Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Federative Law: A Fettered Revolution?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Five Legal Revolutions Since the 17th Century

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 1))

Abstract

In order to determine if there has been a legal revolution in the European Union, this chapter proposes a comparison with two other “federative” processes, the ones of Switzerland and of the United States. Despite many differences between the three situations, the common aim for the development of these legal structures is the primacy of a supra-statal law associated with the action of a common jurisdiction. This kind of legal revolution has been fettered in the past as well in the United States (from the eighteenth century to the Civil War) as in Switzerland (during the nineteenth century). The obstacles are even more important for the European Union at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the European organs having to take account of the traditional force of old States. The situation of European lawyers (some of them being more and more specialized in European law and independent from States) and of the network constituted by European courts makes this revolution difficult to be overruled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, in France, Beaud, Olivier. 1991. L’Europe entre droit commun et droit communautaire. Droits 14: 4–17.

  2. 2.

    Beaud, Olivier. 2007. Théorie de la Fédération. Paris: PUF, 91–95.

  3. 3.

    Martin, William. 1943. Histoire de la Suisse: essai sur la formation d’une confédération d’États Lausanne : Payot, 33.

  4. 4.

    Nouvelle Histoire de la Suisse et des Suisses. 1982. Lausanne: Payot, vol. I, 157–161

  5. 5.

    Kölz, Alfred. 2006. Histoire constitutionnelle de la Suisse moderne. Berne-Bruxelles : Stämpli and Bruylant, 10.

  6. 6.

    Kölz, as n. 5, 108.

  7. 7.

    Halpérin, Jean-Louis. 2003. L’exportation en Suisse des institutions politiques et juridiques françaises. In Bonaparte, La Suisse et l’Europe, eds. Alfred Dufour, Till Hanisch, Victor Monnier. Genève-Zurich-Bâle: Schulthess, 44.

  8. 8.

    Bluntschli, Johann Kaspar. 1875. Geschichte des schweizerischen Bundesrechtes Stuttgart: Meyer and Zeller, I, 485.

  9. 9.

    Kölz, as n. 5, 339.

  10. 10.

    Nouvelle Histoire de la Suisse et des Suisses, as n. 4, 264.

  11. 11.

    Forsith, Murray. 1981. Unions of States. The Theory and Practice of Confederation. New York: Leicester University Press, 29.

  12. 12.

    Kölz, as n. 5, 634.

  13. 13.

    Schönberger, Christoph. 2005. Unionsbürger. Europas föderales Bürgerrecht in vergleichender Sicht. Tübingen: Mohr-Soebeck, 84–93.

  14. 14.

    The definitive giving up of the rule of unanimity (already removed in 1848) for a majority rule meant clearly that the Constituent power belonged to the Swiss People, as an “organ” of the Federation.

  15. 15.

    Bluntschli, as n. 8, 522.

  16. 16.

    Fritzsche, Hans. 1961. Der Schweizerische Juristenverein 1861–1960: sein Beitrag zur Kenntnis, zur Vereinheitlichung und zur Fortbildung des Schweizerischen Rechts. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhan.

  17. 17.

    Dunand, Jean-Philippe. 2008. Origines et rayonnement du Code civil suisse. In Le centenaire du Code civil Suisse. Paris : Société de Législation comparée, 11–13.

  18. 18.

    Schönberger, as n. 13, 63.

  19. 19.

    Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the People 2. Transformations. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 31–58.

  20. 20.

    Forsyth, as n. 11, 60–71.

  21. 21.

    Feldman, Jean-Philippe. 2004. La bataille américaine du fédéralisme. John C. Calhoun et l’annulation. Paris: PUF, 175 and 200.

  22. 22.

    It can be argued that the supremacy of the Federal Constitution on State Laws does not mean that the Supremacy clause (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) would favour an extensive congressional legislation that diminishes the competences of the States. Furthermore, it is well known that the Supreme Court refused in 1833 ( Barron v. Baltimore) to limit the statutory laws of the States through the Bill of Rights.

  23. 23.

    Currie, David P. 1997. The Constitution in Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, vol. II, 304.

  24. 24.

    If the constitutions of the American States and of the Swiss cantons were all “republican” ones (with the exception of Neuchâtel until the proclamation of the Republic in 1848 and the renunciation of the Prussian king to his rights in 1857), contrary to the situation in the European Union, they were very differentiated (perhaps more in the nineteenth century than the constitutions of European countries today) and have, until today, their own history.

  25. 25.

    Such a situation did not prevent the development, since the nineteenth century, of a “national” science of public (and also private) law in Switzerland: Kley, Andreas. 2011. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts der Schweiz. Zürich, St Gallen: Dike.

  26. 26.

    Derrida, Jacques. 1986. Declarations of Independence. New Political Science 15: 10.

  27. 27.

    Weiler, J. H. H. 1999. The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–16 about these methodological constraints concerning the study of law in its context and about the contrast (in the same period) between the “political” stagnation and the “legal” progress of Europe. Búrca, Gráinne de. 1999. The Institutional Development of the EU: A Constitutional Analysis” (In The Evolution of EU Law, eds. Paul Craig, Gráinne de Búrca. Oxford: Oxford University Press), 61 insists on the limits of “formal-legal constitutionalism” for understanding the true transformations of European Law. Even in a legal perspective, these limits can be nuanced with an analysis that takes account of the production and of the impact of norms (and not only of the Treaties’ constitutional frame).

  28. 28.

    MacCormick, Neil and Weinberger, Ota. 1986. An Institutional Theory of Law. New Approaches to Legal Positivism. Dordrecht: Reidel); Curtin, Deirdre M. and Dekker, Ige F. The EU as a ‘Layered’ International Organization: Institutional Unity in Disguise. In The Evolution of EU Law (as n. 27), 86–87.

  29. 29.

    Furthermore, there were two Rome Treaties with the foundation of the European Atomic Energy Community.

  30. 30.

    Weiler, as n. 27, 16 and 30.

  31. 31.

    Bergé, Jean-Sylvestre and Robin-Olivier, Sophie. 2011. Droit européen. Union européenne, Conseil de l’Europe. Paris: PUF, 272.

  32. 32.

    Weiler, as n. 27, 14.

  33. 33.

    Curtin and Dekker, as n. 28, 101.

  34. 34.

    Piris, Jean-Claude. 2010. The Lisbon Treaty. A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87.

  35. 35.

    Weiler, as note 27, 13.

  36. 36.

    Conseil d’État. 2000. La norme internationale et le droit français. Paris : La Documentation française, 31.

  37. 37.

    Coulisses de Bruxelles, 10th of May 2009.

  38. 38.

    Bertocini, Yves. 2009. Les interventions de l’Union Européenne au niveau national. Notre Europe Études 73: 10.

  39. 39.

    Bergé and Robin-Olivier, as n. 31, 355–356.

  40. 40.

    Bellier, Irène. 2009. Unie dans la diversité: la culture administrative de l’Union européenne à la croisée des chemins. In Le phénomène bureaucratique européen. Intégration européenne et “technophobie”, eds. Pascal Mbongo. Brussels: Bruylant, 75.

  41. 41.

    Bertocini, as n. 38, 8.

  42. 42.

    Conseil d’État, as n. 36, 31. Bertocini, as n. 38, 11 gives very different figures with 2,362 statutory laws and 26,777 decrees, a difference that is quite surprising and makes the demonstration very relative!

  43. 43.

    Bertocini,. as n. 38, 13.

  44. 44.

    König, Thomas and Mäder, Lards. 2008. Das Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates und der Mythos einer 80 %-Prozent-Europäisierung in Deutschland. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49: 438–463.

  45. 45.

    Bergé and Robin-Olivier, as n. 31, 298 and 316.

  46. 46.

    Bergoënd, François. 1904. Étude sur les recours de droit public au Tribunal fédéral Suisse. Paris: Rousseau, 125.

  47. 47.

    Giacometti, Zaccaria. 1933. Die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit des Schweizerischen Bundegerichtes. Zürich: Polygraphischer Verlag, 270–271.

  48. 48.

    Mangenot, Michel. 2004. Le Conseil d’État et l’institutionnalisation du système communautaire. In Les juristes et la construction d’un ordre juridique européen (symposium in Amiens, on http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/28/86/26 p. 3) about the role of Maurice Lagrange, member of the French Council of the State, in the writing of the Paris Treaty clause concerning the Court.

  49. 49.

    Witte, Bruno de. 1999. Direct Effect, Supremacy, and the Nature of the Legal Order. In The Evolution of EU Law, as n. 27, 180–181.

  50. 50.

    This use of article 177 has been more frequent from Dutch, German, and Luxembourg judges than from French (then British) ones: La Mare, Thomas de. 1999. Article 177 in Social and Political Context. In The Evolution of EU Law, as n. 27, 234–235.

  51. 51.

    Bergé and Robin-Olivier, as n. 31, 431.

  52. 52.

    European Court of Justice, Annual Report, Statistics, 2008, 14.

  53. 53.

    La Mare, as n. 47, 324.

  54. 54.

    Weiler, as note 27, 197; Alter, Karen J. 2001. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 183.

  55. 55.

    Witte, as note 46, 198. In some countries, this reception of the primacy principle was the result of a constitutional amendment (Ireland, Greece) or happened without any apparent discussion (in Denmark).

  56. 56.

    Weiler, J. H. H. 2003. In defence of the status quo: Europe’s constitutional Sonderweg. In European Constitutionalism. Beyond the State, eds. J. H. H. Weiler, Marlene Wind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 18–19.

  57. 57.

    Komarek, Jan. 2012. Playing with Matches: the Czech Constitutional Court Declares a Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU ultra Vires; Judgment of 31 January, PL US 5/12, Slovak Pensions XVII. European Constitutional Law Review 8: 323–337.

  58. 58.

    Stone Sweet, Alec. 2004 The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23; Alpa, Guido. 2005. Tradition and Europeanization in Italian Law. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law; Snyder, Francis. 2000. Europeanisation and Globalization as Friends and Rivals: European Union in Global economy Networks. In The Europeanisation of Law, ed. Francis Snyder. Oxford: Hart, 293–300 about the complex links between Europeanisation and Globalization of law.

  59. 59.

    Among the judges, Massimo Pilotti (Italian judge from 1952–1958), Andreas Matthias Donner (Dutch judge from 1958–1979), Otto Riese (the German judge from 1952–1963), Robert Lecourt (1962–1979 after the French economist Jacques Rueff from 1952–1962) and Pierre Pescatore (judge from Luxembourg from 1967–1985); among the Advocates general, Maurice Lagrange (a French Councillor of State, who took an important role in the creation of the European Judiciary) and the German Karl Roemer (from 1953–1973) got, through long terms of office, a strong influence on the ECJ.

  60. 60.

    Vauchez, Antoine. 2009. Conclusion: Le magistère de la Cour. Une sociologie politique. In Dans la fabrique du droit européen, eds. Pascal Mbongo and Antoine Vauchez. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 223.

  61. 61.

    French language is the working language of the ECJ and this title of “référendaires” is borrowed from the French Court of cassation.

  62. 62.

    Criekingen, Mathieu van, Drecroly, Jean-Michel, Lennert, Moritz, Cornut, Pierre and Vandermotten, Christian. 2005. Local Geographies of Local Players: International Law Firms in Brussels. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 13/2: 177.

  63. 63.

    The Lawyer. Bid for global domination. 2 July, 1995.

  64. 64.

    Georgakakis, Didier. 2009. De la technocratie à la bureaucratie? Sur quelques changemenrts récents de la fonction publique et de la communauté européennes. In Le phénomène bureaucratique européen. Intégration européenne et “technophobie”; ed. Pascal Mbongo. Bruxelles: Bruylant, p. 107.

  65. 65.

    Péraldi Leneuf, Fabienne. 2009. Le recours à l’externalité dans le système administratif communautaire: la délégation de la technicité. In Mbongo, as n. 64, 23.

  66. 66.

    Michel, Hélène. 2007. L’administration européenne face au lobbying: ‘ouverture’, ‘participation’ et ‘transparence’. In Mbongo, as n. 64, 41 estimates than about 10,000 persons are working in Brussels in these groups.

  67. 67.

    Bailleux, Julie. 2010. Comment l’Europe vint au droit. Revue française de science politique 60/2: 295–318.

  68. 68.

    The failure of the European Defence Community, after a vote of the French National Assembly in 1954, was also linked with the protestation of six law professors of the University of Paris against this supranational project.

  69. 69.

    In France, the first handbooks, the one of Roger Pinto ( Les organisations européennes, Paris, 1963) and the one of Paul Reuter ( Organisations européennes, Paris, 1965) were devoted in the same time to the Council of Europe, the OECD, NATO and the European Communities. The first courses in French universities about European Law (or Organizations) are beginning in 1962.

  70. 70.

    In France, for example, one of the first doctoral dissertations about the regulations of ECSC was written in 1962 by Robert Kovar who became professor at Nancy (1964), than at Strasbourg (1970) University and at the Bruges European College.

  71. 71.

    Joerges, Christian. 2003. Europa’s Großraum? Shifting legal Conceptualisations of the Integration Project. In Darker Legacies of Law in Europe: the Shadow of National Socialism and Fascism over Europe and its Legal Tradition, eds. Christian Joerges, Navray Singh Ghaleigh. Oxford: Hart, 183.

  72. 72.

    His son Vlad Constantinesco has made his legal studies in France (with one of the first doctoral dissertation about the European Community in 1970) and his academic career in Strasbourg.

  73. 73.

    Callies, Christian. 2007. Europarecht. In Rechtswissenschaft und Rechtsliteratur im 20. Jahrhundert: mit Beiträgen zur Entwicklung des Verlages C. H. Beck, ed. Dietmar Willoweit. München: Beck, 1061–1096.

  74. 74.

    The Common Market Law Review has begun as soon as 1963 and is published by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and by the Europa Instituut Leyde in Netherlands.

  75. 75.

    Snyder, Francis. 2009. Creusets de la communauté doctrinale de l’Union européenne. Regards sur les revues françaises de droit européen. In Doctrine et droit de l’Union européenne, ed. Fabrice Picod. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 43.

  76. 76.

    Schepel, Harm and Wesseling, Rein. 1997. The Legal Community: Judges, Lawyers, Official and Clerks in the Writing of Europe. European Law Journal 3/2: 165–188.

  77. 77.

    Snyder, as n. 75, 52–56: this study considers that the weight of academics has grown through time, whereas Harm Schepel and Rein Wesseling analyzed a diminution during the 1980s and an increase during the 1990s for the participation of scholars.

  78. 78.

    Vauchez, Antoine. 2008. Droit et Politique dans la construction européeene. In Science politique de l’Union européenne, eds. Céline Belot, Paul Magnette, Sabien Saurugger. Paris: Economica, p. 53–80; Robert, Cécile and Vauchez, Antoine. 2010. L’Académie Européeenne: savoirs, experts et savants dans le gouvernement de l’Europe. Politix 89/1: 9–34, notably about the Fédération internationale pour le droit européen, created in 1961 with the support of the Commission.

  79. 79.

    Here is a divergence with the analysis of MacCormick, Neil. 1999. Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and the Nation in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 94–95. The late professor MacCormick considered that the new criteria of the “rule of recognition” linked with the 1972 European Communities Act and the 1991 Factortame case were decided by British authorities and did not provoke a revolution in the legal system. But the new set of secondary rules introduced by European law and consolidated by the configuration of the European legal field can be qualified as “revolutionary” despite the keeping of subordinate national orders.

Bibliography

  • Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the People 2. Transformations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpa, Guido. 2005. Tradition and europeanization in Italian law. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, Karen J. 2001. Establishing the supremacy of European law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailleux, Julie. 2010. Comment l’Europe vint au droit. Revue française de science politique 60/2:295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaud, Olivier. 1991. L’Europe entre droit commun et droit communautaire. Droits 14:4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaud, Olivier. 2007. Théorie de la Fédération. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellier, Irène. 2009. Unie dans la diversité: la culture administrative de l’Union européenne à la croisée des chemin. In Le phénomène bureaucratique européen. Intégration européenne et “technophobie”, ed. Pascal Mbongo. Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergé, Jean-Sylvestre, and Sophie Robin-Olivier. 2011. Droit européen. Union européenne, Conseil de l’Europe. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergoënd, François. 1904. Étude sur les recours de droit public au Tribunal fédéral Suisse. Paris: Rousseau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertocini, Yves. 2009. Les interventions de l’Union Européenne au niveau national. Notre Europe Études 73, 1–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluntschli, Johann Kaspar. 1875. Geschichte des schweizerischen Bundesrechtes. Stuttgart: Meyer and Zeller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gráinne de Búrca. 1999. The institutional development of the EU: A constitutional analysis. In The evolution of EU Law, ed. Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callies, Christian. 2007. Europarecht. In Rechtswissenschaft und Rechtsliteratur im 20. Jahrhundert: mit Beiträgen zur Entwicklung des Verlages C. H. Beck, ed. Dietmar Willoweit, 1061–1096. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conseil, d’État. 2000. La norme internationale et le droit français. Paris: La Documentation française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, David P. 1997. The constitution in progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1986. Declarations of independence. New Political Science 15, 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunand, Jean-Philippe. 2008. Origines et rayonnement du Code civil suisse. In Le centenaire du Code civil Suisse, ed. Jean-Philippe Dunand. Paris: Société de Législation comparée.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Jean-Philippe. 2004. La bataille américaine du fédéralisme. John C. Calhoun et l’annulation. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsith, Murray. 1981. Unions of states. The theory and practice of confederation. New York: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, Hans. 1961. Der Schweizerische Juristenverein 1861–1960: sein Beitrag zur Kenntnis, zur Vereinheitlichung und zur Fortbildung des Schweizerischen Rechts. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgakakis, Didier. 2009. De la technocratie à la bureaucratie? Sur quelques changemenrts récents de la fonction publique et de la communauté européennes. In Le phénomène bureaucratique européen. Intégration européenne et “technophobie”, ed. Pascal Mbongo. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacometti, Zaccaria. 1933. Die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit des Schweizerischen Bundegerichtes. Zürich: Polygraphischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpérin, Jean-Louis. 2003. L’exportation en Suisse des institutions politiques et juridiques françaises. In Bonaparte, La Suisse et l’Europe, ed. Alfred Dufour, Till Hanisch, and Victor Monnier, 39–55. Genève-Zurich-Bâle: Schulthess.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, Christian. 2003. Europa’s Großraum? Shifting legal conceptualisations of the Integration Project. In Darker legacies of law in Europe: the shadow of national socialism and f ascism over Europe and its legal tradition, ed. Christian Joerges and Navray Singh Ghaleigh. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kley, Andreas. 2011. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts der Schweiz. Zürich: Dike.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kölz, Alfred. 2006. Histoire constitutionnelle de la Suisse moderne. Berne-Bruxelles: Stämpli and Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komarek, Jan. 2012. Playing with matches: the Czech constitutional court declares a judgment of the court of justice of the EU ultra Vires; Judgment of 31 January, PL US 5/12, Slovak Pensions XVII. European Constitutional Law Review 8:323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • König, Thomas, and Lards Mäder. 2008. Das Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates und der Mythos einer 80 %-Prozent-Europäisierung in Deutschland. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49:438–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, Neil. 1999. Questioning sovereignty: Law, state and the nation in the European community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, Neil, and Ota Weinberger. 1986. An institutional theory of law. New approaches to Legal Positivism. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, William. 1943. Histoire de la Suisse: essai sur la formation d’une confédération d’États. Lausanne: Payot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, Hélène. 2009. L’administration européenne face au lobbying: ‘ouverture’, ‘participation’ et ‘transparence’. In Le phénomène bureaucratique européen. Intégration européenne et “technophobie”, ed. Pascal Mbongo. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouvelle Histoire de la Suisse et des Suisses. 1982. Lausanne: Payot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Péraldi Leneuf, Fabienne. 2009. Le recours à l’externalité dans le système administratif communautaire: la délégation de la technicité. In Le phénomène bureaucratique européen. Intégration européenne et “technophobie”, ed. Pascal Mbongo. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris, Jean-Claude. 2010. The Lisbon treaty. A legal and political analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, Cécile, and Antoine Vauchez. 2010. L’Académie Européeenne: savoirs, experts et savants dans le gouvernement de l’Europe. Politix 89 (1) : 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepel, Harm, and Rein Wesseling. 1997. The legal community: Judges, lawyers, official and clerks in the writing of Europe. European Law Journal 3 (2): 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönberger, Christoph. 2005. Unionsbürger. Europas föderales Bürgerrecht in vergleichender Sicht. Tübingen: Mohr-Soebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Francis. 2000. Europeanisation and Globalization as Friends and Rivals: European Union in Global economy Networks. In The europeanisation of law, ed. Francis Snyder, 293–300. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Francis. 2009. Creusets de la communauté doctrinale de l’Union européenne. Regards sur les revues françaises de droit européen. In Doctrine et droit de l’Union européenne, ed. Fabrice Picod. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, Alec. 2004. The judicial construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Criekingen, Mathieu, Jean-Michel Drecroly, Moritz Lennert, Pierre Cornut, and Christian Vandermotten. 2005. Local Geographies of Local Players: International Law Firms in Brussels. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 13 (2), 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vauchez, Antoine. 2008. Droit et Politique dans la construction européeene. In Science politique de l’Union européenne, ed. Céline Belot, Paul Magnette, and Sabien Saurugger, 53–80. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vauchez, Antoine. 2009. Conclusion: Le magistère de la Cour. Une sociologie politique. In Dans la fabrique du droit européen, ed. Pascal Mbongo and Antoine Vauchez. Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J. H. H. 1999. The constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J. H. H. 2003. In defence of the status quo: Europe’s constitutional Sonderweg. In European constitutionalism. Beyond the state, ed. J. H. H. Weiler and Marlene Wind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France

    Jean-Louis Halpérin

Authors
  1. Jean-Louis Halpérin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Louis Halpérin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Halpérin, JL. (2014). Federative Law: A Fettered Revolution?. In: Five Legal Revolutions Since the 17th Century. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05888-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation