The Reichstag and the Limits of Power: The Ancestors of EU's Institutions

In this second part of our series on European Power and Equilibrium, we continue exploring the structural and legal authority of the Reichstag (Imperial Diet) of the Holy Roman Empire. This body, though theoretically powerful, was bound by the authority of the Emperor and the Church, offering us critical insights into the complexities of public law, conflict management, and supranational governance. A striking comparison can be made with the power-sharing mechanisms in the European Union today.

The Reichstag’s Power and Reciprocal Legitimacy

The Reichstag (State Assembly) held a pivotal role in mediating conflicts and serving as a forum for decision-making, but its powers were limited by a key principle: while it could reconstruct and enforce laws, it could not create new ones. Only the Emperor or the Church could introduce legislation. As noted in my research,

“Despite the Reichstag’s seemingly unlimited power, it lacked constitutive authority; law could only be established by the Emperor or the head of the Church. The assembly could merely acknowledge and reconstruct existing law, without talking of any legislative power”.

This framework reflects reciprocal legitimacy—the Emperor needed the Reichstag’s participation to govern effectively, but the Reichstag was bound by the Emperor’s ultimate authority. This concept of balanced power can be observed in the modern European Union, where Member States and supranational institutions must cooperate to ensure legitimacy in decision-making processes.

Managing Religious Conflict: The Split of the Churches

A defining moment for the Reichstag was its role in managing the religious conflict between Catholic and Protestant factions, especially in the aftermath of the Reformation. The war between these groups was not only a matter of faith but also a struggle for political control. The Reichstag, although constrained by its limited legislative power, played a critical role in brokering peace and maintaining the fragile balance within the empire. A cluster of balance might have formed in the defence of the Alps in the University of Zurich , where Ulrich Zwingli have shined a light of consensus prospering ever since.

The 1555 Peace of Augsburg, a landmark treaty, brought temporary peace between the warring factions by establishing the principle of cuius regio, eius religio—allowing each ruler to determine the religion of their own territory. This treaty, while primarily a religious settlement, was also a political solution mediated through the Reichstag and overseen by the Emperor. Kajtár notes that this balance of political and religious authority foreshadowed the need for consensus-building that we now see in modern supranational governance.

In many ways, the Peace of Augsburg resembles the EU’s approach to conflict resolution, where treaties and legal agreements must be negotiated to accommodate diverse national interests and preserve unity. The European Council often acts as a mediator in disputes between Member States, much like the Reichstag served as a forum for negotiation between rival factions.

Judicial Processes and the Role of Law

Legal historians like János Zlinszky have highlighted that the Reichstag and the imperial courts—such as the Imperial Chamber Court—were not creators of law but interpreters of it. The Reichstag could enforce decisions and ensure compliance but could not introduce new laws without the Emperor’s or Church’s consent. This mirrors the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the EU today, which interprets and applies the laws established by EU institutions but does not legislate independently. Thus creating guidelines that are the only grasps for lawmakers, as we study case law as the evolution and practical appearance of the Treaties, not forgetting those bodies aren't legitimately elected to create constitutional law, but through a complicated system Béla Pokol calls 'juristocratic'.

The Peace of Augsburg: A Precursor to Modern Treaties

The 1555 Peace of Augsburg was one of the first examples of a treaty aimed at balancing political and religious interests across a diverse collection of territories. The agreement established a form of federalism within the Holy Roman Empire, where local rulers were granted significant autonomy over religious affairs, yet still bound to the empire through mutual obligations and legal structures. This balance between central authority and local autonomy parallels the EU’s principles of subsidiarity and shared sovereignty.

Just as the European Union must navigate the conflicting interests of its Member States—balancing national sovereignty with collective governance—the Holy Roman Empire sought to maintain unity through negotiated settlements. The Treaty of Lisbon, for example, mirrors the Peace of Augsburg in its attempt to formalize the division of competencies between the EU and its Member States .

The Limits of Constitutive Authority and Supranational Governance

Despite its significant role in mediating conflicts and enforcing law, the Reichstag’s inability to create new laws highlights a crucial distinction between legislative and judicial authority. The Reichstag, like today’s European Parliament, was central to the political process but ultimately constrained by the need for approval from higher authorities.

“The Reichstag’s function was to recognize, not to initiate; this is a fundamental feature of its institutional limitation”

As Professor Stipta noted accurately. In much the same way, the European Parliament, while holding substantial legislative power, cannot function independently of other EU institutions such as the European Commission.

Lessons for the EU Today

The Holy Roman Empire’s experience with the Reichstag and the management of religious conflict through the Peace of Augsburg offers a historical model for understanding how supranational governance functions today. The empire’s ability to mediate between competing interests while maintaining a central authority has clear parallels to the European Union’s institutional balance.

As the EU continues to face challenges of unity and diversity, the lessons of reciprocal legitimacy, conflict management, and subsidiarity from the Holy Roman Empire remain as relevant as ever. The EU’s success depends on its ability to navigate these historical precedents, ensuring that no institution or Member State wields unchecked power, and that governance remains a collaborative, multi-level process.

Looking Forward

Next week, we will explore how these historical lessons continue to shape the development of modern European law, focusing on the evolution of constitutional frameworks and their impact on today’s EU institutions. Join us as we unravel the next layer of European Power and Equilibrium.

Sources:

1. Stipta István, Legal Structures of the Holy Roman Empire, p. 104.

2. Zlinszky János, Judicial Authority in the Empire, p. 167.

3. Kajtár István, Religious Conflict and European Legal History, p. 219.