Discussing the nature of the EU: from the inter-state model to global constitutionalism

Historically, the European Union has been characterized by different legal formulations. Positions are divided, broadly speaking, between those that understand this entity as an international organization in the classical sense, to those others which claim that its features are actually of a Statenature, and that the obvious model of evolution would be the Federal State. In the end, all this leads us, undoubtedly, to the European constitutional project. In this work we give a brief account of all these proposals, and then we try to adopt a different point of view: for us, the nature of the European Union should not be looked for in the legal configuration of the political project, but also in the silent evolution -and not so silent- of a legal order, the European legal order, that is increasingly systematic, and that must boast a key position on the evolution towards a higher level of legal organization, global constitutionalism. In the building up of this proposal, we will appeal to the concept of global ethics and to the recent example of the CETA case of TJUE, which opens the European Legal system to alien influences.Históricamente, se ha caracterizado la Unión Europea mediante diversas fórmulas jurídicas. Las posiciones se dividen, a grandes rasgos, entre aquellas que conciben esta entidad como una organización internacional en sentido clásico, hasta aquellas que propugnan que sus rasgos son los propios de un Estado, y que su modelo evidente de evolución sería el Estado Federal. En el fondo de la cuestión se encuentra, sin duda, el proyecto constitucional europeo. En el presente trabajo damos breve cuenta de estas propuestas, para después optar por un punto de vista distinto de ellas: para nosotros, la naturaleza de la Unión Europea no debe buscarse sólo en la configuración jurídica del proyecto político, sino también en la propia evolución silenciosa -o no tanto- de un ordenamiento, el de la Unión Europea, que va ganando forma sistemática, y que debe ostentar una posición clave en la evolución hacia un nivel de organización jurídica mayor, el constitucionalismo global. En la construcción de esta propuesta, recurriremos al concepto de ética mundial y al ejemplo reciente del caso CETA del TJUE, que abre el sistema jurídico europeo a influencias externas

Much Ado about Pluto? The 'Unity of the Legal Order of the European Union' Revisited

The European Union is commonly described as a temple-like construction resting upon three pillars. Whereas the first pillar, Community law, constitutes a "new legal order" of supranational character, the second and third pillar are considered to be of intergovernmental kind, i.e. traditional public international law. However, some commentators have advocated a more integrated view, claiming the "unity of the legal order of the European Union". The more recent case-law of the European courts has increasingly to deal with the relationship between the pillars as well as the legal nature of Union law. The present paper analyses this case-law and takes the opportunity to revisit the "unity thesis" as put forward in learned writings, the overall conclusion is that the claim of unity is poorly suited to solve interpretative questions that concern the aforementioned questions.European law; German Constitutional Court; legal personality; supremacy; CFSP/ESDP; Constitution for Europe; Treaty on European Union

coordination through judicial dialogue

International courts regularly cite each other, in part as a means of building legitimacy. Such international, cross-court use of precedent (or “judicial dialogue”) among the regional human rights courts and the Human Rights Committee has an additional purpose and effect: the construction of a rights-based global constitutionalism. Judicial dialogue among the human rights courts is purposeful in that the courts see themselves as embedded in, and contributing to, a global human rights legal system. Cross-citation among the human rights courts advances the construction of rights-based global constitutionalism in that it provides a basic degree of coordination among the regional courts. The jurisprudence of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC), as an authoritative interpreter of core international human rights norms, plays the role of a central focal point for the decentralized coordination of jurisprudence. The network of regional courts and the HRC is building an emergent institutional structure for global rights-based constitutionalism

The Function of a European Basic Law: a Question of Legitimacy

This paper addresses the function of a European basic law. The author argues that if the basis of the original legitimising act of a basic law is weak, or even nonexisting, a need arises for succeeding or continuous legitimising acts. The concept of continuous legitimation implies that the basic law has to be legitimised through the ongoing political consensus formation giving the basic law a dynamic nature. Furthermore, the need for continual legitimation juxtaposed with a dynamic nature of a basic law obstructs the idea of a disabling function of a basic law. The author concludes that the dynamic nature of the European basic law and its corresponding concept of legitimacy – ever forming and reforming overlapping consensuses among the decisionmaking actors in low as in high politics – can only underpin an enabling European basic law.law; legitimacy

International law - a constitution for mankind? : an attempt at a re-appraisal with an analysis of constitutional principles

One of the current trends in international law scholarship is the question of which influences specific legal cultures have on the understanding of international law. This contribution will trace the conditions of a German perspective and analyse the debate against the background of positive law. We will try to assess what the debate adds to the general theory of international law, how it fits into demands of legitimacy of international governance, and whether it contributes to a sensible reconstruction of current law. Furthermore, we try to develop our own perspective that matches the system of international law and is plausible in terms of international legal theory. For that purpose, we will first take It is probably in this context that the contention has to be understood that the ongoing debate on the constitutionalisation of public international law is particularly European, if not German. Whether or not this is the case is difficult to investigate with a lawyer’s tools. However, the idea that international law is the constitution of mankind has found many adherents in German legal writings. This contribution will trace the conditions of a German perspective and analyse the debate against the background of positive law. We will try to assess what the debate adds to the general theory of international law, how it fits into demands of legitimacy of international governance, and whether it contributes to a sensible reconstruction of current law. Furthermore, we try to develop our own perspective that matches the system of international law and is plausible in terms of international legal theory. For that purpose, we will first take up the debate and find its place in the landscape of international legal theory. In this context, we try to shed light on the central concepts used or presupposed when constitutionalisation is discussed by German-speaking scholars (see below, section B). Furthermore, we will discuss structures in positive law which are used as arguments in the debate (section C). Finally, we will try to give an account of constitutionalisation in terms of both sources doctrine and legal theory (section D), before drawing conclusions from the discussion (section E)

The Effectiveness of International Adjudicators

This chapter, in the Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, provides an overview of the burgeoning literature on the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals (ICs). It considers four dimensions of effectiveness that have engendered debates among scholars or received insufficient scrutiny. The first dimension, case-specific effectiveness, evaluates whether the litigants to a specific dispute change their behavior following an IC ruling, an issue closely linked to compliance with IC judgments. The second variant, erga omnes effectiveness, assesses whether IC decisions have systemic precedential effects that influence the behavior of all states subject to a tribunal’s jurisdiction. The third approach, embeddedness effectiveness, evaluates the extent to which ICs anchor their judgments in domestic legal orders, enabling national actors to remedy potential treaty violations at home and avoid the need for international litigation. The fourth type, norm-development effectiveness, considers how IC decisions contribute to building a coherent body of international jurisprudence. For each type of effectiveness, the chapter reviews recent studies, identifies contested or under-analyzed issues, and suggests paths for future research

International Judicial Legitimacy

Zusammenfassung Armin von Bogdandy und Ingo Venzke stellten mit “In Whose Name?” bereits 2014 die grundsätzliche Frage nach der Legitimität internationaler Gerichtshöfe. Der vorliegende Band führt die Debatte weiter: Woraus schöpfen internationale Organisationen und Gerichte ihre Legitimität und wie tragen sie zur Demokratisierung des Völkerrechts bei? Wie steht es um die demokratische Legitimität internationaler Menschenrechtsgerichtshöfe? Der Band bietet eine breite Diskussion zu aktuellen Fragen des internationalen Rechts. Abstract These texts on the legitimacy of international courts were framed as a direct reaction to arguments put forward in the book “In Whose Name?” by Armin von Bogdandy und Ingo Venzke. The subjects ranged from a comparison between international organizations and international courts and how they can contribute to democratize international law to assessing the democratic legitimacy of international human rights courts. Therefore the collection is dealing with both theoretical and practical questions regarding the legitimacy of international courts and how such problems relate to fundamental problems of our times

The Reception of International Law by Constitutional Courts through the Prism of Legitimacy

This contribution seeks to shed new light onto the classification of legal orders with respect to the domestic effect of international law. Traditional theory distinguishes between monist and dualist systems, those that accept the primacy of international law over domestic law, and those that do not attribute direct effect to international law in the domestic legal order. We will examine three different lines of constitutional jurisprudence on the effect of decisions of international authorities in the domestic order. It is maintained that all courts dealing with the domestic effect of international secondary law ultimately face questions of legitimacy of the external decisionmaking procedure. We will identify three strategies to cope with this challenge and argue that it is more appropriate to consider the relationship of a national legal order to international law through the prism of how its constitutional court approaches the governance issue than to refer to the traditional monism-dualism-dichotomy.