Belgian King’s Power to Sanction Laws Faces Renewed Scrutiny

A long-standing constitutional debate has resurfaced in Belgium, reignited by revelations from a new biography of King Baudouin that show the late monarch himself questioned whether the King should retain the power to sanction laws. The discussion, as old as Belgium itself, touches on the fundamental role of the monarchy in a modern democracy and whether an unelected, hereditary head of state should have the ability to block legislation passed by a democratically elected parliament.

The Constitutional Question

Under Article 33 of the Belgian Constitution, “all powers emanate from the nation.” The King shares executive power with the federal government and exercises legislative power by sanctioning and promulgating laws voted by Parliament, as detailed by Wikipedia. Unlike most European constitutional monarchs—whose role in the legislative process is purely ceremonial—the Belgian King retains significant constitutional authority, including the power to appoint and dismiss ministers, serve as head of the armed forces, and refuse to sanction a text.

The 1990 Crisis: A Constitutional Anomaly

The most dramatic example of this power occurred from April 4–5, 1990, when King Baudouin was placed in a state of “impossibility to reign” by the Martens government after he refused to sign the law depenalizing abortion. According to La Libre Belgique, the government then sanctioned the law itself, avoiding a constitutional crisis. Thirty-six years later, it is clear that “no initiative has been taken to prevent such a situation from recurring.”

Constitutional law professor Marc Verdussen (UCLouvain) described the 1990 solution as “one of the most problematic episodes in our constitutional history,” calling it “bricolage” (makeshift work) and noting that “a problem of conscience is not force majeure,” as Le Vif reported.

The Dujardin Revelations

Historian Vincent Dujardin’s new 900-page biography, “Baudouin, un roi face aux crises de son temps” (Mame/Lannoo, 2026), based on 20 years of research and unprecedented access to Baudouin’s private notebooks, reveals that the King himself had questioned the sanction power. According to RTBF, Baudouin wrote in his spiritual notebooks on March 26, 1990: “Jesus, you know that it is for you alone that I embark on this madness. Everything could end in disaster.”

The biography reveals that the Palace had considered an emergency revision of the Constitution to remove the King’s power to sanction laws during the 1990 crisis, but this mechanism was deemed too fragile and was ultimately abandoned in favor of the “impossibility to reign” solution. Baudouin was prepared to abdicate or even go into exile rather than sign the law.

King Philippe’s Position

Before his coronation in 2013, some feared that King Philippe would follow his uncle Baudouin’s example on ethically sensitive legislation. However, as RTBF reported, Philippe signed the law on euthanasia for minors and subsequently visited a palliative care center, demonstrating a distinction between his person and his function. Professor Verdussen stated it is “unimaginable” that Philippe would repeat his uncle’s actions, as it would cause “a certain constitutional crisis.”

Why This Debate Matters Now

The timing of this renewed debate is significant. Dujardin’s biography has generated substantial media coverage in Belgium, and the revelations that Baudouin himself questioned the sanction power give new ammunition to those who argue for constitutional reform. The core question remains: should an unelected, hereditary monarch have the power to block democratically adopted legislation?

What’s Next

Three potential outcomes emerge from this debate. The first is maintaining the status quo, leaving the potential for another crisis if a future king faces a similar conflict of conscience. The second is a constitutional amendment removing or redefining the King’s power to sanction laws, making it a purely formal act. The third is a gentleman’s agreement—an informal understanding that the King will always sign laws passed by Parliament.

Whether the Belgian Parliament will take up this constitutional question remains to be seen. What is clear is that 36 years after the 1990 crisis, the fundamental tension between a hereditary monarchy and democratic sovereignty remains unresolved—and the debate is far from over.