Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:27:43.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sozialstaatlichkeit in Europe? A Conflict-of-Laws Approach to the Law of the EU and the Proceduralisation of Constitutionalisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christian Joerges

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.

“Sozialstaatlichkeit” is a collection of essays dedicated to the author of Negative Freiheitsrechte und gesellschaftliche Selbstorganisation? Reflections on the survival of welfarism in the postnational constellations after his analyses of globalisation and Europeanisation? Affirmative references to the Discourse Theory of Law and Habermasian notions of Proceduralisation at all levels of governance against “Proceduralisation and its use in a post-modern legal policy?” “Are you trying to deliver something like an Anti-Ladeur.” No, neither Sisyphus nor Hercules, let alone Friedrich Engels, has inspired this essay. Its argument should rather be observed in the spirit of conflict-of-laws, i.e. of a discipline which accepts as a normative fact that different academic projects may be worthwhile despite of, or even because of, the differences of their premises and of the logics of their development, which may be inspired by complementary perceptions of a common problématque.

Type
Europe and the State
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 4: The Law of the Network Society. A Tribute to Karl-Heinz Ladeur , 01 April 2009 , pp. 335 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Negative Freiheitsrechte und gesellschaftliche Selbstorganisation, 252 (2000); See also, more recently, Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Der Staat gegen die Gesellschaft (2006).Google Scholar

2 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Globalisation and the conversion of democracy to polycentric networks: Can democracy survive the end of the nation state? (2003).Google Scholar

3 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, 'We, the European People …'—Relâche? -, 14 European Law Journal, 147 (2008); see previously, Towards a Legal Theory of Supranationality – The Viability of the Network Concept, 3 European Law Journal 33 (1997).Google Scholar

4 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Postmoderne Rechtstheorie. Selbstreferenz – Selbstorganisation – Prozeduralisierung 2nd ed, (1995); Proceduralisation and its use in a post-modern legal policy, in Governance in the European Union, 53 (Olivier De Schutter, Notis Lebessis & John Paterson, eds., 2001).Google Scholar

5 See, Max Weber Economy and Society 873–874 (1978).Google Scholar

6 Forsthoff, Ernst, Begriff und Wesen des sozialen Rechtstaates, in Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, 8, 12 (1954).Google Scholar

7 In the prestigious Veröffentlichungen, Abendroth was present only with a short comment (Id., 85–92). He published his argument instead in the Festschrift for political scientist Bergsträssser: Zum Begriff des demokratischen und sozialen Rechtstaates im Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Festschrift Ludwig Bergsträsser, 279 (1954).Google Scholar

8 See Heller, Hermann I., Rechtsstaat oder Diktatur? (199129), reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 2, 451 (1971). See Michael Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, Band 3: Staats- und Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft in Republik und Diktatur 1914–1945, 183–186; Wolfgang Schluchter, Entscheidung für den sozialen Rechtsstaat: Herrmann Heller und die staatstheoretische Diskussion in der Weimarer Republik, 2nd ed. (1983); Dyzenhaus, D., Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Herrmann Heller in Weimar (1997).Google Scholar

9 See, Caldwell, Peter C., Is a ‘Social Rechtsstaat’ Possible? The Weimar Roots of a Bonn Controversy, in From Liberal Democracy to Fascism: Legal and Political Thought in the Weimar Republic, 136–153, (P. C. Caldwell & W.E. Scheuerman, eds., 2000). See the Special Issue on Social Democracy of the 17 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence on Social Democracy (C. Harvey ed. 2004).Google Scholar

10 Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms 82 (1996).Google Scholar

11 Ridder, Helmut, Die Soziale Ordnung des Grundgesetzes (1975).Google Scholar

12 Wiethölter, Rudolf, Die Position des Wirtschaftsrechts im sozialen Rechtsstaat, in Wirtschaftsordnung und Rechtsordnung: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Franz Böhm (Helmut Coing, Heinrich Kronstein & Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker eds., 1965).Google Scholar

13 The first to proclaim the turn to proceduralisation was R. Wiethölter in his analysis of the Constitutional court's judgment in the co-determination litigation; see his article, Entwicklung des Rechtsbegriffs (am Beispiel des BVG-Urteils zum Mitbestimmungsgesetz und – allgemeiner – an Beispielen des sog. Sonderprivatrechts), in Rechtsformen der Verflechtung von Staat und Wirtschaft, 38–59 (V. Gessner & G. Winter eds., 1982), and later Proceduralisation of the Category of Law, in Critical Legal Thought: An American-German Debate, 501–510 (Christian Joerges & D.M. Trubek, eds., 1989). Habermas has elaborated his position in Between Facts and Norms (note 10), 388.Google Scholar

14 Teubner, Gunther, Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law, 17 Law and Society Review 239–285 (1983).Google Scholar

15 See his Flexibilisierungsstrategie, – Alternativen zum, Steuerungsstaat’ — “Reflexives Ewchr” – ‘Prozedeuralisierung’ – ‘Ökologisches Recht', in Workshop zu Konzepten des postinterventionistischen Rechts, 311–335 (G. Brüggemeier & Christian Joerges eds. 1984); From Universalistic Law to the Law of Uncertainty: On the Decay of the Legal Order's ‘Totalizing Teleology’ as Treated in the Methodological Discussion and its Critique from the Left, in Critical Legal Thought: An American-German Debate, 567–590 (Christian Joerges & D.M. Trubek eds., 1989).Google Scholar

16 See the pertinent publications of Norbert Reich in the early 80s, e.g. his The Regulatory Crisis: American Approaches in the Light of European Experiences, American bar Association Journal 693–704 (1983).Google Scholar

17 Galtung, J., The European Community: A Superpower in the Making (1973).Google Scholar

18 For references see further, Joerges, Christian, On the Disregard for History in the Convention Process, 12 European Law Journal 2–5 (2006).Google Scholar

19 See supra note 5. For a controversial renewal of this argument see Götz Aly, Hitler's Volksstaat. Raub, Rassemkrieg und nationaler Sozialismus (2005); The Nazis cared about the welfare of their Volksgenossen and underlines uncomfortable continuities in social policies up to the present.Google Scholar

20 Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944).Google Scholar

21 On the following see further, Joerges, Christian & Rödl, F., The ‘Social Market Economy’ as Europe's Social Model?, EUI Working Paper Law No. 2004/8, in A European Social Citizenship? Preconditions for Future Policies in Historical Light, 125 (Lars Magnusson & Bo Stråth eds., 2005); Christian Joerges, What is left of the European Economic Constitution? A Melancholic Eulogy, 30 European Law Review 461 (2005). For a recent modification which focuses on the deconstruction of the German variety of capitalism, see M. Höpner & A. Schäfer, Eine neue Phase der europäischen Integration: Legitimitätsdefizite europäischer Liberalisierungspolitik, in Die politische Ökonomie der europäischen Integration 129 (M. Höpner & A. Schäfer eds., 2008).Google Scholar

22 Scharpf, F.W., The European Social Model: Coping with the Challenges of Diversity, 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 645 (2002).Google Scholar

23 Id., 645.Google Scholar

24 Leibfried, S. & Zürn, M., The National Configuration of the State in the Golden Age, in Transformations of the State, 93 (St. Leibfried & M. Zürn eds., 2005) and J. Ruggie, International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order, 36 International Organization 379 (1982).Google Scholar

25 European integration was, in its early years, by no means, an uncontested project among the protagonists of ordo-liberalism. See Wegmann, Milène, Früher Neoliberalismus und europäische Integration: Interdependenz der nationalen, supranationalen und internationalen Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1932-1965) 297, 351(2002). Her analysis accords with the enquiry into the politics of competition policy in preparation of the EC-treaty by Y. Karagiannis, Preference Heterogeneity and Equilibrium Institutions: The Case of European Competition Policy, PhD Thesis EUI Florence 2007, Ch. 7.Google Scholar

26 The importance of the ordo-liberal school in Germany's private and economic law academia qand all of germany's important advisory institutions contrast markedly with its neglect by Germany's Staatsrechtslehre (public and constitutional law) and in the social sciences (for notable exceptions see Ph. Manow, Modell Deutschland as an interdenominational compromise, Working Paper 003/2001, Minda De Gunzburg Centre for European Studies.; A. Ebner, The intellectual foundations of the social market economy. Theory, policy, and implications for European integration, 33 Journal of Economic Studies 206 (2006). Publications in English are rare. All the more important is M. Foucault, Naissance de la biopolitique. Cours au Collège de France, (2004), in particular the lectures of 7 February (at 105–134) and of 14 February 1979 (at 135–164). See also the references in Christian Joerges, What is left of the European Economic Constitution? – A Melancholic Eulogy, 30 European Law Review 461, 465 (2005).Google Scholar

27 See, path breaking, Weiler, J.H.H., The Community System: the Dual Character of Supranationalism, 1 Yearbook of European Law 257 (1981).Google Scholar

28 Most recently, Vauchet, A., 'Integration-through-Law'. Contribution to a Socio-history of EU Political Common sense, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2008/10.Google Scholar

29 See among the classical studies by Jürgen Habermas his Towards a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism, in Jürgen Habermas on Society and Politics, 114 (S. Seidman ed., 1989).Google Scholar

30 Thus, , Tony Judt, Postwar. A History of Europe Since 1945 777 (2005).Google Scholar

31 Interestingly enough, German ordo-liberalism was well accustomed to this problématique. Its early proponents conceptualised it as the interdependence31 of societal and economic “orders” (See, most famously, Walter Eucken, Grundzüge der Wirtschaftspolitik, 180 (1990); out of the rich literature on the interdependence theorem, see M. Wegmann (note 25), in particular 369.Google Scholar

32 Commission of the EC, Commission White Paper to the European Council on Completion of the Internal Market, COM (85) 310 final of 14 June 1985.Google Scholar

33 See, on the following in more detail, Joerges, Christian, Economic Law, the Nation-State and the Maastricht Treaty, in Europe after Maastricht: an Ever Closer Union?, 29 (R. Dehousse ed., 1994).Google Scholar

34 See Streit, M. & Mussler, W., The Economic Constitution of the European Community. From ‘Rome’ to ‘Maastricht', 1 European Law Journal, 5 (1995) and previously M. Streit, Soziale Marktwirtschaft im europäischen Integrationsprozeß: Befund und Perspektiven, in 50 Jahre Soziale Marktwirtschaft, 177 (B. Cassel ed., 1998).Google Scholar

35 As an indicator of a new confidence see B. Bercusson. S. Deakin, P. Kotsitinen, Y. Kravaritou, U. Mückenberger. A. Supiot & Veneziani, B., A Manifesto for Social Europe, 3 European Law Journal 189 (1997) claiming that the Charter of the Fundamental social Rights of Workers be combined with Maastricht Protocol on Social policy so as to “lay the legal foundations for a dynamic European social constitution.”Google Scholar

36 Available at http://europa.eu.int/council/off/conclu/mar2000/index.htm, last accessed 14 February 2009.Google Scholar

37 See G. de Burca & J. Scott eds), Law and New Governance in the EU and the US, (2006). Continental lawyers tend to be more sceptical. See the references in Christian Joerges, Integration Through De-Legalisation?, 33 European law Review 219, 311 notes 9 and 11 (2008); more recently see Ch. Möllers, Die Governance-Konstellation: Transnationale Beobachtung durch öffentliches Recht, in Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt, PVS-Sonderheft, 238, 254 (G.F. Schuppert & M.Zürn eds., 2008).Google Scholar

38 See Article 3 (3), DCT. Art 3.3 LT: 3. Draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe submitted to the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki, 20 June 2003 European Convention. Luxembourg: OOPEC, 2003. Also published in the Official Journal, C169, 18 July 2003 online (105 pages) at http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/archive/2003/c_16920030718en.html, last accessed 14 February 2009.Google Scholar

39 On the following see further, Ph. Manow, Modell Deutschland as an interdenominational compromise, Working Paper 003/2001, Minda De Gunzburg Centre for European Studies.; A. Ebner, The intellectual foundations of the social market economy. Theory, policy, and impolications for European Integration, 33 Journal of Economic Studies 206 (2006); Christian Joerges & F. Rödl, The ‘Social Market Economy’ as Europe's Social Model?, in A European Social Citizenship? Preconditions for Future Policies in Historical Light, 125 (L. Magnusson & B. Stråth eds., 2005).Google Scholar

40 See his article, The principles of the social market economy, 3 The German Economic Review 89 (1998); Soziale Marktwirtschaft, in Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, 390–392 (Gustav Fischer, J.C.B. Mohr, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht eds., 1956) and the analysis of A. Ebner, The intellectual foundations of the social market economy. Theory, policy, and implications for European integration, 33 Journal of Economic Studies 206 (2006).Google Scholar

41 Its inclusion among the objectives of the Union is all the more remarkable, however, in the light of a seminal judgment of the German Constitutional Court of 1954 (BVerfGE 4, 7 ff.) which held that the constitution leaves the decision on the order of the economy to (the) Parliament. That holding was in line with opinion prevailing among the great majority of German Constitutional lawyers who all insisted upon the primacy of the legislature elected in accordance with majoritarian democratic values, even in instances where its policies have appeared opportunistic and unprincipled. Germany's post-war constitutionalism was in that respect closer to Hermann Heller's than to the visions of Ordo-liberalism.Google Scholar

42 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Welchen Weg geht Europa? 23 (1979).Google Scholar

43 For a thorough review of the state of the debate see further, Orlandini, G., Right to Strike, Transnational Collective Action and European Law: Time to Move On?, Jean-Monnet Working paper 08/072007. On the recent jurisprudence of the ECJ see Section IV below.Google Scholar

44 See, e.g., E.-W. Böckenförde, Die sozialen Grundrechte im Verfassungsgefüge, in Staat, Verfassung, Demokratie. Studien zur Verfassungstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht, 146 (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp ed., 1991).Google Scholar

45 Habermas, , supra note 10, 77.Google Scholar

46 Böckenförde, supra note 44, 152.Google Scholar

47 See, especially, Article I-14 (4) DCT; the assignment of a competence ‘to promote and co-ordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States’ has been repealed. Article I-11 (3) as amended on 22 June 2004.Google Scholar

48 Joerges, Christian, Integration through de-legislation?, E.L.Rev. 291, 310 (2008), available at: http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-newgov-N-07-03.pdf, last accessed 14 February 2009Google Scholar

49 Case C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation, Finnish Seamen's Union v. Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Eesti, judgment of 11 December 2007; Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, avd. 1, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet, judgment of 18 December 2007; Case C-346/06, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dirk Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen, judgment of 3 April 2008; Case C-319/06, Commission v. Luxembourg, judgment of 19 June 2008. Die vier Urteile und DeJoe/Roedl und Trubek?Google Scholar

50 Habermas, Jürgen, Staatsbürgerschaft und nationale Identität (1991).Google Scholar

51 Habermas, Jürgen, Faktizität und Geltung (1992).Google Scholar

52 Habermas, Jürgen, Betroffensein und Teilnahme, Faktizität und Geltung, 503 (1992), at 646 – the allusion to Luhmann is more visible).Google Scholar

53 Id., 503.Google Scholar

54 Habermas, Jürgen, Europskepsis, Markteuropa oder Europa der (Welt-)Bürger, in Zeit der Übergänge, 85 (2001).Google Scholar

55 On the following see Joerges, Christian & Rödl, F., Zum Funktionswandel des Kollisionsrechts II. Die kollisionsrechtliche Form einer legitimen Verfassung der post-nationalen Konstellation, in Soziologische Jurisprudenz, (A. Fischer-Lescano et al., eds., 2009) (forthcoming) with many references to the gradual development of the approach.Google Scholar

56 Joerges, Christian & Neyer, J., From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative Political Processes (note 34).Google Scholar

57 See, supra, Section B.II (1).Google Scholar

58 Id., 293.Google Scholar

59 Joerges, Christian “Deliberative Political Processes” Revisited: What Have we Learnt About the Legitimacy of Supranational Decision-Making, 44 Journal of Common Market Studies 779, 790 (2006).Google Scholar

63 Michelman, F.I., Brennan and Democracy 34 (1999).Google Scholar

64 Wiethölter, Rudolf, Just-ifications of a Law of Society, in Paradoxes and Inconsistencies in the Law, 65 (O. Perez & G. Teubner eds., 2005), available at: www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/ifawz1/teubner/RW.html, last accessed 14 February 2009Google Scholar

65 These conflicts arise out of the allocation of powers needed for problem-solving and therefore objectively connected to different levels of government. It follows from the principle of limited individual empowerment that the primacy rule can find no application here.Google Scholar

66 This is readily compatible with the existence of European secondary law and does not in any way in principle call its legitimacy into question. There are important problem areas in which “second order” law of conflict is insufficient and the “federation” has to develop supranational substantive law. This question cannot be dealt with systematically here.Google Scholar

67 See Luhmann, N., The Differentiation of Society 229 (1982).Google Scholar

68 F.A. von Hayek, Wettbewerb als Entdeckungsverfahren, in idem, Freiburger Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze, 249 (1969).Google Scholar

69 Joerges, Christian, Verbraucherschutz als Rechtsproblem 111–115(1981), Quality Regulation in Consumer Goods Markets: Theoretical Concepts and Practical Examples, in Contract and Organization, 142 (T.C. Daintith and G. Teubner eds., 1986).Google Scholar

70 Falke, J., Komitologie – Entwicklung, Rechtsgrundlagen und erste empirische Annäherung, in Das Ausschubwesen der Europäischen Union. Praxis der Risikoregulierung im Binnenmarkt und ihre rechtliche Verfassung, 43 (Christian Joerges & J. Falke eds., 2000).Google Scholar

71 See, supra, note 34.Google Scholar

72 See for the design of the project Joerges, Christian, Die Beurteilung der Sicherheit technischer Konsumgüter und der Gesundheitsrisiken von Lebensmitteln in der Praxis des europäischen Ausschußwesens ('Komitologie'), ZERP-Diskussions papier 1/95 and for first findings, Christian Joerges & J. Falke (note 70).Google Scholar

73 Council Resolution 2006/512/EC 17 July.2006, O.J. L 200/2006, 11; consolidated version in O.J. C 255/2006, 4.Google Scholar

74 Article 5a (“Regulatory Committee Procedure with Scrutiny”).Google Scholar

75 On its history and reconstruction see Schepel, H., The Constitution of Private Governance. Product Standards in the Regulation of Integrating Markets 37 (2005).Google Scholar

76 Id., 223.Google Scholar

77 Schanze, E., International Standards – Functions and Links to Law in International Standards and the Law, 90 (P Nobel ed., 2005).Google Scholar

78 Schepel, , supra note 75, 85, 335.Google Scholar

79 J.P. McCormick and Jürgen Habermas, Supranational Democracy and the European Constitution, European Constitutional Law Review 415 (2006).Google Scholar

80 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Globalisation and the conversion of democracy to polycentric networks: Can democracy survive the end of the nation state?, supra, note 2, text following note 29 (footnotes omitted); for one of his much stronger rejections of the of deliberative democracy theory see, e.g., ‘Deliberative Demokratie’ und ‘Dritter Weg’ – eine neue Sackgasse? Transformation des ‘alten’ Sozialstaats in den aktivierende’ Staat?, 41 Der Staat 3 (2002).Google Scholar

81 Joerges, , supra, note 69, references.Google Scholar

82 Introduction, Section 4 (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar

83 Id., Section 3 (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar

84 Buxbaum, Richard M., Is Network a legal concept?, 149 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 698 (1994).Google Scholar

85 Id., Section 4.Google Scholar

86 E.g. Judt, T., Postwar. A History of Europe since 1945, 360 (2005).Google Scholar

87 Offe, C., The European model of ‘social’ capitalism. Can it survive European integration?, 11 Journal of Political Philosophy 437 (2003).Google Scholar

88 Scharpf, , supra, note 22.Google Scholar

89 Esping-Andersen, Gosta, The Three Worlds of welfare Capitalism(1990); Obinger, H. & St. Leibfried, Beipässe für ein ‘soziales Europa': Lehren aus der Geschichte des westlichen Föderalismus, 44 Der Staat 505 (2005).Google Scholar

90 Section II.Google Scholar

91 See, supra, note 49.Google Scholar

92 See for a critical voice Joerges, Christian & Rödl, F., On the ‘Social Deficit’ of the European Integration Project and its Perpetuation through the ECJ-Judgments in Viking and Laval, RECON WP 2008/6, available at http://www.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_0806.pdf, last accessed 14 February 2009.Google Scholar

93 A corollary of supremacy is the pre-emption doctrine: The “direct effect” of Community law leading to its supremacy vis-à-vis national legal systems, must also mean that Community law has the effect of pre-empting Member States from taking legislative action: if and when a policy-area has become occupied by the Community, then Member States loose the right to act unilaterally. The delicacy of that claim is obvious – and the court has handled this doctrine with wise restraint. See Andreas Furrer, Die Sperrwirkung des sekundären Gemeinschaftsrechts auf die nationalen Rechtsordnungen (1994).Google Scholar

94 See, supra, note 49.Google Scholar

95 Lyon-Caen, Antoine, Droit communautaire du marché v.s. Europe sociale, Contribution to the Symposium on “The Impact of the Case Law of the ECJ upon the Labour Law of the Member States”, organised by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Berlin 26 June 2008 (on file with author).Google Scholar

96 See more systematically, Joerges, Christian, Rethinking European Law's Supremacy: A Plea for a Supranational Conflict of Laws, in Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union, 311 (B. Kohler Koch & B. Rittberger eds., 2007).Google Scholar

97 The Court did of course underline that the “right to take collective action, including the right to strike … forms an integral part of the general principles of Community” (Viking, para. 44). However, this right was then eroded by the request that its exercise must comply with Community law. The delicacy of this request stems from the qualitative difference between economic and labour law – and from the fact that the Community has no competence to regulate national industrial relations.Google Scholar

98 See, supra, note 49.Google Scholar

99 Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. OJ 1996, L18/1.Google Scholar

100 See Eichhorst, W., European social Policy between National and Supranational Regulation: Posted Workers in the Framework of Liberalized Services Provision, MPIfG Discussion Paper 98/6.Google Scholar

101 For a more systematic reconstruction of the directive in a conflict of law perspective, see F. Rödl, Weltbürgerliches Kollisionsrecht, PhD Thesis EUI Florence 2008, Part 2, B II.2.Google Scholar

102 Id., para. 99, see also para. 70.Google Scholar

103 Bercusson, Brian, The Trade Union Movement and the European Union: Judgment Day, 13 European Law Journal 279 (2007).Google Scholar

104 Ladeur, , supra, note 3, 161.Google Scholar

105 Heller, Hermann I., Autoritärer Liberalismus, 44 Die Neue Rundschau 289 (1933).Google Scholar

106 See, supra, note 1.Google Scholar

107 Heller, , supra, note 105.Google Scholar

108 “Unity in diversity” (unitas in pluralitate), was the motto of the Union according to Article IV-1 of the Draft Constitutional Treaty. Google Scholar

109 At the end of Section III.Google Scholar