Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dualism and the limits of European integration

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. For the definitive statement on the concept of sovereignty, see H.L.A. Hart,The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press, 1961, ch. 4. For a commentary on Hart's application of sovereignty, see N. McCormick,HLA Hart, Edward Arnold, 1981, 118–20. for a recent discussion of the position of sovereignty in contemporary constitutional thinking in the U.K. see A. Bradley, “The Sovereignty of Parliament—in Perpetuity?”, in J. Jowell and D. Oliver, eds.,The Changing Constitution, Oxford University Press, 1994, 79–107.

  2. See C. Munro,Studies in Constitutional Law, Butterworths, 1987, 79–81, for an awareness of the peculiar historical origins of parliamentary sovereignty. The only substantive appreciation of the historicity of the U.K. constitutional law is A. Carty, “English Constitution Law from a Postmodernist Perspective”, in P. Fitzpatrick, ed.,Dangerous Supplements: Resistance and Renewal in Jurisprudence, Pluto Press, 1991, 182–206.

  3. See T. Hobbes,Leviathan, Penguin, 1985, part 2, and J. Locke,Two Treatises of Government, J.M. Dent, 1989, book 1 and book 2, chs. 11–14. For the transformation of the U.K. constitution in the seventeenth century, see J. Kenyon,The Stuart Constitution, Cambridge University Press, 1966. For a particular discussion of the roles of Hobbes and Locke, and their accommodation of sovereignty within a social contract framework, see M. Lessnoff,Social Contract, Macmillan, 1986, ch.4. For an appreciation of Hobbes as the central figure in British constitutional theory, see Carty,supra n.2 “English Constitution Law from a Postmodernist Perspective”, in P. Fitzpatrick, ed.,Dangerous Supplements: Resistance and Renewal in Jurisprudence, Pluto Press, 1991, at 185–93.

  4. For a discussion of the altered constitutional ambition, see Kenyon,supra n. 3,The Stuart Constitution, Cambridge University Press, 1966. For a particular discussion of the roles of Hobbes and Locke, and their accommodation of sovereignty within a social contract framework and also G. Burgess,The Politics of the Ancient Constitution, Macmillan, 1992.

  5. For the politics of the seventeenth century revolutions, see W. Speck,Reluctant Revolutionaries, Oxford University Press, 1988, particularly chs. 7–10.

  6. The definitive thesis here is Christopher Hill's. See, for example, hisPuritanism and Revolution, Peregrine, 1986. For the development of sovereignty at the heart of the constitution over the following century or so, see G. Postema,Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press, 1986, ch.7.

  7. For Aquinas' need to accommodate a concept of political sovereignty in the Aristotelian tradition, see A. D'Entreves,Aquinas: Selected Political Writings, Blackwell, 1987, vii–xxxiii.

  8. For an example of the customary platitudes, see B. Thompson,Textbook on Constitutional and Administrative Law, Blackstone, 1993, 36–37.

  9. See Carty,supra n.2 “English Constitution Law from a Postmodernist Perspective”, in P. Fitzpatrick, ed.,Dangerous Supplements: Resistance and Renewal in Jurisprudence, Pluto Press, 1991, at 203–206.

  10. See T. Allen,Law, Liberty and Justice: The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism, Clarendon Press, 1992, 280–286. At 282, Allen provides a striking example of the ready acceptance that parliamentary sovereignty is somehow a necessary adjunct to parliamentary democracy: “The legal doctrine of legislative supremacy expresses the courts' commitment to British parliamentary democracy.”

  11. A. Milward,The European Rescue of the Nation-State, Routledge, 1992, particularly ch.7. For a similar thesis, see S. George,An Awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community, Oxford University Press, 1994.

  12. Milward,supra n.11.The European Rescue of the Nation-State, Routledge, 1992, particularly ch.7.

  13. See S. Holland,The European Imperative: Economic and Social Cohesion in the 1990s, Spokesman, 1993, particularly part 1. For an earlier, more radical, statement of this position, see S. Holland,UnCommon Market, Macmillan, 1980. For recent and more moderate presentation, see J. Pinder, “The Single Market: A Step Towards Union”, in J. Lodge, ed.,The European Community and the Challenge of the Future, Pinter, 1993, 51–68, and A. Williams,The European Community, Blackwell, 1991, particularly chs. 4–7.

  14. See for example, “The Question Concerning Technology”, in M. Heidegger,The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. W. Lovitt, Harper, 1977, 3–35.

  15. The landmark decisions areCosta v.ENEL Case 6/64 [1964] E.C.R. 585 andSimmenthal Case 106/77 [1978] E.C.R. 629. For commentary see, D. Wyatt & A. Dashwood,European Community Law, Sweet & Maxwell, 1993, 56–58.

  16. For such a commentary from one such member of our political elite, see S. Williams, “Sovereignty and Accountability in the European Community”, in R. Keohane and S. Hoffmann, eds.,The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change, Westview, 1991, 155–76.

  17. Alternative visions of democracy are, of course, familiar to a degree from North American Critical Legal Studies scholarship. The most substantive presentation of such a thesis is perhaps Roberto Unger's. See hisPolitics, a Work in Constructive Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1987, 3 vols.

  18. See D. Curtin, “The Constitutional Structure of the Union: A Europe of Bits and Pieces”,Common Market Law Review 30 (1993), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See for example A. Toth, “The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Maastricht Treaty”,Common Market Law Review 29 (1992), 1079, and “A Legal Analysis of Subsidiarity”, in D. O'Keeffe and P. Twomey, eds.,Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty, Chancery Press, 1994, 37. For one of the most caustic commentaries, see J. Coppel, “Edinburgh Subsidiarity”,Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 44 (1993), 179.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See A. Teasdale, “Subsidiarity in Post-Maastricht Europe”,Political Quarterly 64 (1993), 187, and J. Peterson, “Subsidiarity: A Definition to Suit Any Vision?”,Parliamentary Affairs 47 (1994), 120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. I have tried to develop this thesis in particular elsewhere. See I. Ward, “Identity and Difference: The European Union and Postmodernism”, in J. Shaw, ed.,New Legal Dynamics of European Union, Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

  22. SeeBulmer v.Bollinger [1974] 2 All E.R. 1226, andMacCarthy's v.Smith [1979] 1 All E.R. 325. For a commentary on the “revolution”, see T. Allen, “Parliamentary Sovereignty: Lord Denning's Dexterous Revolution”,oxford Journal of Legal Studies 3 (1983), 22.

  23. I. Harden, “The Constitution of the European Union”,Public Law (1994), 612–13.

  24. See Harden,supra n.23, “The Constitution of the European Union”,Public Law (1994), at 611.

  25. See J. Derrida, “The Principle of Reason: The University in the Eyes of its Pupils”,Diacritics 13 (1983), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Derrida,The Other Heading: Reflections on Today's Europe, trans. P. Brault & M. Naas, Indiana University Press, 1992, l–lii.

  27. See T. Koopmans, “The Birth of European Law at the Crossroads of Legal Traditions”,American Journal of Comparative Law 39 (1991), 497; Mackenzie Stuart, “Recent Developments in English Administrative Law—The Impact of Europe?”, in F. Caportorti, ed,Du droit international au droit de l'integration: liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore, Steiner, 1987, 411–419; G. Slynn, “But in England there is no…”, in W. Fuerst, ed.,Festschrift für Wolfgang Zeidler, De Gruyter, 1987, 397–408.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Schwarze,European Administrative Law, Sweet & Maxwell, 1992.

  29. SeeFactortame Case 213/89 [1990] ECR I-2433, andFrancovich Case 6/90 [1991] 2 CMLR 66. For commentaries, see G. de Burca, “Giving Effect to European Community Directives”,Modern Law Review 55 (1992), 215; J. Steiner, “From Direct Effects toFrancovich: Shifting Means of Enforcement of Community Law”,European Law Review 18 (1993) 3; and P. Craig, “Francovich, Remedies and the Scope of Damages Liability”,Law Quarterly Review 109 (1993), 605.

  30. R v.Transport Secretary ex p. Factortame [1989] 2 W.L.R. at 1021–1022.

  31. M v.Home Office [1992] 4 All E.R. 139, andIn Re M. [1993] 3 W.L.R. 448. I have discussed these comments in greater depth in I. Ward, “The Anomalous, the Wrong and the Unhappy: U.K. Administrative Law in a European Perspective”,Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 45 (1994), 46.

    Google Scholar 

  32. I have discussed some of the wider constitutional implications ofM, and the inconsistent approaches of the various judges, elsewhere. See I. Ward, “The Story of M: A Cautionary Tale from the U.K.”,International Journal of Refugee Law 6 (1994), 194.

    Google Scholar 

  33. UNECTEF v.Heylens Case 222/86 [1987] E.C.R. 4097.

  34. J. Schwarze, “Tendencies Towards a Common Administrative Law in Europe”,European Law Review 16 (1991), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  35. R v.Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] 3 W.L.R., 154, andR v.Lambeth LBC ex parte Walters [1993] 26 H.L.R. 170. For a recent commentary, see N. Campbell, “The Duty to Give Reasons in Administrative Law”,Public Law (1994), 184.

  36. Torfaen Case 145/88 [1989] E.C.R. 765.

  37. R. Rawlings, “The Eurolaw Game: Some Deductions from a Saga”,Journal of Law and Society 20 (1993), 317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. See Rawlings,. n.37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. R v.Home Secretary ex parte Brind [1991] 1 All E.R. 723.

  40. W.H. Smith Do-It-All v.Peterborough CC [1991] 4 All E.R. 210–217.

  41. N. MacCormick. “Beyond the Sovereign State”,Modern Law Review 56 (1993), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See W. Wade, “What has Happened to the Sovereignty of Parliament?”,Law Quarterly Review 107 (1991), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. Craig, “Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament afterFactortame”,Yearbook of European Law 11 (1991), 252–255.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Harden,, at 612–613, advocating a post-Diceyan alternativ

    Google Scholar 

  45. T. Smith, “Post-Modern Politics and the Case for Constitutional Renewal”,Political Quarterly 65 (1994), 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. S. Hix, “The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics”,West European Politics 17 (1994), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. Ruggie, “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations”,International Organization 47 (1993), 165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. In R. Ladrech, “Parliamentary Democracy and Political Discourse in EC Institutional Change”,Journal of European Integration 17 (1993), 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Harden,, at 613, 620 and 624.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See P. Teague, “Coordination of decentralization? EC social policy and European industrial relations”, in J. Lodge, ed.,The European Community and the Challenge of the Future, Pinter, 1993, 164–170.

  51. B. Fitzpatrick, “Community Social Law after Maastricht”,Industrial Law Journal 21 (1992), 201 and 207–208.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See C. McGlynn, “European Works Councils: Towards Industrial Democracy?”,Industrial Law Journal, forthcoming.

  53. Milward,supra The European Rescue of the Nation-State, Routledge, 1992, particularly ch.7. n.11, particularly his conclusion, “Envoi”.

  54. See A. Moravcsik, “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, in S. Bulmer & A. Scott, eds.,Economic and Political Integration: Internal Dynamics and Global Context, Blackwell, 1994, 29–80.

  55. See, for example, D. Kennedy, “Legal Education as Training for Hierarchy”, in D. Kairys, ed.,The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, Pantheon, 1982, 40–61.

  56. Allen,supra n.10Law, Liberty and Justice: The Legal foundations of British constitutionalism, Clarendon Press, 1992. at 274.

  57. See G. Anav, “Parliamentary Sovereignty: An Anachronism?”,Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 27 (1989), 648, and J. Mitchell, “What Happened to the Constitution on 1st January 1973?”,Cambrian Law Journal 11 (1980), 69.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Legal Studies, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK

    Ian Ward B.A. (Keele), LL.M. (Toronto), Ph.D. (Cantab) (Senior Lecturer)

Authors
  1. Ian Ward B.A. (Keele), LL.M. (Toronto), Ph.D. (Cantab)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I should like to express my gratitude to members of the Faculty of Law at the University of Bergen, to whom I presented an earlier version of this paper. I should also like to thank Clare McGlynn for her helpful observations on an earlier draft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ward, I. Dualism and the limits of European integration. Liverpool Law Rev 17, 29–46 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02449952

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02449952

Keywords

Search

Navigation