Are We Beyond Sovereignty? The Sovereignty of Processes and the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union

Hitzel-Cassagnes, Tanja

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8942-7_8

Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes³

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 93))

893 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes considers the extent to which MacCormick succeeds in constructing a synthetic theory of law and politics capable of accounting for the various transformations of law as a means of social integration in a “pluralistic” context without renouncing any of the key normative categories of political philosophy inherited from the Enlightenment. MacCormick claims that there has always been a pluralistic potential cloaked behind, so to speak, the apparently monistic political and legal language of modernity; and what had served to conceal this potential was the historical, political and legal pre-eminence of state law, its characterisation as the unique form of institutional normative order. But while we cannot but share MacCormick’s “pragmatic” concern, and while there is much to be learnt from his actual theory, Hitzel-Cassagnes rightly points out that it is simply not the case that the universalistic drive of law is a side-effect of the pre-dominance of the “nation-state” paradigm, but that it is actually the constitutive character of law as a means of social integration; this implies not only a “structural” universalistic proclivity of law, but also a “normative” universalistic proclivity. As a consequence, norms governing the relationships between legal orders should also be legal norms underpinned by a universalistic drive. The powerful insights behind MacCormick’s democratic celebration of social pluralism are, according to Hitzel-Cassagnes, more fittingly brought to fruition through Kant’s vision of law as a reflexive and provisional structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See N. MacCormick, “Liberalism, nationalism and the post-sovereign state”, (1996) 44 Political Studies, pp. 553–567; idem, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). See N. Walker, “Constitutionalising Enlargement, Enlarging Constitutionalism”, (2003) 9 European Law Journal, pp. 365–385, and idem, (ed), Relocating Sovereignty, (Aldershot: Ashgate-Dartmouth Publishing, 2006).
2.
I owe this specification to Agustin José Menendez and John Erik Fossum.
3.
I would like to question his altogether sceptical conclusion “that the correct understanding of the interaction between different normative systems is a contingent matter, not one that flows from the very concept of normative order” (Neil MacCormick, “Risking constitutional collision in Europe”, (1998) 18 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 517–532, at 532, see, below, Sections 8.3 and 8.4). Even if this remark is interpreted in sociological and pragmatic terms, it neglects the fact that the “very concept of normative order” is addressed to structure interactions between normative systems reflexively, and in so far it is directed at counter-balancing what I would like to term the “structural ignorance of pluralism”.
4.
See N. MacCormick, “Risking constitutional collision in Europe”, (1998) 18 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 517–532; idem, Questioning Sovereignty, note 1 supra; idem, “Some observations about sovereignty”, in: ELSA International (ed), International Law as we enter the 21st century; and idem, “Questioning Post-Sovereignty”, (2004) 29 European Law Review, pp. 853–863.
5.
N. MacCormick, “Argumentation and interpretation in law”, (1993) 6 Ratio Juris, pp. 16–29, at 18; idem, “The Ethics of Legalism” (1989) 2 Ratio Juris, pp. 184–193; and idem, “Liberalism, nationalism and the post-sovereign state”, note 1 supra.
6.
M. Koskenniemi, “The fate of public international law: Between technique and politics”, (2007) 70 The Modern Law Review, pp.1–30. International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, (Fifty-eighth session Geneva, 1 May – 9 June and 3 July – 11 August 2006, A/CN.4/L.682).
7.
H. H. Koh, “Complementarity between International Organisations and human rights. The rise of transnational networks and the third globalization”, (2000) 21 Human Rights Law Journal, pp. 307–111. S. B. Twiss, “History, human rights, and globalization”, (2004) 32 Journal of Religious Ethics, pp. 39–70; for a critical account, see T. Schilling, “On the constitutionalization of general international law”, 2006 Jean Monnet Working Paper.
8.
S. Benhabib, “Twilight of sovereignty or the emergence of cosmopolitan norms? Rethinking citizenship in volatile times”, (2007) 11 Citizenship Studies, pp. 19–36.
9.
See, about the notion of flexible citizenship, A. Ong, Flexible citizenship. The cultural logic of transnationality, (Durham NC-London: Duke University Press, 1999); about citizenship of residency, Benhabib, The rights of others. Aliens, citizens and residents. The John Seeley Memorial Lectures, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); about transformations in general, see S. Sassen, Territory, authority, rights. From medieval to global assemblages, (Princeton NJ-Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006).
10.
Y. N. Soysal, Limits of citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, (Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994); G. Delanty, Citizenship in a Global Age, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000).
11.
About the fact that memories of past injustice are successively articulated through cosmopolitan legal frames and refer to supranational principles, see S. Coliver, “Bringing Human Rights Abusers to Justice in U.S. Courts: Carrying Forward the Legacy of the Nuremberg Trials”, (2006) 27 Cardozo Law Review, pp. 1689–1701; Y. Danieli, “Reappraising the Nuremberg Trials and Their Legacy: The Role of Victims in International Law”, (2006) 27 Cardozo Law Review, pp. 1633–1649; S. Golob, “The Pinochet Case: Forced to be free abroad and at home”, (2002) 9 Democratisation, pp. 25–57; Hirsch, Law against Genocide: Cosmopolitan Trials, (London: Glasshouse Press, 2003), D. Levy and N. Sznaider, “Sovereignty transformed: a sociology of human rights”, (2006) 57 The British Journal of Sociology, pp. 657–676; R. Nagy, “Post-apartheid Justice: Can cosmopolitanism and nation-building be reconciled?”, (2006) 40 Law and Society Review, pp. 623–652; and R. Teitel, “Transitional Justice: Postwar Legacies”, (2006) 27 Cardozo Law Review, pp. 1615–1631.
12.
H. Lauterpacht, The function of law in the international community, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933); G. Jellinek, Die rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge. Ein Beitrag zur Construction des Völkerrechts, (Vienna: Hölder, 1880); and M. Koskenniemi, The gentle civilizer of Nations: The rise and fall of international law (1870–1960), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
13.
See H. Kelsen, Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928); A. Verdross, Die Verfassung der Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft, (Vienna-Berlin: Springer, 1926); W. G. Grewe, Epochen der Völkerrechtsgeschichte, (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1988); and, also, A. Eyffinger, The Palace: Residence for Justice: 1913–1988, (The Hague: Carnegie Foundation, 1988).
14.
A.-M. Slaughter, A New World Order, (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004); M. S. Flaherty, “Judicial globalization in the service of self-governance”, (2006) 20 Ethics and International Affairs, pp. 477–503; D. F. Donovan and A. Roberts, “The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction”, (2004) 100 The American Journal of International Law, pp. 142–163.
15.
M. S. Flaherty, “Judicial globalization in the service of self-governance”, 4 17 Princeton Law and Public Affairs Working Paper; idem, “Judicial globalization in the service of self-governance”, note 14 supra; and S. H. Cleveland, “Our international constitution”, (2005) 31 Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 1–125.
16.
For a good overview, see J. Kokott, “Der Schutz der Menschenrechte im Völkerrecht”, in: M. Lutz-Bachmann et al. (eds), Recht auf Menschenrechte. Menschenrechten, Demokratie und internationale Politik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1999), pp. 176–198; J. Davis, “Justice Without Borders: Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts”, (2006) 28 Law and Policy, pp. 60–82; Nagy, “Post-apartheid Justice: Can cosmopolitanism and nation-building be reconciled?”, note 11 supra; and R. McCorquodale and P. Simons, “Responsibility beyond borders: state responsibility for extra-territorial violations by corporations of international human rights law”, (2007) 70 Modern Law Review, pp. 598–625.
17.
See for instance E. O. Eriksen and J. E. Fossum and A. Menéndez (eds), Developing a Constitution for Europe (London and New York: Routledge, 2004) and U. Beck and E. Grande, Das kosmopolitische Europa (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2007).
18.
For an overview about the debates, see P. Cheah and B. Robbins (eds), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation, (Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), T. W. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty”, (1992) 103 Ethics, pp. 48–75; C. Lu, “The one and many faces of cosmopolitanism”, (2000) 8 Journal of Political Philosophy, pp. 244–26; S. Vertovec and R. Cohen (eds), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory Context and Practice, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); G. Brock and H. Brighouse, The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); and K. A. Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, (New York: Norton, 2006).
19.
R. Rorty, “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentiments”, idem, Truth and Progress – Philosophical Papers vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998); C. Chwaszcza and W. Kersting (eds), Politische Philosophie der Internationalen Beziehungen, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1989); see, also, J. Bohman and M. Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Weltstaat oder Staatenwelt? Für und wider die Idee einer Weltrepublik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2002).
20.
See, paradigmatically, Benhabib, “Twilight of sovereignty or the emergence of cosmopolitan norms? Rethinking citizenship in volatile times”, note 8 supra, and idem, The rights of others. Aliens, citizens and residents, note 9 supra; Cohen, “Sovereign equality vs. imperial right: The battle over the new world order”, (2006) 13 Constellations, pp 485–505; T. Nagel, “The problem of Social Justice”, (2005) 33 Philosophy and Public Affairs, pp. 113–147; M. Canto-Sperber, “The normative foundations of cosmopolitanism”, (2007) 106 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp. 267–283; O. Dahbour, “Advocating sovereignty in an age of globalization”, (2006) 37 Journal of Social Philosophy, pp. 108–126; t. Christiano, “A democratic theory of territory and some puzzles about global democracy”, (2006) 37 Journal of Social Philosophy, pp. 81–107, D. Heyd, “Justice and solidarity: The contractarian case against global justice”, (2007) 38 Journal of Social Philosophy, pp. 112–130, and A. Sangiovanni, “Global justice, reciprocity, and the state”, (2007) 35 Philosophy and Public Affairs, pp. 3–39; see, earlier examples, D. Rieff, A bed for a night: Humanitarianism in crisis, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002), D. Miller, Citizenship and national identity, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000); M. Cosnard, “Sovereign equality – the Wimbledon sails on”, in: M. Byers and G. Nolte (eds), United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 117–134.
21.
About the regulative vision of universal rights, see K. Günther, “Rechtspluralismus und universaler Code der Legalität als rechtstheoretisches Problem”, in: K. Günther and L. Wingert (eds) Die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffentlichkeit. Festschrift für Jürgen Habermas, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2001), pp. 434–455; T. Hitzel-Cassagnes and N. Meisterhans,“Konstitutionalisierungsperspektiven eines fragmentierten Weltrechts”, in: H. Brunkhorst (ed), Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft, (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009), pp. 159–185; about the integration of human rights into the law(s) of worldwide organisations, see E.-U. Petersmann, “Time for integrating human rights into the law of Worldwide Organizations. Lessons from European Integration Law for Global Integration Law” 7 Jean-Monnet Working Paper 2001, and idem, “State Sovereignty Popular Sovereignty and individual Sovereignty: From constitutional Nationalism to Multi-Level-Constitutionalism in International Economic Law?”, EUI Working Paper 2006; about the ideal of a global social contract, see B. He and H. Murphy, “Global social justice at the WTO? The role of NGOs in constructing global social contracts”, (2007) 83 International Affairs, pp. 707–727; A. D. Smith, National Identities, (London: Penguin, 2004); about transnational associational solidarity and networks, see D. della Porta, “Multiple belongings, tolerant identities, and the construction of another politics: Between the European social forum an the local social fora”, in: D. della Porta and S. Tarrow (eds), Transnational protest and global activism, (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 175–202; D. della Porta and L. Mosca, “In movimento: Contamination in action and the Italian global Justice movement”, (2007) 7 Global Networks, pp. 1–27; M. Giugni and F Passy (eds), Political altruism? Solidarity movements in international perspective, (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001); and about global civil society, see K. Anheier, M. Glaius and M. Kaldor (eds), Global Civil Society, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); see, also, G. Teubner, “The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by ‘Private’ Transnational Actors”, (2006) 69 Modern Law Review, pp. 327–346; and A. Fischer-Lescano, Globalverfassung. Die Geltungsbegründung der Menschenrechte im postmodernen ius gentium, (Weilerwist: Velbrück, 2005).
22.
The intensification of political and scholarly debates on the Eastern enlargement and on the criteria of accession during the 1990s challenged anew the status of European Integration and constitutionalisation; see V. Breda, “A European Constitution in a Multinational Europe or a Multinational Constitution for Europe?”, (2006) 12 European Law Journal, pp. 330–344; A. Albi and P. van Elsuwege, “The EU Constitution, National Constitutions and Sovereignty: An Assessment of a ‘European Constitutional Order’”, (2004) 29 European Law Review, pp. 741–765; Walker, “Constitutionalising Enlargement, Enlarging Constitutionalism”, note 1 supra, W. Weiss, “Eastern Enlargement and European Constitutionalism”, (2005) 1 Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation; and J. Pribán, “European Union Constitution-Making. Political Identity and Central European Reflections”, (2005) 11 European Law Journal. pp. 135–153. Not just opponents of enlargement raised various questions about the “integrative capability” of potential new Member States and the compatibility of their political and legal systems; see Blanco Sio-López, “The Europe of the Citizens vs. The Fortress Europe: Inclusion and Exclusion in the Integration Model of the Eastward Enlargement of the EU”, Conference-Paper: 6th Biennial Conference of ECSA-C 2006, Breda, this note supra; D. L. Ellison, “Divide and Conquer: The EU Enlargement’s Successful Conclusion?”, (2005) 161 Hungarian Academy of Sciences Working Paper; D. Gosewinkel, “Europäische Konstruktionen der Staatsangehörigkeit. Gibt es einen west- und einen osteuropäischen Entwicklungspfad” in: J. Alber and W. Merkel (eds), Europas Osterweiterung: Das Ende der Vertiefung?, (Berlin: Edition Sigma, 2005), p. 281; B. Kitous, “Protectionism, Interventionism, Nationalism: Does ‘Economic Patriotism’ present a risk to Europeanisation?” Conference-Paper: 6th Biennial Conference of ECSA-C 2006; G. Pridham, “European Union Accession Dynamics and Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and Future Perspectives”, (2006) 41 Government and Opposition, pp. 373–400; and Smith, National Identities, note 21 supra.
23.
N. MacCormick, Institutions of Law, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2007).
24.
N. MacCormick, Who’s Afraid of a European Constitution, (Exeter: Imprint Academia, 2005); idem, “The European constitutional process: A theoretical View”, (2005) 29 Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez, pp. 299–319.
25.
N. MacCormick, “Liberalism, nationalism and the post-sovereign state”, note 1 supra.
26.
N. MacCormick, “Argumentation and interpretation in law”, note 5 supra; idem, “The concept of law and ‘the concept of law’”, (1994) 14 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 1–23; idem, Institutions of Law, note 23 supra.
27.
N. MacCormick, “Liberalism, nationalism and the post-sovereign state”, note 1 supra; idem, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth, note 1 supra; idem, “Some observations about sovereignty”, note 4 supra; idem, “Questioning Post-Sovereignty”, note 4 supra.
28.
MacCormick, “Argumentation and interpretation in law”, note 5 supra; idem, Who’s Afraid of a European Constitution, note 24 supra; idem, “The European constitutional process: A theoretical View”, note 24 supra.
29.
Günther, “Rechtspluralismus und universaler Code der Legalität als rechtstheoretisches Problem”, note 21 supra.
30.
Although MacCormick’s terminology is very much inspired by a kind of Hartian, i.e., sociological and pragmatist, understanding of the rule of recognition, I would still read his conceptual and normative reflections as a way of upholding the idea of conflict management and resolution on the base of a “universal” notion of reciprocity and inclusion, on the one hand, and as a search for institutional structures and mechanism that establish a cooperative scheme of conflict management, on the other hand; see, also, his methodological reflections: MacCormick “The Ethics of Legalism”, note 5 supra, idem, “Argumentation and interpretation in law”, note 28 supra and idem, “The concept of law and ‘the concept of law’”, note 26 supra; more recently, idem, Rhetoric and the rule of law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). C. Joerges, “Deliberative Supranationalism. A Defence”, (2001) 5 European Integration Online Papers and idem, “Rethinking European Law’s Supremacy: A Plea for a Supranational Conflict of Law”, 2 EUI Working Paper, 2005, is another proponent who works out that the idea of reciprocal recognition as equals (implying that conflicting normative claims have to be accepted, prima facie, as justifiable, i.e., as open to a reciprocal game of reason giving and reason taking) has to be taken as a premise in order to resolve conflicts by recourse to meta- or second-order rules acceptable to all parties concerned; Ch. Joerges, “Deliberative Supranationalism. A Defence”, this note supra, p. 4; see, also, C. Joerges and J. Neyer, “Vom intergouvernementalen Verhandeln zur deliberativen Politik, Gründe und Chancen für eine Konstitutionalisierung der europäischen Komitologie”, in: B. Kohler-Koch (ed), Regieren in entgrenzten Räumen. PVS Sonderheft, (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998), pp. 207–234. Unitas in diversitas is his formula for integrating dis-aggregated and fragmented legacies into a meta-scheme of shared co-ordination. Especially with regard to the EU, quite a lot of scholars draw from the political and democratic theory of Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1998) and Rawls, Law of the Peoples, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) and idem, Politischer Liberalismus, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1998), putting an emphasis on the feasibility of inclusive and discursive procedures capable of both rationalising and legitimising normative conflict resolution. In this light, the emphasis lies on the institutionalisation of practices of reciprocal justification and on the establishment of a “logic of appropriateness” that can provide the base for balancing conflicting legacies. See, about debates on transnationalisation in legal and democratic terms and for attempts to conceptualise a normative ideal of “deliberative supranationalism”, R. Schmalz-Bruns, Reflexive Demokratie. Die partizipatorische Transformation moderner Politik, (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1995), idem, “Deliberativer Supranationalismus: Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats”, (1999) 6 Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen, pp. 185–244, and idem, “Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union – oder Europäisierung der Demokratie jenseits des Nationalstaats”, in: M Lutz-Bachmann and J Bohman (eds), Weltstaat und Staatenwelt. Für und wider die Idee einer Weltrepublik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2007), pp. 260–307, Joerges, “Deliberative Supranationalism. A Defence”, this note supra and idem, “Rethinking European Law’s Supremacy: A Plea for a Supranational Conflict of Law”, this note supra. See J. Bohman, “Democracy Across Boarders, From demos to demoi”, (2005) 18 Ratio Juris, pp. 293–314, about the idea of a shared understanding of deliberative conflict management in the sphere of transnational constitutionalisation. About constitutional conflicts in the European Union, see Habermas, Die postnationale Konstellation und die Zukunft der Demokratie, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag 1998), idem, “Der interkulturelle Diskurs über Menschenrechte”, in: H. Brunkhorst et al. (eds), Recht auf Menschenrechte, Menschenrechte, Demokratie und internationale Politik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1999), pp. 216–227, and idem, “Towards a Cosmopolitan Europe”, (2003) 14 Journal of Democracy, pp. 86–100, J. Bohman, “Constitution Making and Democratic Innovation: The European Union and Transnational Governance”, (2004) 3 European Journal of Political Theory, pp. 315–337; C. Closa, “Deliberative Constitutional Politics and the Turn toward a Norm-Based Legitimacy of the EU Constitution”, (2005) 11 European Law Journal, pp. 411–431; O. Gerstenberg, “Expanding the Constitution Beyond the Court: The Case of Euro-Constitutionalism”, (2002) 8 European Law Journal, pp. 172–192; E. O. Eriksen (ed), Making the European Polity. Reflexive integration in the EU, (London-New York: Routledge, 2005), and A. J. Menendez, “Between Laeken and the Deep Blue Sea: An Assessment of the Draft Constitutional Treaty from a Deliberative-Democratic Standpoint”, (2005) 11 European Public Law, pp. 105–144.
31.
See Habermas’ Tanner-Lectures on Weber’s functional formalism and his elaboration of a normative, i.e., ethical formalism of law which greatly shaped his material reflection about the democratic rule of law in “Between facts and norms”; Habermas Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, note 30 supra.
32.
I. Kant, “Beantwortung der Frage, was ist Aufklärung”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. XI Schriften zur Anthropologie, Geschichtsphilosophie, Politik und Pädagogik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp, 1964), pp. 53–65; idem, “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, this note supra, pp. 11–107, at 33 et seq.; idem, “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, this note supra, pp. 107–309, at 119 et seq.; idem, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, this note supra, pp. 309–637.
33.
K. Günther, “Rechtspluralismus und universaler Code der Legalität als rechtstheoretisches Problem”, note 21 supra, p. 541.
34.
N. MacCormick, “The Ethics of Legalism”, note 5 supra, p. 192.
35.
Ibid., p. 183.
36.
The hope is hence that European law can be organised by an inclusive constitutional (not just legislative) infrastructure and can organise practices of institutional self-observation that reach beyond partial responsiveness. About institutional justification and reflexivity; see R. Forst, “Das grundlegende Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Zu einer konstruktivistischen Konzeption von Menschenrechten”, in: H. Brunkhorst, M. Lutz-Bachmann et al. (eds), Recht auf Menschenrechte. Menschenrechte, Demokratie und Internationale Politik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1999), pp. 66–106, on the idea of rationalisation through deliberation, see K. O. Apel, “Auflösung der Diskursethik? Zur Architektonik der Diskursdifferenzierung in Habermas’ Faktizität und Geltung, Dritter transzendentalpragmatisch orientierter Versuch, mit Habermas gegen Habermas zu denken”, in: P. Niesen and R. Schomberg (eds), Zwischen Recht und Moral: Neuere Ansätze zur Rechts- und Demokratietheorie. Mit Grundtexten von Karl-Otto Apel und Ingeborg Maus, (Münster: LIT-Verlag, 2002), pp. 61–177; J. Habermas, Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1991), idem, Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, note 30 supra; idem, Die postnationale Konstellation und die Zukunft der Demokratie, note 30 supra, idem, Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur Politischen Theorie, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1999).
37.
See already P. P. Craig and C. de Búrca, EU Law – Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); idem, The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); J. Shaw, Law of the European Union (Houndsmills: Palgrave Law Masters, 2000); C. de Búrca and J. H. H. Weiler (eds), The European Court of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
38.
See, for example, S. Bertea, “Looking for Coherence within the European Community”, (2005) 11 European Law Journal, pp. 154–172; A. von Bogdandy, “European Integration: Doctrine of Principles”, (2003) 9 Jean Monnet Working Paper; P. Dann, “Thoughts on a Methodology of European Constitutional Law”, (2005) 6 German Law Journal, pp. 1453–1474; P. Dann and M. Rynkowski, The Unity of the European Constitution (Berlin: Springer, 2006); A. Wiener and G. Schwellnus, “Contested Norms in the Process of EU Enlargement: Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights”, (2004) 2 ConWEB Papers.
39.
A lot of insights about contested issues can be found in studies dealing with the evolution of European law and constitutionalisation. See, especially, P. Craig, The Evolution of EU Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), A. Bodnar, M. Kowalski, K. Raible and F. Schorkopf (eds), The Emerging Constitutional Law of the European Union. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 163, (Berlin: Springer, 2003), A. von Bogdandy and J. Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006); J. H. H. Weiler and M. Wind (eds), European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), T. Christiansen and C. Reh, Constitutionalising the European Union, (Houndsmills: Palgrave, 2005); C. Church and D. Phinnemore, Understanding the European Constitution: An Introduction to the EU Constitutional Treaty, (London: Taylor and Francis, 2006), C. Barnard (ed), The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited. Assessing the Impact of the Constitutional Debate, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); see, also, A. Williams, EU Human Rights Policies. A Study in Irony, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
40.
I cannot in extenso outline and justify this normative starting point that is basically relying on conceptual notions of discourse theory and deliberative democratic theory. For further and principled elaboration, see J. Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung, note 30 supra andidem, “Über den internen Zusammenhang von Rechtsstaat und Demokratie”, in: U. Preuss(ed), Der Begriff der Verfassung, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1994); R. Forst, “Das grundlegende Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Zu einer konstruktivistischen Konzeption von Menschenrechten”, note 36 supra and idem, Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2005), Schmalz-Bruns, Reflexive Demokratie. Die partizipatorische Transformation moderner Politik, note 30 supra, F. I. Michelman, “Law’s Republic”, (1988) 97 The Yale Law Journal, pp. 1493–1537, andidem, “Bringing the Law to Life”, (1989) 74 Cornell Law Review, p. 256. For approaches relating to the supra-, trans- and international level, see Habermas, “Towards a Cosmopolitan Europe”, note 30 supra; Bohman, “Constitution Making and Democratic Innovation: The European Union and Transnational Governance”, note 30 supra, Closa, “Deliberative Constitutional Politics and the Turn toward a Norm-Based Legitimacy of the EU Constitution”, note 30 supra: Gerstenberg, “Expanding the Constitution Beyond the Court: The Case of Euro-Constitutionalism”, note 30 supra; O. Gerstenberg and C. Sabel, “Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy. An Institutional Ideal for Europe?”, Working Paper available at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/sabel/papers.htm; Eriksen, Making the European Polity. Reflexive integration in the EU, note 30 supra;T. Auberger and T. Hitzel-Cassagnes, “Bedingungen und Kontexte von Diskursivität”, in: T. Hitzel-Cassagnes and T. Schmitt (eds), Demokratie in Europa und Europäische Demokratie, (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005); Joerges, “Deliberative Supranationalism –Two Defences”, note 30 supra, Menéndez, “Between Laeken and the Deep Blue Sea: An Assessment of the Draft Constitutional Treaty from a Deliberative-Democratic Standpoint”, note 30 supra, and R. Schmalz-Bruns, “An den Grenzen der Entstaatlichung: Bemerkungen zu Habermas Modell einer‘Weltinnenpolitik ohne Weltregierungen’”, in: B. Herborth and P. Niesen (eds), Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der Internationalen Politik, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2007), pp. 269–293.
41.
See I. Kant, “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”, note 32 supra; idem, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, note 32 supra. This and the following quotations of Kant are my own translation.
42.
I. Kant, “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. I & II, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1956), p. 657 emphasis added.
43.
I. Kant, “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32 supra, p. 323.
44.
Ibid., p. 331.
45.
I. Kant, “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. I & II, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1956), p. 565.
46.
It is important to notice that the idea of proceduralisation is not just elaborated in Kant’s practical philosophy dealing with the moral, ethical and legal realms of society and with the different modes of self-determination in concrete but also in his theoretical philosophy mainly dealing with epistemological reflections. In the chapter on the differences between “Opining, knowing, and believing” in the Critique of pure reason, he elaborates procedural modes of solving epistemological questions. The basic assumption is that agreement and consensus is the best possible appropriation of fulfilling ‘truth-conditions’. The motive for proceduralising epistemological questions is threefold: firstly, there is a constitutive mismatch or discrepancy between the ideal truth-conditions and their realisation. secondly, we have to take into account the necessarily subjective structure of “holding a thing to be true” and thirdly, individual judgements are vulnerable to deception and illusion; see Kant, note 42, supra, p. 687.
47.
I. Kant, “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. I & II, note 45 supra, p. 567.
48.
Ibid., p. 673.
49.
I. Kant, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, note 32 supra, p. 329.
50.
In the original it reads: “Das Recht ist also der Inbegriff der Bedingungen, unter denen die Willkür des einen mit der Willkür des anderen nach einem allgemeinen Gesetze der Freiheit zusammen vereinigt werden kann”; I. Kant, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32 supra, p. 337.
51.
I. Kant, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, note 32 supra, p. 344. Elsewhere, he specifies the duties following from this requirement: “For all rational beings come under the law that each of them must treat itself and all others never merely as means, but in every case at the same time as ends in themselves. Hence, results a systematic union of rational being by common objective laws, i.e., a kingdom which may be called a kingdom of ends, since what these laws have in view is just the relation of these beings to one another as ends and means. It is certainly only an ideal” (Kant, “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten”, note 32 supra, p. 66, emphasis added). To my mind, the phrasing “it is only an ideal” should be interpreted as a hint to the regulative nature of the ideal, not as a redemption of the claim that the ideal is categorically justified and morally grounded. That Kant’s version of the Hobbesian command exeundum esse e statu naturali is not prudentially or pragmatically founded is also well elaborated in his essay “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, where he states, for instance, “that reason, from its throne of supreme moral legislating authority, absolutely condemns war as a legal recourse and makes a state of peace a direct duty”, Kant, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32 supra, p. 211 et seq., also Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft in W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. I & II, note 45 supra; ‘Kritik der praktischen Vernunft’ in W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32; “Erste Fassung der Einleitung in die Kritik der Urteilskraft”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. IX & X Kritik der Urteilskraft und Schriften zur Naturphilosophie, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1957), pp. 173–237; ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft’, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. IX & X Kritik der Urteilskraft und Schriften zur Naturphilosophie, (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp Verlag 1957), pp. 237–623; and “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32 supra, p. 422 et seq.
52.
I. Kant, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32 supra, p. 344.
53.
T. Hitzel-Cassagnes, “Der EuGH im Spannungsfeld von Konstitutionalisierung und Demokratisierung”, in: M. Becker and R. Zimmerling (eds), Politik und Recht. PVS Sonderheft, (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2005).
54.
I. Kant, “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. I & II,, note 45 supra, p. 640.
55.
With regard to a better state, see I. Kant, “Die Metaphysik der Sitten”, in: W. Weischedel (ed), Werke in zwölf Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe vol. VII & VIII Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie, note 32 supra, p. 463.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Leibniz University, Hannover, Germany
Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes

Authors

Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Fac. Derecho, Universidad de León, Montserrat 26 4B, Madrid, 28015, Spain
Agustín José Menéndez
Arena-Center for European Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
John Erik Fossum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hitzel-Cassagnes, T. (2011). Are We Beyond Sovereignty? The Sovereignty of Processes and the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union. In: Menéndez, A., Fossum, J. (eds) Law and Democracy in Neil MacCormick's Legal and Political Theory. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 93. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8942-7_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8942-7_8
Published: 02 March 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8941-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8942-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics