Who said, "The King Can Do No Wrong"? El tópico histórico de la inmunidad patrimonial del Estado
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2025
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Marcial Pons
Citation
Medina Alcoz, L. (2025): "Who said, "The King Can Do No Wrong"? El tópico histórico de la inmunidad patrimonial del Estado", Revista de Derecho Público: Teoría y Método, núm. 12, pp. 167-213
Abstract
En España, al igual que en los países vecinos, la normalización de una Administración responsable, obligada a reparar los daños causados por los ilícitos de sus funcionarios, es un fenómeno relativamente reciente. La tradición disciplinar del Derecho público ha interpretado la ausencia de responsabilidad estatal por ilícito funcionarial en efecto característica de las Administraciones europeas del siglo XIX como una trasposición del viejo dogma The King Can Do No Wrong, un rastro del princeps legibus solutus que el Derecho administrativo habría tardado en orillar. La historiografía de las últimas décadas, junto a la consulta directa de las fuentes, obliga a revisar este tópico disciplinar, estrechamente vinculado a la caricaturización de la monarquía tradicional como un Estado de fuerza situado al margen del Derecho, y al correlativo enaltecimiento del Derecho administrativo como producto del Estado liberal que habría logrado al fin limitar a esa Administración preexistente a través de la separación de poderes y el principio de legalidad. Tal es el objetivo del presente artículo.
In Spain, as in neighboring countries, the normalization of a responsible public adminis-tration, obliged to repair the damage caused by civil servants, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The disciplinary tradition of public law has interpreted the absence of state liability for official misconduct, which was in fact characteristic of 19th-century European administrations, as a trans-position of the old dogma The King Can Do No Wrong, a trace of the princeps legibus solutus that administrative law was slow to overcome.The historiography of recent decades, along with direct consultation of sources, compels us to review this disciplinary cliché, closely linked to the caricature of the traditional monarchy as a state of force situated outside the law, and to the corresponding exaltation of administrative law as a product of the liberal state that had finally succeeded in limi-ting that pre-existing administration through the separation of powers and the principle of legality. Such is the objective of this paper.
In Spain, as in neighboring countries, the normalization of a responsible public adminis-tration, obliged to repair the damage caused by civil servants, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The disciplinary tradition of public law has interpreted the absence of state liability for official misconduct, which was in fact characteristic of 19th-century European administrations, as a trans-position of the old dogma The King Can Do No Wrong, a trace of the princeps legibus solutus that administrative law was slow to overcome.The historiography of recent decades, along with direct consultation of sources, compels us to review this disciplinary cliché, closely linked to the caricature of the traditional monarchy as a state of force situated outside the law, and to the corresponding exaltation of administrative law as a product of the liberal state that had finally succeeded in limi-ting that pre-existing administration through the separation of powers and the principle of legality. Such is the objective of this paper.










