‘The Law of Laws’ – Overcoming Pluralism

Editorials in this journal are meant not to comment on acts or events, even if these take the form of judicial rulings or legislative acts. They are meant to point at the events' potential for constitutional scholarship; to indicate and propose new lines of research. The Kadi judgments of the Court of Justice's two instances, discussed in this issue by Stefan Griller, offer such an occasion. They point at the problem of relationships between legal orders. Can these best be understood under the now familiar palliative terms of ‘dialogue’ and ‘accommodation’? There is both reason and reward in looking for a keener articulation of the relationships. That is the contention of this editorial.

Second pillar v. first pillar – From Union to Community powers and vice versa – Court's jurisdiction under different headings – Jurisdiction after Lisbon – Choice of legal bases in cross-pillar situations – Dual competence? – Different combinations

The Editorial Board has discussed whether it is appropriate to give attention to the Treaty of Lisbon, in view of the uncertainty of its entry into force. We understand that some legal journals are refraining from discussing it until it has become law or at least until the Irish have cleared the way. (…) we hereby present three contributions about that issue:

– Europe's New Realism: The Treaty of Lisbon

Hans-Jürgen Papier

– National Parliaments and the Principle of Subsidiarity – Legal Options and Practical Limits

Jean-Victor Louis

– National parliaments and subidiarity: An outsider's view

George A. Bermann

Institutional reforms – The principle of democracy: the European Parliament and the national parliaments – Bypassing unpleasant national debates by taking the European route – Reinforcement of protection of the subsidiarity principle: most valuable reform – Doubts on the effectiveness – Crucial weakness: creeping transfers of competences still possible

Winner: national parliaments or European Parliament? – Differences between Lisbon Treaty and Constitutional Treaty – Latent rivalry – Lisbon innovation – National parliaments now actors in the Union? – Early warning mechanism as solution of compromise – Dual system of the two protocols: yellow and orange cards – Review – Compliance – Interparliamentary co-operation – Complexity of COSAC's involvement – Link between proportionality and subsidiarity – Conception of representative democracy – Position of the Court of Justice

Comparative perspective – Guardians of subsidiarity in United States? Not senators, not state legislators – Contrast with EU – EU parliaments do double duty – COSAC – Re-entry of federal courts on the scene – In EU: possible lessening of pressure on European Court – Insufficient time

Czech Lustration Acts: basic features – Among the most far-reaching in the postcommunist countries in Europe – Challenges for the rule of law – 2001: Czech Constitutional Court upholds their validity – Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – ‘Transition-to-democracy’ circumstances that justified their adoption have ceased to exist

History of the Turkish Presidency – Powers and status of presidents under the Constitutions of 1961 and 1982 – Parlementarisme attenué – A veto players system – Performance of individual presidents: guardian and partisan presidencies – Introduction of the principle of direct election of the president in 2007: not part of a well-thought out constitutional engineering scheme – Seeds of instability

What is constitutional pluralism? What does it stand for? What does it expect to achieve, or change in European integration, or otherwise contribute to it? Is it a viable, desirable or perhaps even an indispensable theoretical take on European integration? These were the leading questions discussed in the Symposium ‘Four Visions of Constitutional Pluralism’ at the European University Institute in January of this year. Within the framework of the Legal Theory working group and under the auspices of the Academy of European Law the organisers, Matej Avbelj and Jan Komarek, hosted four key scholars from the field of EU legal and constitutional theory. Julio Baquero Cruz, Mattias Kumm, Miguel Poiares Maduro, and Neil Walker engaged in a groundbreaking three-hour discussion of their respective theoretical visions of European integration. This short note can provide just a taste of an extremely rich debate; however, its full transcript should soon be published by the EUI Department of Law as its working paper.

UN human rights binding on states; binding on UN organs? – Sanctions mechanism as implemented in EU – Kadi and others – Ruling Court of First Instance – Relation between UN law and EC law – Human rights obligations – Exception, political question, etc. – Solange – Monism and dualism – Questions remain