Definition and Essential Characteristics of Absolutism
The Term Absolutism refers to a form of rule in which unrestricted state power is vested in a single person—the monarch. Absolutism represents a specific manifestation of monarchical government, in which all state powers are centralized and executive, legislative, and judicial competencies are concentrated in the ruler. The term is primarily associated with European history of the 17th and 18th centuries but also holds fundamental significance in the history of law and state theory.
In legal terms, absolutism is characterized by the exclusive and unlimited exercise of sovereign rights by the sovereign. Legal sources, jurisdiction, and administrative actions derive directly from the will of the ruler.
Legal Dogmatic Foundations of Absolutism
Sovereignty and State Power
A central feature of absolutism is the principle of sovereignty. The monarch is considered the highest holder of state power, free from any earthly authority and responsible only to God (divine right of kings). The exercise of state power follows the principle of the personal union of all powers in the ruler.
Separation of Powers versus Unity of Power
In contrast to the modern separation of powers as outlined by Montesquieu, absolutism does not involve an institutional separation of legislation, judiciary, and administration. The monarch can enact laws (legislative power), execute them (executive power), as well as administer justice or delegate this at his discretion (judicial power).
Constitutional Aspects of Absolutism
Absence of Constitutional Limitations
In the absolute state, there are no legal constraints that effectively limit the power of the ruler. Historical manifestations of absolutism often adhered to the principle of “l’état c’est moi” (“I am the state”), as coined by Louis XIV of France. The ruler’s legitimacy is not supported by a constitution, social contract, or parliamentary control but by divine right or dynastic legitimacy.
Monarch as Legislator
The legal system in the absolutist state is characterized by the absence of codified constitutions and parliamentarism. The written form of the law was at the discretion of the monarch. The enactment of laws, legal development, and administrative practice depended solely on his will.
Administrative and Private Law under Absolutism
Administrative Structure and Centralized Decision-Making
Public administration is built hierarchically and subordinated to the monarch. State offices and authorities receive instructions directly from the monarch or his closest circle. There is no independent administration bound by law and justice.
Effects on Private Law
Private law relationships can also be influenced by government interests. The enforcement of individual rights and legal positions is at the discretion of the ruler, whose grace and arbitrariness are decisive for legal protection and legal enforcement.
Legal Sources and Rule of Law under Absolutism
Legal Sources in the Absolutist System
In the absolutist understanding of the state, the will of the monarch is the central source of law. Older customary rights and legal customs sometimes formally remained, but were subject to alteration at any time by royal decree, patents, or edicts.
Lack of Legal Certainty and Lack of Legal Protection
An independent judiciary and systematic legal protection are not guaranteed. The validity of the law and the judiciary often depend on the favor of the monarch. Procedural guarantees, as they are known from the later development of constitutional states (e.g., the right to be heard, independence of the courts), do not exist or exist only rudimentarily within the legal framework of absolutism.
Historical Development and Replacement of Absolutism in Law
Transition to the Rule of Law and the Constitutional Monarchy
Absolutism was increasingly subject to criticism with the emergence of new principles of the rule of law and democracy. Especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, calls for separation of powers, legal certainty, the principle of legality, and parliamentary control gained ground. The rise of constitutionally bound monarchies marked the beginning of the dissolution of absolutist structures in favor of modern statehood and the rule of law.
Significance of Absolutism in Legal Scholarship
Absolutism as the Antithesis to Constitutional Statehood
In modern usage, the term absolutism is used to distinguish modern state and legal forms, especially the rule of law and constitutional monarchy, from the historical model of unrestricted princely power. Thus, it remains relevant both historically-analytically and in state theory, particularly for classification and assessment of developments in constitutional law, administrative law, and the protection of subjective rights.
Summary
Absolutism represents a form of rule significant in constitutional law, in which full state power is concentrated in one person and is not subject to any legal control. Its specific features are the absence of constitutional limitations, the concentration of all state powers in the ruler, a central administrative structure, and limited or non-existent legal certainty. The historical development of absolutism and its replacement by models based on the rule of law is a central topic in European legal history and the theory of the state.
Frequently Asked Questions
What role did legal foundations play in legitimizing absolutist rule?
In absolutism, the rule of the monarch was often justified as divinely ordained, for example, through the concept of the “divine right of kings,” according to which the sovereign was legitimized not by human law but by divine law. In legal terms, this legitimacy was manifested by an inadequate or entirely absent separation of powers. The laws of the country no longer originated from representative bodies or the nobility but directly from the monarch. Decrees, edicts, and ordinances were centralized and essentially reflected the royal will, leading to a pronounced personalization of law. This practice resulted in restrictions on parliamentary or corporate participatory rights and created a system in which the legitimacy of legislation rested on the authority of the ruler alone.
Which legal instruments did absolutist rulers use to enforce their power?
Absolutist rulers made use of a variety of legal instruments to secure and enforce their unrestricted power. Foremost among these were ordinances and royal decrees, which could be enacted without the involvement of corporate or regional parliaments. In addition, institutions such as royal councils and special courts were established, reporting directly to the will of the monarch. Police and judicial institutions were increasingly centralized and placed under royal control. Another important instrument was the right of pardon and clemency, through which the king could overturn or modify judicial decisions, thereby reinforcing his role as the highest judicial authority.
How does the legal system under absolutism differ from that of earlier corporate societies?
In contrast to estate-based social orders, in which the law was based on custom, privilege, and consensus and was often applied differently among the nobility, clergy, and citizens as well as regionally, absolutist law was characterized by a tendency toward uniformity and centralization. Estate-specific privileges and regional special rights were either restricted or completely abolished and replaced by royal law valid throughout the territory. Thus, law increasingly became an instrument of monarchical rule and lost its character as a result of negotiation processes among social groups.
What was the significance of the relationship between written and unwritten law under absolutism?
Under absolutism, written law gained significantly in importance, as monarchs sought to regulate their realms through uniform decrees and codifications. Traditional, unwritten customary law was increasingly displaced by codified law. The enactment of comprehensive legal codes, such as the so-called “Code Louis” in France, served not only to safeguard the law but above all to demonstrate and exercise royal authority. Nevertheless, in some areas—such as private law or local administration—unwritten legal practices continued to hold importance, albeit always subject to the royal prerogative.
How was the relationship between legislator and judiciary structured under absolutism?
In the absolutist system, the functions of legislator, supreme judge, and executive were merged in the person of the monarch. While in estate-based orders or later in constitutional monarchies and republics there was a separation of powers, in absolutism the ruler assumed all these roles. Courts and judges were directly subordinate to him and had to implement his decrees and instructions. The appointment and dismissal of judges rested solely with the monarch, and judicial decisions could be influenced or overturned at any time by royal intervention in ongoing proceedings.
In what ways did absolute rulers influence private law and property order?
Absolute monarchs also intervened extensively in private law and the property order. They exercised their legislative competence to challenge or alter existing property rights—for instance, by expropriations to finance the state or by granting fiefs and privileges to loyal subjects. The free disposal of property was always dependent on the monarch’s consent, protection, or intervention. At the same time, monarchs could shape the social structure according to their ideas by creating new legal institutions or by granting rights of clemency.
Were there any legal means of resistance against monarchical decisions under absolutist regimes?
The absolutist system offered de jure little to no legal means of resistance against royal decisions. Subjects were subject to royal law and at best had the option of submitting petitions or requests for clemency. The judiciary was subordinate to the monarch, and there were no institutionalized forms of legal control over royal acts. De facto, however, there were occasional instances of resistance, particularly by representatives of privileged estates or regional elites who invoked pre-modern customary law or ancient special rights to ward off the king’s interventions. However, such resistance rarely had prospects for lasting success and always depended on the balance of power and the goodwill of the monarch.
