Skip to main content Accessibility help

European exceptionalism?



The paper discusses recent propositions that, after a period of ‘American exceptionalism’, forms of ‘European exceptionalism’ are now emerging. The paper first asks what makes a political entity ‘exceptionalist’. For this purpose inspiration is sought in the defining features of ‘American exceptionalism’. The paper then discusses whether ‘Europe’ displays comparable features in the fields of international legal policy and domestic rights culture. It also asks whether there are other aspects of European governance which could make it plausible to speak of a European exceptionalism. The paper concludes that it is misleading to use the term ‘European exceptionalism’ because the underlying phenomena are not comparable with what is usually understood as ‘American exceptionalism’.


Corresponding author


Hide All

1 See, e.g., Ignatieff, M, ‘Introduction’ in Ignatieff, M (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005) 1; Koh, HH, ‘On American Exceptionalism’ (2003) 55 Stanford Law Review 1479; Saito, NT, Meeting the Enemy: American Exceptionalism and International Law (New York University Press, New York, 2010) 54–5.

2 Gardbaum, S, ‘The Myth and Reality of American Constitutional Exceptionalism’ (2008) 107 Michigan Law Review 391.

3 Nolte, G, ‘Persisting and Developing between Hope and Threat: International Law during the Past Two Decades and Beyond’ in Crawford, J and Nouwen, S (eds), Proceedings of the European Society of International Law, vol 3 (Hart, Oxford, 2011) 75.

4 On a possibly emerging ‘Obama Doctrine’ see Meiertöns, H, The Doctrines of US Security Policy: An Evaluation under International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010) 224 ff.

5 Bradford, A and Posner, EA, ‘Universal Exceptionalism in International Law’ (2011) 52 Harvard International Law Journal 1; de Búrca, G, ‘The Road Not Taken: The European Union as a Global Human Rights Actor’ (2011) 105 American Journal of International Law 649, 690; Licková, M, ‘European Exceptionalism in International Law’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 463; Safrin, S, ‘The Un-Exceptionalism of U.S. Exceptionalism’ (2008) 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1307.

6 Bradford and Posner (n 5) 7; see also Rubenfeld, J, ‘Unilateralism and Constitutionalism’ (2004) 79 New York University Law Review 1971, 1987.

7 Ignatieff (n 1) 2 with fn 2.

8 See his Farewell Address as President of the United States of 11 January 1989, available at <> accessed 8 January 2013.

9 NBC Today show, February 19, 1998, available at <> accessed 8 January 2013.

11 The book is in large parts an attack on what Gingrich perceives to be President Obama’s ignorance towards the importance of American exceptionalism: ‘President Obama, for example, simply does not understand this concept. In the past, he was outright contemptuous of American exceptionalism, deriding Americans as “bitter” people who “cling” to guns and religion, pronouncing himself a “citizen of the world” … .’ Gingrich, N, A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters (Regnery, Washington DC, 2010) 9. On Obama’s comment on the US ‘leading from behind’ in the Libya crisis: ‘This “definition of leadership” – the closest thing we have to an Obama Doctrine – not only violates American Exceptionalism, it is the precise antithesis of American Exceptionalism. This notion – that America should acknowledge its “decline” and abdicate its global leadership at the behest of those who supposedly “revile” us – is a self-fulfilling prescription for our future as a weaker, less respected, and ultimately less safe country.’, ibid, 178.

12 Typical for an analysis in this sense is O’Connell, ME, ‘American Exceptionalism and the International Law of Self-Defense’ (2002) 31 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 43.

13 See Gardbaum (n 2) 401–4; RA Epstein, ‘Privacy, Publication and the First Amendment’ (2000) 52 Stanford Law Review 1003.

14 See Everling, U, ‘The European Union as a Federal Association of States and Citizens’ in von Bogdandy, A and Bast, J (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law (2nd edn, Hart, Oxford, 2010) 701, 734.

15 Nolte, Cf G, ‘European and US Constitutionalism: Comparing Essential Elements’ in Nolte, G (ed), European and US Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005) 3, 5.

16 See, for example, Haltern, U, ‘Europa – Verfassung – Identität’ in Calliess, C (ed), Verfassungswandel im europäischen Staaten- und Verfassungsverbund (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007) 21, 23–4; on law as an essential of identity see also von Bogdandy, A, ‘Europäische und nationale Identität: Integration durch Verfassungsrecht?’ (2002) 62 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung Deutscher Staatsrechtslehrer 156, 187.

17 Ignatieff (n 1) 3.

18 Koh (n 1) 1483.

19 Ignatieff (n 1) 4.

20 For an insider’s account see Scheffer, D, All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2012) 163226.

21 Bradford and Posner (n 5) 44–52.

22 An instance in which the EU did not succeed in accommodating special EU interests was the negotiation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Cultural Diversity; see Licková (n 5) 484.

23 For a useful overview of this practice see Licková (n 5) 484–9; see also ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, paras 219 and 289–94; as well as CP Economides and AG Kolliopoulos, ‘La clause de deconnexion en faveur du droit communautaire: une pratique critiquable’, (2006) 110 Revue générale de droit international public 273.

24 Licková (n 5) 487–8.

25 Bradford and Posner (n 5) 52.

26 ILC Fragmentation Report (n 23) para 293, with a reference to art 41, para 1(b)(ii) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 22 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.

27 See, however, for critical views Economides and Kolliopoulos (n 23) 299–300 as well as the ILC Fragmentation Report (n 23) para 294: ‘From the perspective of other treaty parties, the use of disconnection clause (sic) might create double standards, be politically incorrect or just confusing.’

28 Licková (n 5) 489.

29 For a more detailed analysis of recent ECJ case law on the reception and applicability of international law see Eckes, C, ‘International Law as Law of the European Union: The Role of the European Court of Justice’ in Cannizzaro, E, Palchetti, P and Wessel, RA (eds), International Law as Law of the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2012) 353; de Búrca, G, ‘The ECJ and the International Legal Order: A Re-evaluation’ in de Búrca, G and Weiler, JHH (eds), The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 105; see also Opinion 1/09 – Unified Patent Litigation System, 2011 ECR – not yet reported; on the incompatibility of a proposed international patent court with the EU legal system; on this case see further Parrish, M, ‘International Courts and the European Legal Order’ (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 141.

30 Commission v Ireland, Case C-459/03, 2006 ECR I-4636.

31 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982 (entry into force 16 November 1994), 1833 UNTS 3.

32 Commission v Ireland, Case C-459/03, 2006 ECR I-4636, paras 121–122.

33 Commission v Sweden, Case C-205/06, 2009 ECR I-1335; Commission v Austria, Case C-118-07, 2009 ECR I-1301; Commission v Finland, Case C-118/07, ECR 2009 I-10889.

34 Commission v Sweden, Case C-205/06, 2009 ECR I-1335, para 37.

35 The Commission apparently does not seek a renegotiation of all existing member states’ BITs but rather confines this requirement to those agreements which it considers to include provisions incompatible with EU law; see Cremona, M, ‘Member States Agreements as European Union Law’ in Cannizzaro, E, Palchetti, P and Wessel, RA (eds), International Law as Law of the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2012) 291, 321–2.

36 See further Meiertöns (n 4) 179–224.

37 On the continuing relevance of this doctrine see V Pfisterer, ‘Die Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie der Vereinigten Staaten von Mai 2010: Ein Bericht’ (2010) 70 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 735.

38 But see Bradford and Posner (n 5) 39 who argue with respect to pre-emptive self-defence that the ‘Bush Administration and previous administrations never claimed that the United States has the exclusive right to go to war for these purposes.’

39 See UN Doc S/2002/1012.

40 Gray, C, International Law and the Use of Force (3rd edn, OUP, Oxford, 2008) 231; see also Moir, L, Reappraising the Resort to Force: International Law, Jus ad Bellum and the War on Terror (Hart, Oxford, 2010) 145.

41 O’Connell (n 12) 43.

42 This holds true for contemporary international law. From a historical perspective, it could be argued that for a long time the whole system of public international law was an instrument of power wielded by ‘Europe’ and directed against those states and entities which were not recognized as civilized states. See, e.g., Anghie, A, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2005) 310–2.

43 Kadi v Council and Commission, Case C-402/05 P, ECR 2008, I-6531.

44 Ibid para 287 on the scope of judicial review enacted by the Court; see also Paulus, AL, ‘From Dualism to Pluralism: The Relationship between International Law, European Law and Domestic Law’ in Bekker, PHFet al. (eds), Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts (CUP, Cambridge, 2010) 132, 135–6; the Kadi judgment is misrepresented by Bradford and Posner (n 5) 16 who hold that ‘the ECJ ruled that the Sanctions Committee’s designation of Kadi did not bind the EU’s member States’ and that, ‘to all appearances, the ECJ’s judgment was accepted by European governments’. To the contrary, the ECJ expressly held that ‘it must be emphasised that, in circumstances such as those of these cases, the review of lawfulness thus to be ensured by the Community judicature applies to the Community act intended to give effect to the international agreement at issue, and not to the latter as such.’ (para 286); and that ‘any judgment given by the Community judicature deciding that a Community measure intended to give effect to such a resolution is contrary to a higher rule of law in the Community legal order would not entail any challenge to the primacy of that resolution in international law.’, at para 288.

45 Bradford and Posner (n 5) 52.

46 B Fassbender, ‘The Better Peoples of the United Nations? Europe’s Practice and the United Nations’ (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 857, 870.

47 Scheffer (n 20) 221.

48 See de Búrca (n 5) 690–1.

49 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, ICJ Rep 1986, 14, para 186.

50 For an overview of the pertinent legal issues surrounding ‘FRONTEX’ see E Papastavridis, ‘Fortress Europe and FRONTEX: Within or Without International Law?’ (2010) 79 Nordic Journal of International Law 75. On the general limits to cooperation between states in international law see Aust, HP, Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011).

51 See Markard, N, ‘Asylrecht. Der Stand der Dinge’ (2012) 65 Merkur: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Europäisches Denken 28.

52 See European Court of Human Rights, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy, App No 27765/09, Judgment of 23 February 2012, available at <> accessed 13 January 2013.

53 Presidency Conclusions, Brussels Council of the European Union (29–30 October 2009), para 40.

54 Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 (25 October 2011) OJ (L 304) 1.

55 Frontex Press Release (18 June 2008), available at <> accessed 13 January 2013.

56 Letter of the European Ombudsperson (6 March 2012), Case: OI/5/2012/BEH-MHZ, available at <> accessed 13 January 2013.

57 Koh (n 1) 1484–5.

58 Henkin, L, ‘Rights: American and Human’ (1979) 79 Columbia Law Review 405, 421.

59 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950 (entry into force 3 September 1953), ETS No 5.

60 This becomes apparent already from the preamble to the Convention: ‘Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … ; Considering that this Declaration aims at ensuring the universal and effective recognition and observance of the rights therein declared … Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are likeminded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration …’; see also White, RCA and Ovey, C, The European Convention on Human Rights (5th edn, OUP, Oxford 2010) 12.

61 See Neuman, GL, ‘Import, Export and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 101; Cançado Trindade, AA, ‘The Development of International Human Rights Law by the Operation and the Case-Law of the European and the Inter-American Courts of Human Rights’ (2004) 25 Human Rights Law Journal 157; Cançado Trindade, AA, ‘Die Entwicklung des inter-amerikanischen Systems zum Schutz der Menschenrechte’; (2010) 70 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 629.

62 See, for example, art 48, para 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966 (entry into force 23 March 1976), 999 UNTS 171.

63 On missed opportunities to develop a strong EU/EC mechanism for the protection of human rights see de Búrca (n 5).

64 See art 59, para 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights as amended by art 17 of Additional Protocol No 14, May 13 2004 (entry into force 1 June 2010), ETS No 194.

65 Matthews v United Kingdom, ECHR 1999-I, paras 26 ff; Bosphorus Have Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, ECHR 2005-VI, paras 152–153; Kadi v Council and Commission, Case C-402/05 P, ECR 2008, I-6531.

66 Notable differences between the regional systems should not be overlooked; however, for an instructive comparison see Evans, MD, ‘The Future(s) of Regional Courts on Human Rights’ in Cassese, A (ed), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2012) 261, 273–4.

67 It has also been criticized that the EU is not acting very consistently in this regard. See to this effect the study of Khaliq, U, Ethical Dimensions of the Foreign Policy of the European Union: A Legal Appraisal (CUP, Cambridge, 2008) 219–33 on the changes of EU foreign policy towards Pakistan. Whereas the coup d’état of General Pervez Musharraf in October 1999 led to the suspension of development aid and cooperation, relations were quickly restored after the attacks of 11 September 2001.

68 On some general problems attached to EULEX and the international law background see Wet, E de, ‘The Governance of Kosovo: Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Establishment and Function of EULEX’ (2009) American Journal of International Law 83.

69 Nolte, G, ‘Human Rights Protection against International Institutions in Kosovo: The Proposals of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and their Implementation’ in Dupuy, PMet al. (eds), Völkerrecht als Wertordnung: Festschrift für Christian Tomuschat (Engel, Kehl, 2006) 245.

70 According to its mandate its aim is to assist and support the Kosovo authorities in matters related to the rule of law through ‘monitoring, mentoring and advising, while retaining certain executive responsibilities’, EU Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, 4 February 2008, OJ 42/92 (2008).

71 See European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on the Existing Mechanisms to Review the Compatibility with Human Rights Standards of Acts by UNMIK and EULEX in Kosovo, adopted 17–18 December 2010, CDL-AD(2010)051, para 17.

72 Ibid 13 with fn 17.

73 Ibid.

74 Cf the heated debate in the aftermath of European Court of Human Rights, Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v France/Ruzhdi Saramati v France, Germany and Norway, App Nos 71412/01 and 78166/01, Decision of the Grand Chamber of 2 May 2007 on the scope of accountability of UNMIK, available at <> accessed 13 January 2013. See, for example, H Krieger, ‘A Credibility Gap: The Behrami and Saramati Decision of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2009) 13 Journal of International Peacekeeping 159.

75 Venice Commission (n 71) para 58.

76 Koh (n 1) 1483.

77 Cf G Nolte, ‘Das Verfassungsrecht vor den Herausforderungen der Globalisierung’ (2007) 67 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 129, 151–3.

78 The Court frequently makes use of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its interpretation, see Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, ECHR 2001-XI, para 60 (on the prohibition of torture); A and others v United Kingdom, 49 European Human Rights Review 29, para 178 (on the temporal extension of a state of emergency).

79 Koh (n 1) 1484.

80 Reservation of the United States to the ICCPR, declared upon ratification on 8 June 1992: ‘That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.’

81 Rubenfeld (n 6) 1988.

82 See also Gardbaum (n 2) 397; Schauer, F, ‘The Exceptional First Amendment’ in Ignatieff, M (ed), American Excpetionalism and Human Rights (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005) 29, 56.

83 Ibid 29–30.

84 Koh (n 1) 1483.

85 Ignatieff (n 1) 10.

86 Gardbaum (n 2) 449; and the United States is certainly not exceptionalist in this regard if compared with other common law countries, ibid, at 448; E Riedel, ‘Vorbemerkung vor Titel IV’ in Meyer, J (ed), Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (3rd edn, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2011) para 25.

87 Gardbaum (n 2) 450.

88 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] 9 February 2010 125 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 175 (an English translation of the Judgment is available at <> (19 March 2012)).

89 Ibid para 133 of the English translation.

90 National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, decision of 28 June 2012.

91 Cf Gardbaum (n 2) 408; it must of course be recognized that several state constitutions in the United States provide for social and economic rights, ibid, at 446; Sunstein, CR, ‘Why Does the American Constitution Lack Social and Economic Guarantees?’ in Ignatieff, M (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005) 90, 100–1.

92 Statement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Convention to draft a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 27 April 2000, 22nd Session, E/2001/22-EC/C.12/2000/21, annex VIII.

93 See the Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ 2007/C303/02: art 1 of the Charter (‘human dignity’) found an inspiration in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; art 24 in the Conventions on the Rights of the Child.

94 Langenfeld, C, ‘Soziale Grundrechte’ in Merten, D and Papier, H-J (eds), Handbuch der Grundrechte in Deutschland und Europa vol VI/1 (CF Müller, Heidelberg, 2010) 1117, 1124, para 10.

95 Riedel (n 86) para 25; Langenfeld (n 94) para 54.

96 See, for example, the case law referred to in (n 78) above.

97 See, in particular, M Kamto, ‘Fifth Report on Expulsion of Aliens’ UN Doc A/CN.4/611, paras (among others) 14, 27, 63, 74, 77, 96, 106, 116.

98 G de Búrca, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ (2010) 51 Harvard International Law Journal 1, 49. The Medellin case (Medellin v Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)) concerned the international effects of a judgment by the International Court of Justice on the rights of foreigners to be informed about consular assistance under art 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In the case, the US Supreme Court found ICJ decisions not to be enforceable in the US legal order.

99 See Nolte, G, ‘The Limits of the Security Council’s Powers and the International Legal System’ in Byers, M (ed), The Role of Law in International Politics (OUP, Oxford, 2000) 315; Nolte (n 77) 132–9; HP Aust, ‘Between Self-Assertion and Deference: European Courts and their Assessment of UN Security Council Resolutions’ (2008) 8 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 51.

100 This has been the subject of a growing discussion, see Cannizzaro, E, ‘The Neo-Monism of the European Legal Order’ in Cannizzaro, E, Palchetti, P and Wessel, RA (eds), International Law as Law of the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2012) 35, 56–8.

101 See (n 30).

102 See (n 33).

103 The Queen, on the application of International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) and Others v Secretary of State for Transport, Case C-308/06, ECR 2009, I-405.

104 See on this question C Tietje, ‘The Status of International Law in the European Legal Order: The Case of International Treaties and Non-Binding International Instruments’ in J Wouters, A Nollkaemper and E de Wet (eds), The Europeanisation of International Law: The Status of International Law in the EU and its Member States (TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2008) 55, 59–64; A Tancredi, ‘On the Absence of Direct Effect of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s Decisions in the EU Legal Order’ in E Cannizzaro, P Palchetti and RA Wessel (eds), International Law as Law of the European Union (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2012) 249.

105 Eckes (n 29) 367.

106 Brita v Hauptzollamt Hamburg, Case C-386/08, ECR 2010-1289.

107 Air Transport Association of America et al. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change et al., Case C-366/10, ECR 2011 – not yet reported, paras 50 (on the priority of international agreements over EU secondary legislation), 101 (on customary international law as a limit to EU action) and 123 (on the general obligation of the EU to exercise its competences in light of the international legal requirements).

108 Ignatieff (n 1) 8.

109 For an overview of this debate see S Choudhry, ‘Migration as a New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law’ in Choudhry, S (ed), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (CUP, Cambridge, 2006) 113.

110 Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), diss. op. Justice Scalia.

111 See, for example, Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 575 (2005), Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Kennedy; Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 345 (2003), Justice O’Connor, concurring.

112 See, for example, Jalloh v Germany, ECHR 2006-IX, paras 49 ff and 105 for a reference to the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court; A and others v United Kingdom, 49 EHRR 29, paras 111 (for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada) and 112 (US Supreme Court); see further Wildhaber, L, ‘The Role of Comparative Law in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Bröhmer, J (ed), Internationale Gemeinschaft und Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Georg Ress (Heymanns, Cologne, 2005) 1101.

113 Cyprus v Turkey, ECHR 2001-IV, paras 85 ff (for references to the International Court of Justice); al-Adsani v United Kingdom, ECHR 2001-XI, para 60 (for a reference to the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia); Mangouras v Spain, App No 12050/04, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 28 September 2010, paras 46, 89 (for references to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea), available at <> accessed 13 January 2013.

114 For references to the practice of the UN Human Rights Committee see, for example, Mammatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, ECHR 2005-I, paras 114, 124; Öcalan v Turkey, App No 46221/99, Judgment of 12 March 2003, para 203 (in this respect upheld by the Grand Chamber in ECHR 2005-IV, para 166).

115 Nußberger, A, ‘Wer zitiert wen? Zur Funktion von Zitaten bei der Herausbildung gemeineuropäischen Verfassungsrechts’ (2006) 61 JuristenZeitung 763, 766 with fn 20.

116 McCrudden, C, ‘A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights’ (2000) 20 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 499, 507. A rare exception for criticism of the use of foreign and international materials in Germany is Hillgruber, C, ‘Ohne rechtes Maß? Eine Kritik der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts nach 60 Jahren’ (2011) 66 JuristenZeitung 856, 868 and 871; see also the more nuanced contributions of Kaiser, AB, ‘Verfassungsvergleichung durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht: Ein Kommentar’ (2010) 18 Journal für Rechtspolitik 203; Sauer, H, ‘Verfassungsvergleichung durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht: Zur Bedeutung der Verfassungsvergleichung für die Auslegung des Grundgesetzes’ (2010) 18 Journal für Rechtspolitik 194.

117 Weber, A, Europäische Verfassungsvergleichung (CH Beck, Munich, 2010) 7–8, 1011; see also Kumm, M, ‘The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship Between Constitutionalism in and beyond the State’ in Dunoff, JL and Trachtman, JP (eds), Ruling the World: Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (CUP, Cambridge, 2009) 258, 305–6.

118 For example, courts in democracies such as India or South Africa regularly cite decisions of foreign domestic as well as international courts. See with further references Benvenisti, E, ‘Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 241.

119 This argument is advanced, in particular, by Bradford and Posner (n 5) 16; Safrin (n 5) 1314.

120 See in particular JHH Weiler, ‘The External Legal Relations of Non-Unitary Actors: Mixity and the Federal Principle’ in JHH Weiler (ed), The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor”? And Other Essays on European Integration (CUP, Cambridge, 1999) 130; see further P Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law (Hart, Oxford, 2006) 135–81.

121 Safrin (n 5) 1328–30.

122 Wessel, RA, ‘The EU as a Party to International Agreements: Shared Competences, Mixed Responsibilities’ in Dashwood, A and Maresceau, M (eds), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape (CUP, Cambridge, 2008) 152; Tietje (n 104) 64–7; Hoffmeister, F, ‘Litigating against the European Union and its Member States’ (2010) 21 European Journal of International Law 723.

123 On the limited international legal personality of international organizations see Schmalenbach, K, ‘International Organizations or Institutions, General Aspects’ in Wolfrum, R (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol V (OUP, Oxford, 2012) 1126, para 23.

124 Bradford and Posner (n 5) 14.

125 de Búrca (n 5) 690–1.

126 SC Res 1973, UN Doc S/RES/1973 (17 March 2011).

127 On the constitutional requirements for the use of force see Nolte, G, ‘Germany: Ensuring Political Legitimacy for the Use of Military Forces by Requiring Constitutional Accountability’ in Ku, C and Jacobson, HK (eds), Democratic Accountability and the Use of Force in International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2003) 231.

128 Bradford and Posner (n 5) 16.

129 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the European Union, art 4, para 2, 9 May 2008, 2008 OJ (C 115) 13; on the implications of this provision see von Bogdandy, A and Schill, S, ‘Overcoming Absolute Primacy: Respect for National Identity under the Lisbon Treaty’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 1147; particularly on ‘constitutional identity’ in a European composite style see Pernice, I, ‘Der Schutz nationaler Identität in der Europäischen Union’ (2011) 136 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 185, 210.

130 See Cremona, M, ‘The Union as a Global Actor: Roles, Models and Identity’ (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 553.

131 Safrin (n 5).

132 On the limited impact of the EU as a normative power see, for instance, Bendiek, A and Kramer, H, ‘The EU as a ‘‘Strategic’’ International Actor: Substantial and Analytical Ambiguities’ (2010) 15 European Foreign Affairs Review 453, 467–9; Smith, KE, ‘The European Union at the Human Rights Council: Speaking with One Voice But Having Little Influence’ (2010) 17 Journal of European Public Policy 224.

133 Meunier, S and Nicolaїdis, K, ‘The European Union as a Conflicted Trade Power’ (2006) 13 Journal of European Public Policy 906, 922.

134 de Witte, B, ‘International Law as a Tool for the European Union’, (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 265, 278–9; the concept of ‘norm generator’ was first used by Cremona (n 130) 557.

135 Meunier and Nicolaїdis (n 133) 913.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

European exceptionalism?



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.