Abstract
In the introductory chapter, it has been set out that this collective writing constitutes “work in progress”. As such, it might be awkward to come, at this stage, to “conclusions”, at least if this term is intended in a traditional sense, i.e. that such conclusions should give definite, comprehensive answers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Anthea Roberts et al. (eds.), Comparative International Law, OUP: New York 2018, 14.
- 2.
The “sui generis” nature of the EU as a third category between a state and a confederation (famously called “Staatenverbund” by the German Constitutional Court in Case 89 BVerfGE 155 [12/10/1993], Bundesverfassungsgericht) is now widely uncontested. In the “Kadi” case the ECJ gave further strength to this emancipation process. See, for example, Peter Hilpold, ‘EU Law and UN Law in Conflict: The Kadi Case’ (2009), 13 Max Planck UNYB 141-182 and Gráinne de Búrca, ‘The EU, the European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ (2010), 51 Harv.Int.L.J. 1-49.
- 3.
See Arnulf Becker-Lorca, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History (1842-1933), CUP: Cambridge 2014, cited in the Introduction.
- 4.
In the past, criticism was voiced that the claim of universality for basic human rights which had a visible European pedigree would hide “European” or “Western” International Law imperialism. This criticism is clearly wrong as these human rights principles are not European but universal because they correspond to the universal human nature. There are many studies arguing in this sense but the preferred one by this author is the one by Rein Müllerson, ‘From E Unum Pluribus to E Pluribus Unum in the journey from an African village to a global village?’, in Sienho Yee and Jacques-Yvan Morin (eds.), Multiculturalism and international law (Leiden/Boston: Brill 2009) 33-58.
- 5.
And similar considerations could be made, by the way, as to the sovereigntist tendencies strictly concerning the European Union. All too often, the nationalists reclaiming sovereign competencies from the EU ignore the far-reaching contributions their own nation has given to the European integration process thereby not only endangering the future of their own nation but betraying its historic and cultural inheritance.
References
Anthea, Roberts et al. (eds.), Comparative International Law, OUP: New York 2018
Becker-Lorca, Arnulf, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History (1842-1933), CUP: Cambridge 2014
de Búrca, Gráinne, ‘The EU, the European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ (2010), 51 Harv.Int.L.J. 1-49
Hilpold, Peter, ‘EU Law and UN Law in Conflict: The Kadi Case (2009), 13 Max Planck UNYB 141-182
Müllerson, Rein, ‘From E Unum Pluribus to E Pluribus Unum in the journey from an African village to a global village?’, in Sienho Yee and Jacques-Yvan Morin (eds.), Multiculturalism and international law (Leiden/Boston: Brill 2009) 33-5
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
For these “conclusions”, the editor is very much indebted to the individual authors who engaged in a lively debate throughout the whole development of this project and who provided essential input for these final remarks. Many thanks to them.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hilpold, P. (2021). Conclusions. In: Hilpold, P. (eds) European International Law Traditions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52027-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52028-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)