Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subsidiarity and the Global Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 37))

Abstract

Subsidiarity has been proposed as an answer to the challenges of globalisation and global governance. This chapter addresses some of the strengths and weaknesses of such a principle of subsidiarity for questions of how to allocate and use authority at regional and global levels. The chapter criticises the ‘state centric’ versions of subsidiarity often appealed to for such global settings. In particular, there are several challenges wrought by states that fail to respect their citizens’ human rights, variously interpreted. More defensible versions of subsidiarity do not provide normative legitimacy to the state centric aspects of the global order. Section 11.2 sketches some of the remarkably different conceptions of subsidiarity as a background to the usages in the European Union, the Catholic Church and as it allegedly appears in international law. The different versions drastically reduce or enlarge the scope of member unit authority. Section 11.3 considers some implications for the legitimate allocation of authority in our global order which includes many states that routinely violate their citizens’ fundamental human rights. The function of the European Court of Human Rights offers a helpful contrast.

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.

    Held (1995, p. 20).

  2. 2.

    John (1963, p. 140).

  3. 3.

    Slaughter (2000).

  4. 4.

    Carozza (2003).

  5. 5.

    United Nations (1998) Preamble para 10; Art 1 and 17 1 (a).

  6. 6.

    For further accounts see Follesdal (1998).

  7. 7.

    Leo XIII (1891, para 36).

  8. 8.

    ibid, para 3.

  9. 9.

    ibid, para 32.

  10. 10.

    ibid, para 33.

  11. 11.

    Pius XI (1931, paras 79–80).

  12. 12.

    Leo (1890, paras 36, 37); Pius XI (1931, para 78).

  13. 13.

    John XXIII (1961, para 20); Leo (1891); John (1963, para 77).

  14. 14.

    Letsas (2006).

  15. 15.

    Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik (1949, Art 72.2.3).

  16. 16.

    Oates (1972).

  17. 17.

    Cooper (2006); Follesdal (2006).

  18. 18.

    see Resnik et al. (2008, p. 767).

  19. 19.

    Dahl (2001, pp. 147–489).

  20. 20.

    Follesdal (2007); McKay (2004).

  21. 21.

    Filippov et al. (2004).

  22. 22.

    II–II, q. 66.

  23. 23.

    (22).

  24. 24.

    Leo (1891, para 37).

  25. 25.

    Treaty of Lisbon 2007, Art 3.

  26. 26.

    Kuyper (1880); de Klerk (1975, pp. 255–260).

  27. 27.

    John (1963, p. 138).

  28. 28.

    Kumm (2009).

  29. 29.

    Council of Europe (1950).

  30. 30.

    Shany (2005).

  31. 31.

    Bernhardt (1994).

  32. 32.

    Bernhardt (1994, p. 309).

  33. 33.

    Lautsi and others v Italy [GC] ECHR 2011, Docket 30814/06.

  34. 34.

    Folgero and others v. Norway, ECHR 2007 Docket 15472/02.

  35. 35.

    Beitz (2009).

  36. 36.

    Macdonald (1993, p. 123).

References

  • Barry, B. 1989. Theories of justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitz, C.R. 2009. The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, R. 1994. Human rights and judicial review: The European Court of Human Rights. In D.M. Beatty (Red.) Human rights and judicial review: A comparative perspective, s. 297–319. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carozza, P.G. 2003. Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human rights law. American Journal of International Law 97(38): 38–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, I. 2006. The watchdogs of subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the logic of arguing in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(2): 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. 1950. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 2001. How democratic is the American constitution? New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Klerk, W.A. 1975. The Puritans in Africa. London: R. Collins/Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippov, M., P.C. Ordeshook, and O. Shvetsova. 2004. Designing federalism: A theory of self-sustainable federal institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Follesdal, Andreas. 1998. Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy 6: 231–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follesdal, A. 2006. Subsidiarity, democracy and human rights in the Constitutional Treaty for Europe. Journal of Social Philosophy 37: 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Follesdal, A. 2007. Toward self-sustaining stability? How the Constitutional Treaty would enhance forms of institutional and national balance. Regional and Federal Studies 17(3): 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Follesdal, A. 2013a. Competing conceptions of subsidiarity. In Nomos. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follesdal, A. 2013b. Subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law. Global Constitutionalism 2(1): 37–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundgesetz Für Die Bundesrepublik, Deutschland. 1949. Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl) Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 100-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the global order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • John XXIII. 1961. Mater et Magistra. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html

  • John XXIII. 1963. Pacem in Terris. In The Papal encyclicals 1958–1981. Raleigh: McGrath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm, M. 2009. The cosmopolitan turn in constitutionalism: On the relationship between constitutionalism in and beyond the state. In J.L. Dunoff and J.P. Trachtman (Red.), Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance, s. 257–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuyper, A. 1880. Souvereiniteit in eigen kring: rede ter inwijding van de vrije Universiteit den 20sten October 1880. Amsterdam: J.H. Kruyt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leo XII. 1890. Sapiente Christianae. In J.F. Cronin (Red.), Catholic social principles: The social teaching of the Catholic Church applied to American economic life. Milwaukee: Bruce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leo XII. 1891. Rerum Novarum. In The Papal encyclicals 1903–1939. Raleigh: McGrath Publishing Company. Available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

  • Leo XIII. 1891. Rerum Novarum. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

  • Letsas, G. 2006. Two concepts of the margin of appreciation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26(4): 705–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, R.S.J. 1993. The margin of appreciation. In R.S.J. Macdonald and F. Matcher (Red.), The European system for the protection of human rights. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, D. 2004. The EU as a self-sustaining federation: Specifying the constitutional conditions. In Political theory and the European constitution, ed. L. Dobson and A. Follesdal, s. 23–39. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, W. 1972. Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pius XI. 1931. Quadragesimo Anno. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

  • Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1999. The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, J., J. Civin, and J. Frueh. 2008. Ratifying Kyoto at the local level: Sovereigntism, federalism, and translocal organizations of government actors (TOGAs). Arizona Law Review 50(3): 709–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany, Y. 2005. Toward a general margin of appreciation doctrine in international law? European Journal of International Law 16(5): 907–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, A.-M. 2000. A liberal theory of international law. American Society of International Law Proceedings 94: 240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty of Lisbon. 2007. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty of European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (adopted 13 December 2007, in force 1 December 2009) [2007] Official Journal of the European Union C306/1. Official Journal of the European Union C306/1(C 306 of 17 December 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. 1998. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Entered into Force 2002), A/Conf.183/9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, St. Olavs gate 23, 0166, Oslo, Norway

    Andreas Follesdal

Authors
  1. Andreas Follesdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Follesdal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University Law School, Bentley, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Michelle Evans

  2. Murdoch University School of Law, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Augusto Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Follesdal, A. (2014). Subsidiarity and the Global Order. In: Evans, M., Zimmermann, A. (eds) Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8810-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation