2008Unpublished venueRequires access

Judges and lawyers beyond constitutive power

Michelle Everson, J. Michael Eisner

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The unfortunate fate of the European Constitution raises interesting questions about European law. As a former Advocate General confirms, European lawyers are unconcerned by current constitutional malaise, having long argued that Europe is already in possession of something resembling a constitution.2 Nonetheless, the failure to identify a ‘popular’ European constitutive moment must surely cast some degree of doubt on the validity of European law’s current constitution-making activities. For all that European lawyers claim to play a legitimate role in constitutionalizing integration, European publics have left us in little doubt; not that they wholly reject a constitution, but, rather, that they are utterly divided about the appropriate content that should be ascribed to it. Vitally, as Dutch and French referenda confirmed, the split is ideological and not national: some rejected the draft treaty because it was too liberal in nature; to others, it was anathema, since it imposed too great a welfare burden.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The unfortunate fate of the European Constitution raises interesting questions about European law. As a former Advocate General confirms, European lawyers are unconcerned by current constitutional malaise, having long argued that Europe is already in possession of something resembling a constitution.2 Nonetheless, the failure to identify a ‘popular’ European constitutive moment must surely cast some degree of doubt on the validity of European law’s current constitution-making activities. For all that European lawyers claim to play a legitimate role in constitutionalizing integration, European publics have left us in little doubt; not that they wholly reject a constitution, but, rather, that they are utterly divided about the appropriate content that should be ascribed to it. Vitally, as Dutch and French referenda confirmed, the split is ideological and not national: some rejected the draft treaty because it was too liberal in nature; to others, it was anathema, since it imposed too great a welfare burden.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The unfortunate fate of the European Constitution raises interesting questions about European law. As a former Advocate General confirms, European lawyers are unconcerned by current constitutional malaise, having long argued that Europe is already in possession of something resembling a constitution.2 Nonetheless, the failure to identify a ‘popular’ European constitutive moment must surely cast some degree of doubt on the validity of European law’s current constitution-making activities. For all that European lawyers claim to play a legitimate role in constitutionalizing integration, European publics have left us in little doubt; not that they wholly reject a constitution, but, rather, that they are utterly divided about the appropriate content that should be ascribed to it. Vitally, as Dutch and French referenda confirmed, the split is ideological and not national: some rejected the draft treaty because it was too liberal in nature; to others, it was anathema, since it imposed too great a welfare burden.

Key concepts: Power (physics), Physics, Thermodynamics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Judges and lawyers beyond constitutive power — Research Paper | ScholarLens