Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:37:42.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symposium – Crisis and Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2019

Cormac MAC AMHLAIGH
Cormac MAC AMHLAIGH*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 21 , December 2019 , pp. 3 - 5
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brunner v European Union Treaty, Case 2 BvR 2134/92 and 2959/92 JZ 1993, 1100 [1994] 1 CMLR 57 (Maastricht). Also, Denmark rejected the treaty in a referendum and was only persuaded to ratify after opt-outs were secured.

2 Curtin, D, ‘The Constitutional Structure of the European Union: A Europe of Bits and Pieces’ (1993) 30 Common Market Law Review 17Google Scholar.

3 Hooghe, L and Marks, G, ‘A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus’ (2009) 39 British Journal of Political Science 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Previous events such as the failure of the European Defence treaty and the ‘empty chair’ crisis, posed their own distinctive challenges to the project. See generally Moravcsik, A, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (UCL Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

5 Hot on the heels of the Maastricht aftermath came the Nice reforms with an Irish ‘no’ at the first attempt, the failure of the constitutional Treaty in 2005, as well as the difficult ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (involving another Irish ‘no’).

6 Walker, N, ‘A Constitutional Reckoning’ (2006) 13(2) Constellations 140, p 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for example, Cappelletti, M, Seccombe, M, and Weiler, J (eds), Integration through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience / Vol. 1, Methods, Tools and Institutions (Wde Gruyter, 1985)Google Scholar; Mac Amhlaigh, C, ‘Concepts of Law in Integration through law’ in Augenstein, D (ed), ‘Integration through Law’ Revisited: The Making of the European Polity (Ashgate Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar; Búrca, G de, ‘Rethinking Law in Neofunctionalist Theory’ (2005) 12 Journal of European Public Policy 310CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Shaw, J, ‘European Union Legal Studies in Crisis? Towards a New Dynamic’ (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 The piece opens with a reference to debates about sovereignty in the House of Commons during UK ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. MacCormick, N, ‘Beyond the Sovereign State’ (1993) 56 The Modern Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 As explored by MacCormick in his article on the Maastricht judgment itself: MacCormick, N, ‘The Maastricht Urteil – Sovereignty Now!’ (1995) 1(3) European Law Journal 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Walker, N, ‘The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Avbelj, M and Komárek, J (eds), Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond (Hart Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar; Flynn, T, The Triangular Constitution: Constitutional Pluralism in Ireland, the EU and the ECHR (Hart Publishing, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.