It is often assumed that Court of Justice interpretations of EU law are definitive and binding. However, this conflicts with conventional ideas about the trias politica, as well as with the principle of conferral, and rests on no more than the Court's own assertion. It also has harmful policy consequences, forcing national courts into constitutional resistance and, in claiming to fix the meaning of the Treaties, smothering Union politics. Interpretative pluralism, by contrast, insists on the possibility of diverging interpretations. That allows for wider participation in the construction of EU law, while retaining the integrity of Union law through commitment to shared texts and a balance of power between institutions. Institutional disagreements are reframed, not as conflicts between legal orders, but as conflicts about the meaning of a shared one. This approach is more profoundly integrative than the Court's top‐down approach, and also allows for greater diversity and experiment.

中文翻译：

---

法院是否拥有这些条约？解释多元主义作为解决过度宪法化的方法

人们通常认为法院对欧盟法律的解释是确定的和具有约束力的。然而，这与关于政治三权的传统观念相冲突，也与授予原则相冲突，仅以法院自己的主张为依据。它还具有有害的政策后果，迫使国家法院进行宪法抵抗，并声称确定条约的含义，扼杀了联盟政治。相比之下，解释多元主义坚持不同解释的可能性。这允许更广泛地参与欧盟法律的构建，同时通过致力于共享文本和机构之间的权力平衡来保持联盟法律的完整性。制度分歧被重新定义，而不是法律秩序之间的冲突，但作为关于共享意义的冲突。这种方法比法院的自上而下的方法更具综合性，也允许更大的多样性和实验。