Suchergebnisse

What are the different market philosophies or models that shape the European Union's internal market? This work proposes three models: an international model, a federal model and a national model; and argues that the structure of the EU internal market has moved from an international to federal model

AbstractClassic constitutional thought considered the power to conclude international treaties to fall within the executive's exclusive domain. But this nineteenth‐century logic hardly convinces in the twenty‐first century. For the function of international treaties has dramatically shifted from the military to the regulatory domain; and in the wake of this 'new internationalism', the traditional divide between 'internal' and 'external' affairs has increasingly disappeared. Has this enlarged scope of the treaty power also triggered a transformation of its nature; and in particular: has the rise of 'legislative' international treaties been compensated by a greater role accorded to parliaments? This article explores this question comparatively by looking at the constitutional law of the United States and the European Union. Within the United States, international treaties were traditionally concluded under a procedure that excluded the House of Representatives; yet with the rise of the Congressional‐Executive‐Agreement in the twentieth century, this democratic deficit has been partially remedied. We find a similar evolution within the context of the European Union, where an increasing 'parliamentarisation' of the treaty power has taken place. Yet a democratic deficit here nevertheless also continues to exist.

Cet article fait l'hypothèse que la théorie sui generis de l'UE est une théorie « négative » et « antihistorique ». De telles limites explicatives reposent premièrement sur une tautologie conceptuelle de base (Hay, 1966, 37) : l'UE est… . ce qu'elle est ; et elle n'est pas… . ce qu'elle n'est pas ! Deuxièmement, la théorie sui generis ne considère l'UE qu'en termes négatifs – l'UE ne serait donc ni une organisation internationale ni un État fédéral – pérennisant ainsi les fondements conceptuels de la tradition westphalienne. Quel autre type d'approche permettrait de penser de façon plus pertinente l'UE ? Cette contribution cherchera alors à expliquer dans quelle mesure le cadre fédéraliste constitue une grille de lecture pertinente afin d'interroger la nature de l'UE.

How should political power be divided within and among national peoples? Is the nineteenth-century theory of the sovereign and unitary State still fit for purpose in the twenty-first century? If not, can federalism provide a viable alternative model? This collection looks at federalism from the perspective of constitutional law. Taking the United Kingdom as a case study, Part One tracks the historical evolution of the 'Union' and explores the various expressions of federalism that emerged between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Part Two then assesses the experience of sovereignty-sharing with other nations in the context of international cooperation. Drawing on the expertise of the foremost commentators in their field, The United Kingdom and the Federal Idea provides a timely and reflective evaluation of how constitutional authority is being re-ordered within and beyond the United Kingdom.--