Separation of the Powers from Birth to Now: Democratic Countries

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3475-1

Synonyms

Definition

The separation of the powers refers to the idea that if the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may rise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Introduction

From east to west and north to south, people with any race, color, religion, and culture always try to overcome the tyranny and gain democracy and liberty during the history. So it’s not amazing to confront the complementary or completely new ideas for the human being social systems. Political theories are one of the originations to meet these kinds of needs. As Princeton (2015) defined, it is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Any idea in this area has been impacted with...

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

References

  1. Alikhani M (1995) The basement of the laws. Dastan Published, TehranGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle (1959) Politic (trans: Enayat H). Neel published, Tehran, p 126Google Scholar
  3. Australian Geographic (2001) How Australia’s Parliament works. Australian Geographic, Issue 63 Jul–Sep 2001. Retrieved 16 June 2014Google Scholar
  4. Bard A, Söderqvist J (2012) The futurica trilogy: the netocrats. Stockholm Text, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron M (2013) Strong constitutions: social-cognitive origins of the separation of powers. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Central Intelligence Agency (2016) The world fact book: France, CIA. Retrieved 12 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  7. Clarendon Press (1961) Montesquieu; a critical biography. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Date Accessed 15 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  8. George Routledge & Sons (1887) Montesquieu. London, Ulan Press reprint, 2011, p 10. ASIN: B00A5TMPHCGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghazi-Zade A (2006) The necessitates of basic laws. Mizan Published, Tehran, p 163Google Scholar
  10. Hanf KI & Toonen TA (Eds.) (2012) Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems: questions of analysis and design (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  11. Khosravi H (2016) Basic laws. Khorsandi Published, Tehran, p 84Google Scholar
  12. Kirn W (2000) The new radicals: the people who brought us Seattle have now done Washington; are they dreams or sly subversives? TimeGoogle Scholar
  13. Lijphart A (1992) Introduction. In: Lijphart A (ed) Parliamentary versus presidential government. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  14. Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  15. Milner HV (2006) The digital divide: the role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comp Pol Stud 39(2):176–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Montesquieu, Charles-Louis (1955) The spirit of the law, (4Th Edition). (Trans: Mohandes. A.), Eghbal Published, TehranGoogle Scholar
  17. Princeton University (2015) Department of politics. www.princeton.edu/politics/fields/political-theory/
  18. Rasso J (1967) The social contract (trans: Shakibapour E). Farokhi Published, TehranGoogle Scholar
  19. The constitution of Russian federation (2007) The constitution of the Russian Federation. Retrieved 27 Dec 2007. http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-05.htm
  20. The National Diet of Japan (2016) Guide relationship to other bodies. The National Diet of Japan, House of Councillors, The National Diet of Japan. www.sangiin.go.jp/eng/guide/relation/
  21. Thomas L (2009) Locke on government (Osquian A). Hekmat Published, Tehran, p 15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PNU UniversityTehranIran