Building the Union: The Nature of Sovereignty in the Political Architecture of Europe

  • Richard Bellamy
  • Dario Castiglione


Is national sovereignty dead? Many writers on Europe appear to believe so. This thesis draws on a number of increasingly familiar arguments. The related processes of globalisation and social differentiation have undermined the state’s claims to sovereignty. It neither controls the most important decisions in the economy or defense, nor expresses a common identity capable of sustaining a shared sense of justice and a commitment to the collective good. The future lies with new forms of political and social order that take us below and beyond the sovereign nation-state, to regional and global blocs regulated by a cosmopolitan legal system based on individual human rights. So far as Europe is concerned, imperatives of both a functional and a normative nature impel the creation of an ever closer Union.


Central European Bank National Sovereignty State Sovereignty Federal Structure Vertical Dispersion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Herman Heller, Die Souveränität. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des Staats- und Völkerrechts (Berlin & Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1927), ch. 10.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    On the role of ideals in the construction of the European Union, cf. J.H.H. Weiler, “Idéaux et construction européenne,” in M. Telò (ed.), Démocratie et Construction Européenne (Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles, 1995).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    P.C. Schmitter, “If the Nation-State were to Wither Away in Europe, What Might Replace It?” in S. Gustavsson and L. Lewin (eds.), The Future of the Nation-State: Essays on Cultural Pluralism and Political Integration (Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus, 1996), pp. 228–229.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    G. Folke Schuppert, “The Evolution of a European State: Reflections on the Conditions of and the Prospects for a European Constitution,” in J.J. Hesse and N. Johnson (eds.), Constitutional Policy and Change in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 331.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    W. Heun, “The Evolution of Federalism,” in C. Starck (ed.), Studies in German Constitutionalism (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1995), pp. 185–187.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    On the anti-political conception of civil society, cf. C. Taylor, “Invoking Civil Society,” in Philosophical Arguments (Cambridge MA & London: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 215–220.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    On various understandings of cosmopolitanism, cf. T.W. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty,” in C. Brown (ed.), Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (London & New York: Routledge, 1994), pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Cf. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty” and D. Archibugi, “Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace,” European Journal of International Relations 1 (1995), pp. 429–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    T. Koopmans, “Federalism: The Wrong Debate,” Common Market Law Review 29 (1992), pp. 1047–1052, at p. 1051.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Cf. C.H. MacIlwain, Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1958), ch. 4.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Cf. Hans Kelsen, Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Beitrag zu einer Reiner Rechtslehre (Tübingen: Mohr, 1920), ch. 9; andGoogle Scholar
  12. L. Ferrajoli, La Sovranità nel Mondo Moderno. Nascita e Crisi dello Stato Nazionale (Milano: Anabasi, 1995).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cf. D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), chs. 5 and 6; and L. Ferrajoli, “Beyond Sovereignty and Citizenship: A Global Constitutionalism,” in Bellamy (ed.), Constitutionalism, Democracy and Sovereignty. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Kant, “On the Common Saying: This May Be True in Theory But Not in Practice,” in Kant Political Writings (ed.), by H. Reiss and transi, by H.B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 90.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Winckler, “L’Empire revient,” Commentaire 15 (1992), pp. 17–25, at p. 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cf. J-M. Ferry, “Une ‘philosophié’ de la communauté,” in: J-M. Ferry and P. Thibaud, Discussion sur l’Europe (Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1992), pp. 169–189.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    Cf. B.S. Turner, “Citizenship Studies: A General Theory,” Citizenship Studies 1 (1997), pp. 15–18, especially pp. 15–17; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. L. Ferrajoli, “Dai diritti del cittadino ai diritti della persona,” in D. Zolo, La Cittadinanza. Appartenenza, Identità, Diritti (Roma & Bari: Laterza, 1994).Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    Cf. A. Margalit and J. Raz, “National Self-Determination,” Journal of Philosophy 87 (1990), pp. 439–461; and C.R. Beitz, “Cosmopolitan Liberalism and the States System,” in Brown (ed.), Political Restructuring in Europe, pp. 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 22.
    On the condition of “political homogeneity,” cf. O. Beaud, “La Fédération entre l’état et l’empire,” in B. Théret (ed.), L’État, la finance et le sociale (Paris: La Decouverte, 1995), pp. 299–302.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    On social federalism in Europe, cf. M. Telò, “L’intégration sociale en tant que réponse du modèle européen à l’interdépendance globale? Les chances, les obstacles et les scénarios,” in Ibid. (ed.), Quelle Union Sociale Europeenne? (Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles, 1994).Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    On the relationship between substantive legitimacy and the boundedness of the democratic community, cf. A. Weale, “Democratic Legitimacy and the Constitution of Europe,” in R. Bellamy, V. Bufacchi, and D. Castiglione (eds.), Democracy and Constitutional Culture in the Union of Europe (London: Lothian Foundation Press, 1995), pp. 86–89.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    This paragraph essentially summarises arguments found in P. Hirst and G. Thompson, Globalisation in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    A discussion of the distinction between identity, recognition and self-determination is found in C. Taylor, “Why do nations have to become states?” in Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism, ed. by G. Laforest (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    On a possible distinction between ethnic and liberal nationalism, cf. N. MacCormick, “Liberalism, Nationalism and the Post-Sovereign State,” in R. Bellamy and D. Castiglione, Constitutionalism in Transformation: European and Theoretical Perspectives (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    The arguments suggested at the end of this paragraph are based on D. Miller, “The Nation-State: A Modest Defence,” in Brown (ed.), Political Restructuring in Europe; cf. also D. Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  27. 32.
    On the relationship between democracy and Demos, cf. D. Grimm, Braucht Europa eine Verfassung? (Berlin: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung, 1995), pp. 36–47; andGoogle Scholar
  28. G.E. Rusconi, “La cittadinanza europea non crea il ‘popolo europeo’,” Il Mulino 45 (1996), 831–841.Google Scholar
  29. 34.
    Cf. R. Aron, “Une citoyenneté multinationale est-elle possible?” Commentaire 14 (1991–1992), pp. 695–704.Google Scholar
  30. 36.
    For discussions of the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on Maastricht, cf. N. MacCormick, “The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now,” European Law Journal 1 (1995), pp. 255–262; andGoogle Scholar
  31. M. Herdegen, “Maastricht and the German Constitutional Court: Constitutional Restraints for an ‘Ever Closer Union’,” Common Market Law Review 31 (1994), pp. 235–249.Google Scholar
  32. 42.
    M. Duverger, L’Europe dans tous ses Etats (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995).Google Scholar
  33. 44.
    Cf. N. MacCormick, “Beyond the Sovereign State,” Modern Law Review 56 (1993), pp. 1–23; and “Liberalism, Nationalism and the Post-Sovereign state,” pp. 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 46.
    For a discussion of the European polity as a “regulatory state,” cf. G. Majone, “The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe,” West European Politics 17 (1994), pp. 77–101; and “La communauté européenne comme état régulateur,” in Théret (ed.), l’Etat, la finance et le social. For a discussion of regulation and economic models in Europe, cf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. S. Wilks, “Regulatory Compliance and Capitalist Diversity in Europe,” Journal of European Public Policy 3 (1996), pp. 536–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 47.
    P.C. Schmitter, “Imagining the Future of the Euro-Polity with the help of New Concepts,” in G. Marks et al., Governance in the European Union (London: Sage, 1996).Google Scholar
  37. 51.
    For a defense of a fully coherent and cohesive system, cf. D. Curtin, “The Constitutional Structure of the Union: A Europe of Bits and Pieces,” Common Market Law Review 30 (1993), pp. 17–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dimitrios Karmis and Wayne Norman 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Bellamy
  • Dario Castiglione

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations