Article published by Gabriele Casano on 10 February 2026 in “Eurobull”
https://www.eurobull.it/federalismo-e-federazione-un-tentativo-di-disambiguazione?lang=fr
What distinguishes federalist thought from a federation? Federalism does not end with the organisation of the State; rather, it proposes a horizon of values and goals that guide political action. A federation is therefore a tool, not an end in itself, capable of holding together different dimensions of political coexistence.
Distinguishing between federalist thought and a federation is particularly important. The former is an autonomous body of political thought endowed with values, principles and perspectives for action. The latter is nothing more than a specific form taken by the vertical division of power within what we call the State. In federalist thought, the federation is the ideal instrument for achieving a goal: peace in the Kantian sense—that is, the impossibility of war between states (Spinelli & Rossi, 1943). This goal, in federalist theory, plays an additional role: it is also a value, since it constitutes the ethical foundation of federalist thinking and allows for the connection of other factors considered fundamental by federalists for a virtuous management of power in government action: freedom, democracy and social justice (Albertini, 2000). In fact, it is Kantian peace, in this dual nature, that represents the only true objective of federalist political action.
Not by chance, some recent developments in federalist thought, when defining the ultimate goal of political action, make reference to the concept of human emancipation, precisely to clarify the link between peace, democracy, freedom and social justice—thus going beyond the mere issue of conflict between states and embracing a broader range of socio‑political aspects (Moro, 2021; AA.VV., 2022; Saputo, 2023, 2025; Casano, 2023, 2024). It follows that federalist doctrine cannot be limited to a theory of the federal state; it must instead constitute a “criterion for knowledge and action” capable of guiding the behaviour of social actors toward the ultimate goal (Albertini, 2000).
However, this value‑based perspective must always be accompanied by an institutional one. This is necessary to overcome the utopian character of grand ideologies and internationalism. Indeed, although it is true that the federation is not the ultimate goal, the federal structure is considered the only form of distribution of power capable—through binding institutional mechanisms—of both preventing war between states and guaranteeing freedom, social justice and democracy. Without a federal structure, the full achievement of these aspirations is not possible. At the same time, the federal structure does not in itself guarantee these aspirations, because even a federation, like any institution, risks degeneration if its value‑based aspects do not remain central to the political project. Federalist engagement therefore does not end with the establishment of a federal order; it guides the constitutional process toward accepting the values it promotes, and continues over time as a form of vigilance over the consistency between implemented policies and supported values.
Two questions therefore arise from this reflection:
Which principles allow the federal form to adequately guarantee freedom, social justice and democracy?
Which characteristics distinguish the federal division of power from others, and why do these prevent the reproduction of war?
The best way to address these two questions is to provide an overview of the core principles of federalist thought and of the theory of the federal state. Only by clarifying the principles underpinning federalist reflection can one understand the choice to adopt the federal organisation of power as the tool to achieve the ultimate end. Developing a theory of the federal state responds to the need to synthesise two seemingly opposing tendencies which, in reality, constitute the soul of federalist thought: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism.
The first can be seen as a way of thinking that assigns each individual world citizenship, referring to universal ideals of fraternity and equality. The second is more complex and nuanced, but can be linked to the desire to value direct and meaningful sociality (the everyday experience of living within one’s socio‑territorial context of belonging), in contrast to the anonymous character promoted by individualism and the deterritorialisation processes associated with ungoverned globalisation. On one hand, we have a vision aspiring to citizenship—and thus belonging—on a global scale; on the other, a perspective placing the individual and the local, collective dimension of existence at the centre, an embedded belonging rooted in daily experience. In light of these two poles, federalist doctrine has reflected on how to organise institutional power, identifying the federal structure as the most suitable form of vertical division of power to synthesise the aspirations of these apparently irreconcilable orientations.
The key characteristic of the federal structure is that, in addition to the functional separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, there is a territorial division of power among different levels of government that are at once independent and coordinated. Unlike unitary states, in a federal state the central government possesses only the minimum competences and powers necessary to guarantee the political and economic unity of the Federation, while all other levels are granted full self‑government in all remaining areas. Within their own spheres, no level of government may be subordinated to a superior one. It follows that the relationship between levels of government is not a hierarchical one between superiors and subordinates, but rather a relationship of coordination among independent powers (Dicey, 1915). This idea is also clarified by Wheare (1997), who defines the federal principle as “that system of division of powers which enables the central and regional governments to be, each in its own sphere, coordinated and independent.”
If we consider a hypothetical European Federation, a fully federal distribution of power would involve not only transferring part of the sovereignty now held by national states to the continental level [1], but also reorganising power within national states by recognising autonomous levels of government at different territorial scales (Rossolillo, 1983): from neighbourhoods to cities, from municipalities to regions, and including provinces and municipal unions. Power‑sharing among these levels of government, coordination mechanisms, resource management and fiscal arrangements relate to two fundamental principles: subsidiarity and territorial solidarity. These principles help explain both the mechanisms behind the functioning of a federation and the reason federalist thought—whose goal is human emancipation (in its broadest sense) or, more simply, the realisation of Kantian peace—identifies the federal form of power distribution, and thus the federation, as the most suitable instrument for its aims.
The principle of subsidiarity establishes that political and territorial issues must be resolved at the higher level only when they cannot be adequately addressed at the lower level, closer to citizens. The principle of territorial solidarity ensures that citizens of wealthier territorial communities contribute to the efforts of poorer communities to achieve greater well‑being. The coexistence of these principles and their codification within a federal structure foster active and democratic participation in political life, since citizens are placed as close as possible to the most suitable decision‑making centres for responding to their needs; at the same time, they equip the institutional system with effective tools to guarantee social justice and individual and collective freedoms.
Finally, this process of power distribution helps counter the limits of centralisation which, according to Proudhon (1863), has as its first effect “that of making disappear, in the various localities of a country, every kind of indigenous character,” preventing citizens from recognising themselves in a concrete community, favouring instead the “fiction” of the Nation. Moreover, this fiction—combined with the centralisation typical of unitary states—feeds the narrative and political processes (linked to nationalism) that portray humanity as divided into antagonistic groups with irreconcilable interests, thereby legitimising violence as a tool for resolving disputes, ultimately taking the form of war when economic and political action is followed by military action.
In conclusion, we may argue that federalist thought chooses the federal form of vertical power distribution, and therefore commits to building a European and world federation, because of the nature of its ultimate goal, describable both as human emancipation and as the materialisation of Kantian peace. The federation [2] thus constitutes the most suitable means to this end, as it is capable of organising power in a way that guarantees freedom, democracy and social justice through the respect of two fundamental principles: subsidiarity and territorial solidarity.