Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:46:25.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison, Translation and the Making of a Common European Constitutional Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Alberto Vespaziani

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

European integration has forced constitutional law scholars to abandon the perspective of methodological nationalism. Prior to the emergence of the interpretative problems raised by the intersection of domestic and European law, the dominant legal paradigm conceived of “constitution” and “state” as two inseparable terms. With the intensification of European integration and economic globalization, many different constitutionalist interpretations have emerged which all share a belief in the State's loss of centrality, such as post-, supra- and transnational constitutionalism, constitutionalism without the state and multilevel constitutionalism.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , 01 May 2008 , pp. 547 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Häberle, Peter, Die Offene Gesellscaft der Verfassungsinterpreten 297 (1975). Contra Hubert Treiber & Erhard Blankenburg, Die geschlossene Gesellschaft der Verfassungsinterpreten 543–552 (1982).Google Scholar

2 Häberle, Peter, Grundrechtsgeltung und Grundrechtsinterpretation im Verfassungstaat, in Rechtsvergleichung im Kraftfeld des Verfassungstaates 27 (1992).Google Scholar

3 See Giorgio Repetto, Gli argomenti comparativi nelle giurisprudenze delle Corti europee di Strasburgo e Lussemburgo (2008).Google Scholar

4 Ruggiu, Ilenia, Comparazione (Dir. Cost.), in II Dizionario di diritto pubblico 1055 (Sabino Cassese ed., 2006). See also Friedrich Müller and Ralf Christensen, Juristische Methodik, Band II (CommunityLaw), 2003.Google Scholar

5 See Peter Häberle, Europäische Verfassungslehre 252 (2002) (“Es ist durchaus kein Privileg gerade der Verfassungslehre, für den kulturwissenschaftlichen Ansatz besonders geeignet zu sein. Die Zivilrechtslehre kann nicht minder fruchtbar kulturwissenschaftliche Fragen aufgreifen und sie hat dabei, vor allem im Felde der Rechtsvergleichung, Tradition“). See also id. at 260 (“Die Juristenkunst des Privatrechts ist alt, das Verfassungsrecht relativ jung und neu. … Wohl aber hat der Verfassungsjurist allen Grund, die ‘feinen Gewebe’ zivilrechtlicher Juristenkunst zu respektieren“); Id. at 270 (“Das Desiderat einer europäische Methodenlehre ist die ‘andere Seite’ des beschriebenen Europäisierungsvorgangs, auch die Methodenlehre ist ein Beispielsfall für Europäisierungsvorgänge. Doch sind erst die Anfänge zu erkennen. Während im Privatrecht früh und nie ganz vergessen gemeineuropäisch gearbeitet wurde, bot sich im öffentlichen Recht (wegen die Nationalstaatsideologie) lange ein anderes Bild“).Google Scholar

6 See Jürgen Habermas, II Theory of communicative action 124 (1987) (noting that a lifeworld can be described as a “culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretative patterns”). Following the communicative approach I use the expression “legal lifeworld” to encompass rules, principles, precedents, institutions, but also pre-comprehensions, background assumptions, metaphors, cryptotypes and paradigms that sustain a legal culture.Google Scholar

7 Cervati, Angelo Antonio, A proposito dello studio del diritto costituzionale in una prospettiva storica e della comparazione tra ordinamenti giuridici, 2 romano attuale 26 (1999). See also Cervati, Angelo Antonio, Il diritto costituzionale europeo e la crisi della dogmatica statualistica, 6 Diritto romano attuale 22 (2001).Google Scholar

8 Alessandro Pizzorusso, Sistemi giuridici comparati 145–178 (1988). See also La comparazione giuridica e il diritto pubblico, in L'apporto della comparazione alla scienza giuridica 61 (Rodolfo Sacco ed., 1980); René David, Major legal systems in the world today (1985); Konrad Zweigert & Hein Kötz, Introduction to Comparative Law (1998).Google Scholar

9 Giovanni Bognetti, Introduzione al diritto costituzionale comparato 126 (1994).Google Scholar

10 See Giorgio Lombardi, Premesse al corso di diritto pubblico comparato 102 (1986).Google Scholar

11 Paolo Biscaretti di Ruffia, Introduzione al diritto costituzionale comparato 28 (1988).Google Scholar

12 Giuseppe de Vergottini, Diritto costituzionale comparato 2 (1999).Google Scholar

13 Id. at 72.Google Scholar

14 Gino Gorla, Diritto comparato e diritto comune europeo 7 (1981).Google Scholar

15 Id. at 73.Google Scholar

16 Id. at 78.Google Scholar

17 Id. at 80.Google Scholar

18 Id. at 103.Google Scholar

19 Id. at 94.Google Scholar

20 Gorla, Gino, Diritto comparato e straniero, in ENCICLOPEDIA GIURIDICA 2.Google Scholar

21 Id. at 10; For example, English law is the head of the common law family.Google Scholar

22 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

23 See Gorla, Gino & Moccia, Luigi, Profili di una storia del “diritto comparato” in Italia e nel “mondo comunicante”, Rivista di diritto civile 4 (1987).Google Scholar

24 Gorla, Gino, Diritto comparato e straniero, in ENCICLOPEDIA GIURIDICA 12.Google Scholar

25 Id. at 12.Google Scholar

26 V. Emilio Betti, Système du code civil allemand 2 (1965) (promoting a functionalist approach to comparison in civil law) (“la méthode comparative, en tant qu'elle poursuit une comparaison fonctionnelle, est appelée à remplir des rôles qui regardent l'intelligence approfondie du droit, donc son essence měme en tant qu'objet d'une science juridique. La pluralité des ordres juridiques coexistants peut former l'objet d'une évaluation comparative non seulement au but théorique d'en constater les différences et les convergences, ou dans un but pratique (l'antithèse était bien connue aux Romains) d'une unification à essayer en example; mais aussi avec d'autres points de vue pratiques dirigeants: par example, avec une visée normative en vue de l'élaboration d'un droit à réformer (études législatives), ou avec une visée de traduction, transposition ou préférence dans le domain des conflits de lois”).Google Scholar

27 Id. at 20.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 25.Google Scholar

29 Id. Google Scholar

30 Now the problem tends to shift to the interpretation of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States of the European Union, according to the dictate of Article 6, section 2 of the EU Treaty (previously Article F). See Miguel Azpitarte-Sánchez, Artikel 6 EU-Vertrag: Kodifizierung durch die Zeit, seine Bedeutung und Rechtsfolgen, 51 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 553 (2003).Google Scholar

31 Mauro Cappelletti, Dimensioni della giustizia nelle società contemporanee 24 (1994).Google Scholar

32 See Mauro Cappelletti, Il controllo giudiziario di costituzionalità delle leggi nel diritto comparato (1979); Mauro Cappelletti, The “Mighty Problem” of Judicial Review and the Contribution of Comparative Analysis, 53 Southern California Law Review 409 (1980); Mauro Cappelletti, The Law-Making Power of the Judge and its Limits: a Comparative Analysis, 8 Monash University Law Review 15 (1981); Mauro Cappalletti, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective (1989).Google Scholar

33 Dann, Philip, Thoughts on a Methodology of European Constitutional Law, 6 German law Journal 11 (2005).Google Scholar

34 Tschentscher, Axel, Dialektische Rechtsvergleichung – Zur Methode der Komparatistik im öffentlichen Recht, 17 Juristenzeitung 809 (2007).Google Scholar

35 Rodolfo Sacco, Introduzione al diritto comparato 5 (1995).Google Scholar

36 Id. at 11.Google Scholar

37 Id. at 13.Google Scholar

38 Id. at 182.Google Scholar

39 Id. Google Scholar

40 Id. at 37.Google Scholar

41 Id. at 41; An example of this in constitutional law could be the widespread use of the word “aggiudicazione“ in the Italian literature to translate the English word adjudication, instead of the bulky paraphrase “controllo di costituzionalità e giudizio in ultima istanza in un sistema integrato“.Google Scholar

42 Sacco, Rodolfo, Traduzione giuridica, in Digesto discipline privatistiche 733 (2000). See also Sacco, Rodolfo, Lingua e diritto, in Ars Interpretandi 117 (2001).Google Scholar

43 Id. at 128. See also Sacco, Rodolfo, Crittotipo, IV Digesto discipline privatistiche 39 (1987); Sacco, Rodolfo, Comparazione giuridica e conoscenza del dato giuridico positivo, in L'apporto della comparazione alla scienza giuridica 249 (Rodolfo Sacco ed., 1980) (noting that “[t]he cyptotype is simply the model that is about to become common knowledge”). A relevant example of this method in European constitutional thought was the assumption that constitutional law was inseparable from the state.Google Scholar

44 Sacco, Rodolfo, Comparazione giuridica e conoscenza del dato giuridico positivo, in L'apporto della comparazione alla scienza giuridica 253 (Rodolfo Sacco ed., 1980).Google Scholar

45 Id. at 61.Google Scholar

46 Rodolfo Sacco, Antropologia giuridica 203 (2007).Google Scholar

47 Ugo Mattei & Pier Giuseppe Monateri, Introduzione breve al diritto comparato 7 (1997).Google Scholar

48 This is a position contained in the Trento theses. See Gambaro, Antonio, The Trento Theses, 4 Global Jurist Frontiers (2004); Monateri, Pier Giuseppe, Comparazione e latenza normativa a dieci anni dalle tesi di Trento, in Rivista critica del diritto privato 453 (1998).Google Scholar

49 Id. at 8.Google Scholar

50 Id. Google Scholar

51 Id. at 10.Google Scholar

52 Id. at 11.Google Scholar

53 Id. at 13.Google Scholar

54 Id. Google Scholar

55 Id. at 39.Google Scholar

56 Id. at 39.Google Scholar

57 Id. at 44.Google Scholar

58 In Italy, for example, academic studies on the use of reasonableness in constitutional review are widely inspired by the American and German literature, while the constitutional doctrine has developed in a substantially autonomous way. It has forged its own, genuinely new canon, which is so extended in parts as to defy reduction to any model existing elsewhere.Google Scholar

59 Monateri, Pier Giuseppe, La circolazione dei modelli giuridici e le sue conseguenze per l'Unione europea, in Modelli giuridici ed economici per la Costituzione europea 87 (A.M. PETRONI ed., 2001). See also Monateri, Pier Giuseppe, Il problema di una definizione di Europa: una questione di teologia politica?, in Rivista critica del diritto privato 3–19 (2005); Mattei, Ugo & Robilant, Anna Di, International Style e postmodernismo nell'architettura giuridica delle nuova Europa. Prime note critiche, Rivista critica del diritto privato 89 (2001); Monateri, Pier Giuseppe, Everybody's Talking: The Future of Comparative Law 21 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 825 (1998).Google Scholar

60 Pier Giuseppe Monateri, Critica dell'ideologia e analisi antagonista: il pensiero di Marx e le strategie della comparazione (2000). See also Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870–1960 279 (1992).Google Scholar

61 Peter Häberle, Europäische Verfassungslehre 271 (2002) (“Ansätze zu einer europäischen Methodenlehre zeigen sich in der Rechtsprechung der europäischen Verfassungsgerichte zu den Grundrechte”); Alexander Bleckmann, Die wertende Rechtsvergleichung bei der Entwicklung europäischer Grundrechte, in Europarecht, Energierecht, Wirtschaftsrecht: Festschrift fur Bodo Borner zum 70. Geburtstag (Baur, Müller-Graff & Zuleeg eds., 1992); Kakouris, C. N., Use of the Comparative Method by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 6 Pace International Law Review 267 (1994); McInerney, Siobahn, The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Evolution of Fundamental Rights in the ‘Private Domain', in Essays and Commentary on the European and Conceptual Foundations of Modern International Law 277 (Harding & Lim eds., 1999); McCrudden, Cristopher, A Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights, 20.4 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 499 (2004).Google Scholar

62 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Filosofia 11 (Roma) (“Der Philosoph trachtet, das erlösende Wort zu finden, das ist das Wort, das uns endlich erlaubt, das zu fassen, was bis jetzt immer, ungreifbar, unser Bewusstsein belastet hat. (Es ist, wie wenn man ein Haar auf der Zunge liegen hat; man spürt es, aber kann es nicht erfassen // ergreifen // und darum nicht loswerden)”). Google Scholar

63 Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (2005).Google Scholar

64 Emilio Betti, Teoria generale dell'interpretazione 636 (1990).Google Scholar

65 George Steiner, After Babel (1998).Google Scholar

66 James Boyd White, Justice as Translation (1994).Google Scholar

67 Lessig, Lawrence, Fidelity in Translation, 71 Texas Law Review 1165 (1993); Lawrence Lessig, Understanding Changed Readings: Fidelity and Theory, 47 Stanford Law Review 395 (1995); Lessig, Lawrence, Translating Federalism: United States v. Lopez, 1995 Supreme Court Review 125; Lessig, Lawrence, Fidelity and Constraint, 65 Fordham Law Review 1365 (1997).Google Scholar

68 Walker, N., Post-national Constitutionalism and the Problem of Translation, in European Constitutionalism beyond the State (J.H.H. Weiler & M. Wind eds., 2003).Google Scholar

69 Gambaro, Antonio, Interpretation of Multilingual Legislative Texts, 11 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 3 (2007); Gerard-René De Groot, La traduzione di informazioni giuridiche, in Ars Interpretandi 135 (2000); Wróblewski, Jerzy, Il problema della traduzione giuridica, in Ars Interpretandi 155 (2000).Google Scholar

70 Cervati, Angelo Antonio, A proposito dello studio del diritto costituzionale in una prospettiva storica e della comparazione tra ordinamenti giuridici, 2 Diritto romano attuale 31 (1999).Google Scholar

71 Giorgio Lombardi, Premesse al corso di diritto pubblico comparato 26 (1986).Google Scholar

72 Contra Benjamin, Walter, Il compito del traduttore, in Angelus Novus 47 (1962).Google Scholar

73 See Susan Bassnett, La traduzione. Teorie e pratica 15 (1999).Google Scholar

74 Umberto Eco, Dire quasi la stessa cosa 26 (2003).Google Scholar

75 Id. at 162.Google Scholar

76 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996); Ulrich Haltern, Internationales Verfassungsrecht?, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 128, 513 (2003) (discussing a “kopernikanische Wende”).Google Scholar

77 Cover, Robert, The Supreme Court, 1982 Term – Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 4 (1983)Google Scholar