“Is This Really What I Voted For?” – On The Legitimacy Of European Integration

• Authors: Tanel Kerikmäe , Katrin Nyman-Metcalf , Ioannis Papageorgiou
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper discusses the problems and dangers of proceeding with European integration without facing a transparent constitutional debate. The crucial issue demanding clarity is whether the current integration in the form of the EU shall be seen within the framework and concepts of public international law or within those of constitutional law. The authors argue that more intensive integration cannot be achieved on the basis of undermining rule of law and democracy by vacillating between different international law or constitutional law models of proceeding without taking any clear standpoint.

Keywords

EN

EU democracy; supremacy; democratic deficit; sovereignty; constitutionalisation process; integration

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 45-62

Dates

published

2013-06-01

online

2013-09-05

Contributors

author

Tanel Kerikmäe

• Professor and Director; Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia)

author

Katrin Nyman-Metcalf

• Professor and Chair of Law and Technology; Dr. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia)

author

Ioannis Papageorgiou

• Associate Professor Faculty of Political Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

References

• 1. Anstis, Sebastian C. St. J, and Mark W. Zacher. “The Normative Bases of the Global Territorial Order.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 21 (2010): 306-323.[Crossref]
• 2. Bieber, Roland. “An Association of Sovereign States.” European ConstitutionalLaw Review 5 (2009): 391-406.[WoS][Crossref]
• 3. Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca. EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford University Press, 1998.
• 4. De Witte, Bruno. “International Law as a Tool for the European Union.” European Constitutional Law Review 5 (2009): 265-283.[Crossref][WoS]
• 5. Kerikmäe, Tanel. “Estonia as an EU state: lack of proactive constitutional dialogue”: 11-42. In: Kyriaki Topidi and Alexander H. E. Morawa, eds. Constitutional Evolution in Central and Eastern Europe Expansion andIntegration in the EU. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Press, 2010.
• 6. Locke, Tobias. “Why the European Union is not a State: Some critical remarks.” European Constitutional Law Review 5 (2009): 407-420.[Crossref][WoS]
• 7. Majone, Giandomenico. Dilemmas of European Integration: The Ambiguitiesand Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth. Oxford University Press, 2005.
• 8. Nyman-Metcalf, Katrin, and Ioannis Papageorgiou. Regional Integration andthe Courts of Justice. Intersentia, 2005.
• 9. Prechal, Sacha. “Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, Supremacy and the Evolving Constitution of the European Union. - The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited”: 55-56. In: Catherine Barnard, ed. Assessing the Impact of theConstitutional Debate. Oxford University Press, 2007.
• 10. Timmermans, Christiaan. “The European Union’s Judicial System.” CommonMarket Law Review 41 (2004): 393-405.
• 11. Verhoeven, Amaryllis. The European Union in Search of a Democratic andConstitutional Theory. Kluwer Law International, 2002.
• 12. Williams, Andrew T. “Taking values seriously: Toward a Philosophy of EU Law.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29(3) (2009):549-577.[Crossref][WoS]
• 13. Wessels, Wolfgang “An Ever Closer Fusion? A Dynamic Macropolitical View on Integration Processes.” Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 35, No. 2 (1997):267-299.
• 14. Weiler, Joseph H. H. “European Neo-constitutionalism: In search of Foundations for the European Constitutional Order.” Political Studies XLIV (1996): 517-533.
• 1. Costa v. ENEL. European Court of Justice, 1964, Case 6/64.
• 2. Data Retention Case. BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), 2010, no. 1 BvR 256/08 // http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20100302_1bvr025608.html.
• 3. Dred Scott v. Sandford. U.S. Supreme Court, 1856, no. 60 U.S. 393.
• 4. Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz. European Court of Justice, 1979, Case 44/79.
• 5. Internationale Handelsgesellshaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fürGetreide und Futtermittel. European Court of Justice, 1970, Case 11/70.
• 6. Kadi v. Council. European Court of Justice, 2008, Case C-402/05P.
• 7. Karlsruhe decision. BVerfG (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2009, no. 2 BvE 2/08 // www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208 en.html.
• 8. Nold v. Commission. European Court of Justice, 1975, Case 4/73.
• 9. Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterinder Bundesstadt Bonn. European Court of Justice, 2004, Case C-36/02.
• 10. Schmidberger v. Austria. European Court of Justice, 2003, Case C-112/00.
• 11. Slaughterhouse Cases. U.S. Supreme Court, 1872, no. 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36.
• 12. Solange I. BVerfGE, 1974, no. 37, 271.
• 13. Solange II - Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft decision. BVerfGE 73, 339, 1986, no. 197/83.
• 14. Transportes Urbanos v. Administracion del Estado. Advocate General in European Court of Justice, 2010, Case C-118/08.
• 15. Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Official Journal of the European Union, 2004, C310/01.
• 16. Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. European Court of Justice, 1963, Case 26/62.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/bjlp-2013-0003