This article offers an analysis of how theories on constitutional revision can help understand crises that threaten legal unity. The Catalonian crisis represents the case study, and is discussed from the perspective of constitutional theory. The article starts out from a conceptualisation of ‘legal unity’ as the organisational as well as political claim of constitutions to provide unity within a certain legal order, which in the end comes close to the idea of a unified national state. The article refers to the constitutional theories of Carl Schmitt and, the lesser-known Hugo Krabbe, to help increase the understanding of constitutional change and, to connect these insights to the Catalonian case. Schmitt’s claim is that constitutional law is indeterminate and thus in need of the sovereign’s decision. In this analysis, it is made clear that Schmitt’s argumentative scheme in which a distinction is made between friends and enemies in political conflict is unhelpful in addressing the Spanish crisis. Indeed, Schmitt moves beyond descriptive and explanatory goals to defend a normative rejection of liberal political decision-making. By contrast, Krabbe argues for the determinacy of constitutional law. According to Krabbe, constitutional law is finally embedded in ‘legal consciousness’, inherent to all human beings, and which can be determined by majority rule. Even if this answer may not be entirely convincing, it is maintained that this theoretical perspective could nevertheless benefit cases such as the Catalonian constitutional crisis, if as a consequence claims of both the Catalan as well as the Spanish sides based on the idea of ultimate sovereignty over a demarcated territory were dropped.

中文翻译：

---

法律统一是政治统一吗？

本文对宪法修订理论如何帮助理解威胁到法律统一的危机进行了分析。加泰罗尼亚危机代表了案例研究，并从宪政理论的角度进行了讨论。本文从对“法律统一”的概念化开始，即宪法的组织和政治主张以在一定的法律秩序内提供统一，这最终与统一的民族国家的概念接近。本文引用了卡尔·史密特（Carl Schmitt）和鲜为人知的雨果·克拉布（Hugo Krabbe）的宪政理论，以帮助增进对宪政变革的理解，并将这些见解与加泰罗尼亚案联系起来。施密特宣称宪法是不确定的，因此需要主权者的决定。在此分析中，很明显，施密特的论证方案在政治冲突中区分朋友和敌人，无助于解决西班牙危机。实际上，施密特超越了描述性和解释性目标，捍卫了对自由主义政治决策的规范性拒绝。相比之下，克拉布（Krabbe）主张宪法的确定性。根据克拉伯的说法，宪法最终被嵌入了全人类固有的“法律意识”中，并且可以由多数统治来决定。即使这个答案可能并不完全令人信服，但仍坚持认为，这种理论观点仍可以使加泰罗尼亚宪法危机，