Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
The contributions to this Special Issue of the German Law Journal originate from a meeting in July 2004 at the European University Institute, which was convened following a disappointing experience. The participants – lawyers, historians, political scientists – had co-operated intensively in the preparation of a project on “The Shadows of the Past(s) over the Construction of Europe” which they had submitted to the Volkswagen Stiftung. Although the foundation acknowledged the core aspirations and importance of its individual components, our application was, however, criticized for its overly broad scope and alleged lack of coherence. Should we, however, retain our loose multi-disciplinary, multi-issue and multi-national exploratory approach? Or, should we instead seek to tighten up the whole enterprise and explain what form of common result we would like to deliver? What was planned as a debate on these alternatives developed into enormously interesting, sometimes breath-taking discussions. At the end, we felt that we were able to articulate what we had more intuitively sought for, namely, a formula that would link our concern about European past(s) with our concern for Europe's present and future.
1 In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “Das heutige Europa ist durch die Erfahrungen der totalitären Regime des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts und durch den Holocaust – die Verfolgung und Vernichtung der europäischen Juden, in die das NS-Regime auch die Gesellschaften der eroberten Länder verstrickt hat – gezeichnet… Eine bellizistische Vergangenheit hat einst alle europäischen Nationen in blutige Auseinandersetzungen verstrickt. Aus den Erfahrungen der militärischen und geistigen Mobilisierung gegeneinander haben sie nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg die Konsequenz gezogen, neue supranationale Formen der Kooperation zu entwickeln (“Today's Europe is marked by the experiences of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century and by the Holocaust – the persecution and extermination of the European Jews, in which the Nazi regime also involved the societies of the countries they had conquered….A belligerent past formerly involved all the European nations in bloody conflicts. It was from the experience of the military and intellectual mobilization against each other that, after the Second World War, they drew the conclusion that they had to develop new supranational forms of co-operation.” Translation by Iain Fraser).Google Scholar
2 See Darker Legacies of Law in Europe: The Shadow of National Socialism and Fascism over Europe and its Legal Traditions (Christian Joerges / Navraj S. Ghaleigh, eds., 2003) and The Darker Side of a Pluralist Heritage: Anti-liberal Traditions in European Social Theory and Legal Thought, special issue of 14 Law and Critique 14: 3 (Christian Joerges, guest ed., 2003).Google Scholar
3 On this notion, see note 12 below.Google Scholar
4 Cf., Bernhard Schlink, Vergangenheitsschuld und gegenwärtiges Recht 146-152 (2002).Google Scholar
5 Larat, See Fabrice, Present-ing the Past: Political Narratives on European History and the Justification of EU Integration, in this issue.Google Scholar
6 In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.Google Scholar
7 OJ C 310/2004, 1 of 16 December 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Namely, the reference to Thucydides and the praise of Europe as the herald of civilisation.Google Scholar
9 Which reads: “Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland…”Google Scholar
10 Cf., Adorno, Theodor W., Zum Gedächtnis Eichendorffs, in: Noten zur Literatur Vol. I 105 (1958).Google Scholar
11 Published, for example, in Theodor W. Adorno, Eingriffe 143 (1963), in which Adorno took issue with what the Germans have coined “Vergangenheitsbewältigung“: Germany cannot “come to terms” with Auschwitz, and the term is rightfully resistant against translation exercises.Google Scholar
12 The Meaning of Working Through the Past in Theodor W. Adorno, Critical Models 89 (trans. Henry W. Pickford, 1998)) may be the best conceivable translation. The dilemma is that “Aufarbeiting der Vergangenheit” owes its meaning to the critique of the notion of “Vergangenheitsbewältigung“.Google Scholar
13 Judt, Tony, The past is another country: myth and memory in post-war Europe, in: Memory and Power in Post-war Europe. Studies in the Presence of the Past 157,182-3 (Jan-Werner Müller, ed., 2002).Google Scholar
14 Supra note 4.Google Scholar
15 Habermas / Derrida (note 3).Google Scholar
16 See Sonja Puntscher-Riekmann, Die kommissarische Neuordnung Europas. Das Dispositiv der Integration (1998).Google Scholar
17 Dolf Sternberger, “Verfassungspatriusmus”. Rede bei der 25-Jahr-Feier der “Akademie für Politische Bildung” in Tutzing am 29.6. 1982, in: Politische Reden 1945-1990 702 (Marie-Luise Recker, ed., 1999). In the same vein, Norbert Elias, Studien über die Deutschen 159 et seq. (4th ed., 1990); M. Rainer Lepsius, Nation und Nationalismus in Deutschland, in: Interessen, Ideen und Institutionen 232 (1988).Google Scholar
18 Staatsbürgerschaft und nationale Identität (1991). The short monograph was reprinted in: Faktizität und Geltung 632 (1992).Google Scholar
19 Tony Judt (note 13), 183.Google Scholar
20 Claus Offe, Sozialpolitik und internationale Politik. Über zwei Hürden auf dem Wege zum “Zusammenhalt” Europas, ms. Madrid-Berlin 2002 (on file with author).Google Scholar
21 Note 3.Google Scholar