"Women's rights, the European Court and Supranational Constitutionalism"

This analysis examines supranational constitutionalism in the European Union. In particular, the study focuses on the role of the European Court of Justice in the creation of women’s rights. I examine the interaction between the Court and member state governments in legal integration, and also the integral role that women’s advocates – both individual activists and groups – have played in the development of EU social provisions. The findings suggest that this litigation dynamic can have the effect of fueling the integration process by creating new rights that may empower social actors and EU organizations, with the ultimate effect of diminishing member state government control over the scope and direction of EU law. This study focuses specifically on gender equality law, yet provides a general framework for examining the case law in subsequent legal domains, with the purpose of providing a more nuanced understanding of supranational governance and constitutionalism

"EC Roundtable: law"

An overview of European Community law must speak to a number of different audiences. It must distinguish between law for lawyers, and law for political scientists. It must further distinguish between substantive EC law and studies of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the creation of the Community legal system, which fall into a separate category for lawyers and political scientists alike. The following round-up will begin with an excursion into some of the major works of substantive law, divided into treatises and casebooks, and then turn to studies of the Court by both lawyers and political scientists of different theoretical persuasions

On the constitutional question in global governance : global administrative law and the conflicts-law approach in comparison

The question of constitutionalization cuts through the heart of theoretical debate on the fragmentation of global governance. This paper aims to contribute to this debate through a comparison of global administrative law (GAL) and the conflicts-law approach. While the conflicts-law approach espouses the move towards global constitutionalism, GAL disavows constitutional ambition. I make a twofold argument. First, the differing diagnoses these two approaches make of global governance lead to their distinct proposed solutions. GAL identifies the lack of accountability as the underlying concern of global governance and responds to fragmented global governance through balancing-centered legal management. The conflicts-law approach instead attributes the challenges facing global governance to the ill-designed democratic institutions in nation-states and turns to ‘democratic juridification’ as the solution. Second, GAL and the conflicts-law approach reflect two distinct images of constitutionalism. GAL’s ‘constitutional deficit’ suggests its implicit embrace of a version of constitutionalism rooted in the tradition of populist democracy. The conflicts-law approach situates transnational democracy in the conflicts-law process in which inter-regime conflicts are resolved, suggesting a prototype of constitutionalized global governance underpinned by an epistemic understanding of democracy. Despite distancing itself from its private international law predecessors, the conflicts-law approach’s epistemic view of democratic constitutionalism echoes the central role of the community of academic lawyers that Friedrich Carl von Savigny espoused in the nineteenth-century liberal reform in international law

The open architecture of European human rights law

The evolution of the European human rights regime is often described in constitutionalist terms: as the move towards an integrated order with the European Convention of Human Rights as its “constitutional instrument” at the top. In this article, I seek to show that this description is misguided and that the regime is better regarded as pluralist – as characterised by a heterarchical relationship between its constituent parts that is ultimately defined politically and not legally. The emergence and workings of this pluralist order are traced through the interaction of the European Court of Human Rights with domestic courts in Spain, France, the European Union and the United Kingdom. All these cases not only show conflicts over questions of ultimate supremacy but also significant convergence and harmony in day-to-day practice. I begin to identify factors that have led to this convergence and conclude that central characteristics of pluralism – incrementalism and the openness of ultimate authority – seem to have contributed to the generally smooth evolution of the European human rights regime in a significant way. This finding suggests a broader appeal of pluralist models as alternatives to constitutionalism in the construction of postnational authority and law