European constitutional thinking is still alive and is being shaped by the European Court of Justice into a value constitutionalism. Not only the Treaties, but also constitutional principles derived from EU law, are the common standard of review. Autonomy and constitutionality merge. In the light of this situation the Federal Constitutional Court’s PPSP-judgment with its insistence on limitations of competences and on democratic self-determination appears outdated. However, for the time being, Member States agreed to cooperate in a treaty based political union and do not have a consensus on a “good order” in organized Europe. The Court should abstain from the temptation to operate with values because presumably it would not be able to achieve the substantiation and the creation of a value hierarchy with the necessary acceptance.

The European Union stands for the successful public ordering of “Europe.” Its goal is to shape and organize this political and economic area through law, a project involving societies of different mentalities, western democracies, old and young countries in transition, and former Great Powers. That might be ambitious enough, but pressure from outside the Union is also increasing. Alternative concepts campaign strongly to win supporters. The Union's integration agenda is plagued by obvious economic, financial, and social problems. A dissenting spirit has emerged around strongly held convictions concerning what has caused the problems and who should be held responsible. It is a dissenting spirit that, following the Brexit-referendum 23 June 2016, will have significant consequences. Now we have the first withdrawal of a Member State from the European Union.

Sixty years after the promulgation of the German constitution, which from the beginning was distinguished by its “visionary openness towards Europe,” the German Federal Constitutional Court reassessed the historic process of European integration. It reviewed the compatibility of the legal foundations of the European Union with the German Basic Law and provided a thorough overview. The Treaty of Lisbon and its sweeping, integrating reform of the European Union is compatible with the Basic Law, the Court's Second Senate ruled, so long as it is applied within the framework outlined by the Federal Constitutional Court. However, the Court found that the German implementation law is not consistent with the Basic Law. Accordingly, the Court made clear that Germany can continue with the ratification of the treaty only after introducing a new implementation law. The 147-page decision could be summarised in the following way: The European Union is an association of sovereign states and, hence, a secondary political area.

The European Court of Human Rights, on 30 June 2005, handed down its long awaited judgment in the case Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland. The case concerned the responsibility of contracting parties for legal measures induced by the European Community.

Both internationalists and national constitutionalists are currently reflecting on changes in the basic structures of public law. From the national perspective, the process of globalization puts into question the hitherto generally accepted position of constitutional law as being at the top of the pyramid of norms. In international law, the development of subject-oriented régimes has led to a proliferation of international courts and other bodies entrusted with the resolution of disputes. This tendency entails a danger of fragmentation which contrasts with the current tendency to discover processes of constitutionalization in international law. Starting from the functions of the constitution in national law, the following paper develops in the first part elements of constitutionalization in international law in general (I.). In the second part, the identified problems are elaborated upon in more detail with respect to the law of the World Trade Organization (II.).

On 12 December 2001, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found the case Bankovic et al. vs. 17 NATO and ECHR- Member States (NATO Bombing Case) inadmissible.

On July 12, 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down its judgement in the case of Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany (application number 42527/98). The Court of Human Rights unanimously rejected the applicant's alle-gation that Germany violated Article 6 § 1 (access to court and fairness of the proceedings), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Council of Europe on July 3, 2001, released the Second Report on Germany prepared by its European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). (1) ECRI is a mechanism to combat racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance that was established by the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the Council of Europe at their Summit in Vienna on October 9, 1993, and improved during the Strasbourg Summit held on October 10–11, 1997.