dalloz

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, Jean-Baptiste. 2014. Le référendum, pouvoir ou contre-pouvoir?. http://www.droitconstitutionnel.org/congresLyon/CommLD/D-roche_T2.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2015

  • Tarr, Alan G. 2006. Introduction. In State Constitutions for the Twenty-first Century. Volume 3. The Agenda of state constitutional reform, ed. G. Alan Tarr and Robert F. Williams, Albany: State University of New York Press. Proposal 13. California. 2011. Temporary taxes to fund education. http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdfAccessed 12 June 2015

  • Ronald M. Gregore. 2014. Office of Governor Edmund Brown G_ Jr_ - Newsroom.mht. http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18735. Accessed 23 June 2015.

  • Schott, Stéphane. 2012. Le referendum dans les Länder de la République Fédérale d̕Allemagne. In Théorie et pratiques du référendum, ed. Sociéte de législation comparée, Paris, Collection colloques 17: 53–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott, Stéphane. 2012a. L̀initiative populaie dans les états fédére allemands. Paris: LGDJ, Lextenso éd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sueur, Jean-Pierre. 2013. http://www.senat.fr/rap/l12-373/l12-3731.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2014

  • U ime obitelji. 2014. http://uimeobitelji.net/referendumsko-pitanje/#more-280. Accessed October 1, 2014

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Biljana Kostadinov

Authors
  1. Biljana Kostadinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biljana Kostadinov .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Rainer Arnold

  2. University of the Andes, Santiago, Las Condes, Chile

    José Ignacio Martínez-Estay

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kostadinov, B. (2017). Direct Participation of the People in Public Power—Advantages and Disadvantages of a Referendum, Croatian and European Perspective. In: Arnold, R., Martínez-Estay, J. (eds) Rule of Law, Human Rights and Judicial Control of Power. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 61. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55186-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55186-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55184-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55186-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation