Advertisement

Subsidiarity and the Global Order

  • Andreas FollesdalEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 37)

Abstract

Subsidiarity has been proposed as an answer to the challenges of globalisation and global governance. This chapter addresses some of the strengths and weaknesses of such a principle of subsidiarity for questions of how to allocate and use authority at regional and global levels. The chapter criticises the ‘state centric’ versions of subsidiarity often appealed to for such global settings. In particular, there are several challenges wrought by states that fail to respect their citizens’ human rights, variously interpreted. More defensible versions of subsidiarity do not provide normative legitimacy to the state centric aspects of the global order. Section 11.2 sketches some of the remarkably different conceptions of subsidiarity as a background to the usages in the European Union, the Catholic Church and as it allegedly appears in international law. The different versions drastically reduce or enlarge the scope of member unit authority. Section 11.3 considers some implications for the legitimate allocation of authority in our global order which includes many states that routinely violate their citizens’ fundamental human rights. The function of the European Court of Human Rights offers a helpful contrast.

Keywords

Althusius Catholicism Liberal Contractualism Sovereignty European Court of Human Rights Global governance International law 

References

  1. Barry, B. 1989. Theories of justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beitz, C.R. 2009. The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt, R. 1994. Human rights and judicial review: The European Court of Human Rights. In D.M. Beatty (Red.) Human rights and judicial review: A comparative perspective, s. 297–319. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  4. Carozza, P.G. 2003. Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human rights law. American Journal of International Law 97(38): 38–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, I. 2006. The watchdogs of subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the logic of arguing in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(2): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Council of Europe. 1950. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Rome.Google Scholar
  7. Dahl, R.A. 2001. How democratic is the American constitution? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. de Klerk, W.A. 1975. The Puritans in Africa. London: R. Collins/Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Filippov, M., P.C. Ordeshook, and O. Shvetsova. 2004. Designing federalism: A theory of self-sustainable federal institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Follesdal, Andreas. 1998. Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy 6: 231–259.Google Scholar
  11. Follesdal, A. 2006. Subsidiarity, democracy and human rights in the Constitutional Treaty for Europe. Journal of Social Philosophy 37: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Follesdal, A. 2007. Toward self-sustaining stability? How the Constitutional Treaty would enhance forms of institutional and national balance. Regional and Federal Studies 17(3): 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Follesdal, A. 2013a. Competing conceptions of subsidiarity. In Nomos. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Follesdal, A. 2013b. Subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law. Global Constitutionalism 2(1): 37–62.Google Scholar
  15. Grundgesetz Für Die Bundesrepublik, Deutschland. 1949. Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl) Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 100-1. Google Scholar
  16. Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the global order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. John XXIII. 1963. Pacem in Terris. In The Papal encyclicals 1958–1981. Raleigh: McGrath.Google Scholar
  18. Kumm, M. 2009. The cosmopolitan turn in constitutionalism: On the relationship between constitutionalism in and beyond the state. In J.L. Dunoff and J.P. Trachtman (Red.), Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance, s. 257–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuyper, A. 1880. Souvereiniteit in eigen kring: rede ter inwijding van de vrije Universiteit den 20sten October 1880. Amsterdam: J.H. Kruyt.Google Scholar
  20. Leo XII. 1890. Sapiente Christianae. In J.F. Cronin (Red.), Catholic social principles: The social teaching of the Catholic Church applied to American economic life. Milwaukee: Bruce.Google Scholar
  21. Leo XII. 1891. Rerum Novarum. In The Papal encyclicals 1903–1939. Raleigh: McGrath Publishing Company. Available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
  22. Letsas, G. 2006. Two concepts of the margin of appreciation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26(4): 705–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macdonald, R.S.J. 1993. The margin of appreciation. In R.S.J. Macdonald and F. Matcher (Red.), The European system for the protection of human rights. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. McKay, D. 2004. The EU as a self-sustaining federation: Specifying the constitutional conditions. In Political theory and the European constitution, ed. L. Dobson and A. Follesdal, s. 23–39. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Oates, W. 1972. Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rawls, J. 1999. The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Resnik, J., J. Civin, and J. Frueh. 2008. Ratifying Kyoto at the local level: Sovereigntism, federalism, and translocal organizations of government actors (TOGAs). Arizona Law Review 50(3): 709–786.Google Scholar
  29. Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shany, Y. 2005. Toward a general margin of appreciation doctrine in international law? European Journal of International Law 16(5): 907–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slaughter, A.-M. 2000. A liberal theory of international law. American Society of International Law Proceedings 94: 240.Google Scholar
  32. Treaty of Lisbon. 2007. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty of European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (adopted 13 December 2007, in force 1 December 2009) [2007] Official Journal of the European Union C306/1. Official Journal of the European Union C306/1(C 306 of 17 December 2007).Google Scholar
  33. United Nations. 1998. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Entered into Force 2002), A/Conf.183/9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations