当前位置: X-MOL 学术Int. J. Const. Law › 论文详情
Revolutions, real contradictions, and the method of resolving them: The relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the German Federal Constitutional Court
International Journal of Constitutional Law ( IF 1.51 ) Pub Date : 2021-05-12 , DOI: 10.1093/icon/moab016
Ulrich Haltern

The German Federal Constitutional Court’s (FCC) PSPP ruling has met with criticism of unprecedented fierceness: its doctrine, its politics, and its authors have been attacked and ridiculed. While I agree that the ruling has its weaknesses, I also believe that many reactions to it, including the commentary by Basedow et al., are flawed. They frame the PSPP ruling as an abrupt break in time―a revolutionary narrative of old and new, with the decision splitting history into before and after. This frame alters the meaning of what happened. It throws the FCC alone into the spotlight, keeps other actors and narratives connected with them in the shadow, places a huge burden of legitimacy on the FCC, and makes the ruling appear not merely as bad law, but as a political action in the guise of law. I argue that none of this does justice to the ruling or to the politics behind it. This begs the deeper question of why the ruling has elicited such Mosaic wrath. My answer is that courts read “their” political communities rather than merely legal texts―they link law to imaginations of self-government and popular sovereignty. In this social practice, the FCC operates at the thicker end of constitutionalism, with a surplus of authority, legitimacy, and, ultimately, political identity, as compared to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which labors at the thinner end of constitutionalism and must view the FCC, like many commentators do, as an idolater. This, rather than doctrine or politics, is where the “real contradiction” lies. There is no resolving this contradiction through law or institution-building. But the preliminary ruling procedure under Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does provide a form for it to move around and resolve itself.

中文翻译:

革命、现实矛盾及其解决方法:欧盟法院与德国联邦宪法法院的关系

德国联邦宪法法院 (FCC) 的PSPP裁决遭到了前所未有的激烈批评:其学说、政治和作者都受到了攻击和嘲笑。虽然我同意该裁决有其弱点,但我也相信对它的许多反应,包括 Bassow 等人的评论,都是有缺陷的。他们框定了PSPP统治作为时间的突然中断——一种新旧的革命性叙事,决定将历史分为前后。这个框架改变了所发生事情的意义。它将 FCC 单独置于聚光灯下,将其他参与者和与之相关的叙述置于阴影之下,给 FCC 带来了巨大的合法性负担,并使裁决不仅表现为糟糕的法律,而且表现为伪装的政治行动法律的。我认为,这一切都不能公正地对待裁决或其背后的政治。这就引出了一个更深层次的问题,即为什么裁决会引起如此马赛克的愤怒。我的回答是法院阅读“他们的”政治共同体而不仅仅是法律文本——他们将法律与自治和人民主权的想象联系起来。在这种社会实践中,FCC 在宪政的较厚端运作,与欧盟法院相比,欧盟法院拥有过多的权威、合法性以及最终的政治认同,后者在宪政的较弱端工作,并且必须像许多评论员一样将 FCC 视为偶像崇拜者。这不是教义或政治,而是“真正的矛盾”所在。没有办法通过法律或制度建设来解决这个矛盾。但根据艺术初裁程序。《欧盟运作条约》第 267 条确实提供了一种形式,让其四处走动并自行解决。而不是教义或政治,才是“真正的矛盾”所在。没有办法通过法律或制度建设来解决这个矛盾。但根据艺术初裁程序。《欧盟运作条约》第 267 条确实提供了一种形式,让其四处走动并自行解决。而不是教义或政治,才是“真正的矛盾”所在。没有办法通过法律或制度建设来解决这个矛盾。但根据艺术初裁程序。《欧盟运作条约》第 267 条确实提供了一种形式,让其四处走动并自行解决。
更新日期:2021-06-08
全部期刊列表>>
virulence
欢迎新作者ACS
中国作者高影响力研究精选
虚拟特刊
屿渡论文,编辑服务
浙大
上海中医药大学
深圳大学
上海交通大学
南方科技大学
浙江大学
清华大学
徐晶
张大卫
彭孝军
北京大学
隐藏1h前已浏览文章
课题组网站
新版X-MOL期刊搜索和高级搜索功能介绍
ACS材料视界
华辉
天合科研
x-mol收录
试剂库存
down
wechat
bug