Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:31:46.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Brexit Spell the Death of Transnational Law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Ralf Michaels
Ralf Michaels*
Affiliation:
Duke University School of Law [michaels@law.duke.edu]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Philip Jessup would not be pleased. Exactly sixty years after he published his groundbreaking book on Transnational Law, a majority of voters in the United Kingdom decided they wanted none of that. By voting for the UK to leave the European Union, they rejected what may well be called the biggest and most promising project of transnational law. Indeed, the European Union (including its predecessor, the European Economic Community), is nearly as old Jessup's book. Both are products of the same time. That invites speculation that goes beyond the immediate effects of Brexit: Is the time of transnational law over? Or can transnational law be renewed and revived?

Type
Brexit Special Supplement
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 17 , Issue S1: Brexit Special Supplement , 01 July 2016 , pp. 51 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by German Law Journal, Inc. 

References

1 Philip Jessup, Transnational Law (1956).Google Scholar

2 Id. at 113.Google Scholar

3 Jessup, supra note 1, at 2. Later in the book, in a less-often quoted passage, he clarified: “Transnational law then includes both civil and criminal aspects, it includes what we know as public and private international law, and it includes national law, both public and private.” Id. at 106Google Scholar

4 Philip Jessup, Diversity and Uniformity in the Law of Nations, 58 Am. J. Int'l L. 341, 347-8 (1964).Google Scholar

5 Jessup Calls International Democracy PostWar Ideal, 65 Columbia Daily Spectator No 131 (2 (June 1942), p. 1, available at http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&d=cs19420602-01.2.7&e=——-en-20–4934–txt-txIN-columbia—50.Google Scholar

6 Jessup, supra note 1, at 41.Google Scholar

7 Neil MacCormick, Beyond the Sovereign State, 56 Modern Law Review 1 (1993); Neil Walker, Constitutional Pluralism Revisited, 22 Eur. L.J. 333 (2016).Google Scholar

8 Jessup, Philip C., International Law in the PostWar World, 36 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 46, 49 (1942).Google Scholar

9 See, e.g., Tuck, Richard, The Left Case for Brexit, Dissent (June 6, 2016), available at https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/left-case-brexit.Google Scholar

10 Id. at 11.Google Scholar

11 See Common Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands, 25/06/2016, available at http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Meldungen/2016/160625_Gemeinsam_Erklaerung_Gruenderstaatentreffen_ENG_VERSION.html. See also https://euobserver.com/political/132204/.Google Scholar

12 David Kennedy, A World of Struggle: How Power, law & Expertise Shape Global Political Economy (2016).Google Scholar

13 See, e.g., Jessup, supra note 5; Jessup, Philip C., Democracy Must Keep Constant Guard for Freedom, 25 Dep't St. Bull. 220 (1951).Google Scholar

14 Jessur, supra note 1, at B2.Google Scholar