¹ The paper is based on a presentation by the authors at a workshop organized under the auspices of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) on 11 October 2003 at the Bucerius Law School, Hamburg.Google Scholar

² This part is largely based on earlier publications, see Christian Walter, Die Folgen der Globalisierung für die europäische Verfassungsdiskussion, 115 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl.) 1 (2000); Christian Walter, Constitutionalizing (Inter)national Governance – Possibilities for an Limits to the Development of an International Constitutional Law, German Yearbook of International Law 44 (2001), pp. 170.Google Scholar

³ Habermas, Jürgen, The European Nation State – its achievements and its limitations, Rechtstheorie, Suppl. 17, 109,112 (1997).Google Scholar

⁴ For both aspects of the traditional concept see recently Christian Hillgruber, Souveränität – Verteidigung eines Rechtsbegriffs, 57 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 1072 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵ Lotus, PCIJ 1927, Series A, No. 10, 18.Google Scholar

⁶ As to that distinction see W. Friedmann, The Changing Structure of International Law, 1964, 60 ff.Google Scholar

⁷ In German national constitutional law this aspect is aptly reflected in the formula of “open statehood”, see Udo Di Fabio, Das Recht offener Staaten (1998).Google Scholar

⁸ See the most recent decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht of 5 November 2003, 2 BvR 1506/03; available in English language version at: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20031105_2bvr150603en: “[T]he Federal Constitutional Court indirectly dedicates itself to the cause of enforcing international law and thereby reduces the risk of non-compliance with international law.”, para. 38.Google Scholar

⁹ As to their religious dimension see Jochen A. Frowein, Religionsfreiheit und internationaler Menschenrechtsschutz, in Religionsfreiheit zwischen individueller Selbstbestimmung, Minderheitenschutz und Staatskirchenrecht – Völker- und verfassungsrechtliche Perspektiven, 73, p. 73 (Rainer Grote/Thilo Marauhn eds., 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Reisman, Michael, Designing and Managing the Future of the State, 8 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 409, 416 (1997).Google Scholar

¹¹ The changing role of the State under the circumstances of globalization is subject of many contributions see among others, John A. Perkins The Changing Foundations of International Law: From State Consent to State Responsibility, 15 Boston University International Law Journal 433 (1997); Oscar Schachter, The Decline of the Nation-State and ist Implications for International Law, 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (Colum. J. Transnat'l L.) 7 (1997); Jochen Abr. Frowein, Constitutionalism in the Face of the Changing Nation State, in Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy – a comparative analysis (Christian Starck ed. 1999), 53; Peer Zumbansen, Die vergangene Zukunft des Völkerrechts, 34 Kritische Justiz (KJ) 46 (2001); Peer Zumbansen, Spiegelungen von Staat und Gesellschaft – Governance-Erfahrungen in der Globalisierungsdebatte, in: Globalisierung als Problem von Gerechtigkeit und Steuerungsfähigkeit des Rechts (M. Anderheiden / St. Huster / St. Kirste eds.), 79 ARSP-Beiheft 15 (2001); St. Hobe, Der offene Verfassungsstaat zwischen Souveränität und Interdependenz (1998).Google Scholar

¹² Hurrell, Andrew, International Law and the Changing Constitution of International Society, in The Role of Law in International Politics, 327, 338 (M. Byers ed. 2000); D. Kennedy, The Forgotten Politics of International Governance, 6 European Human Rights Law Review (EHRLR) 117, 118 (2001), speaks of a “porous boundary.”Google Scholar

¹³ ILM Vol. 28, 1989, 657.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Art. 4 Section 5 of the Convention: „A Party shall not permit hazardous wastes or other wastes to be exported to a non-Party or to be imported from a non-Party“Google Scholar

¹⁵ Solutions have been advanced by several authors. See for instance Otfried Höffe, Demokratie im Zeitalter der Globalisierung (1999); David Held, Democracy and the Global Order (1995); for an overview of positions see Armin von Bogdandy, Demokratie, Globalisierung, Zukunft des Völkerrechts – eine Bestandsaufnahme, in 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht No. 4 (2003), forthcoming.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See generally Trevor Clayton Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law, 4^th ed., pp. 132 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁷ A case is pending before the Court of First Instance of the European Community, see O.J. 2002 C 44/27. and an order of the Court concerning provisional measures (case T-306/01; available at http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=de); see in this respect Nicola Vennemann, European Union, in Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security vs. Liberty? (Christian Walter/Silja Vöneky/Volker Röben/Frank Schorkopf eds. (2004), forthcoming, available at: http://edoc.mpil.de/conference-on-terrorism/country.cfm.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Biehler, Gernot, Individuelle Sanktionen der Vereinten Nationen und Grundrechte, 41 Archiv des Völkerrechts (AVR) 169 (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁹ BVerfGE 89, 155 – Maastricht.Google Scholar

²⁰ BVerfGE 73, 339, 378.Google Scholar

²¹ Eur. Court H. R., Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, Judgment of 18 December 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, 393 -; see also the parallel case Beer and Regan v. Germany, No. 28934/95; available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc (visited on 12 November 2003).Google Scholar

²² Id., Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, para. 63.Google Scholar

²³ Id., para. 67.Google Scholar

²⁴ “[T]he Court finds that, in giving effect to the immunity from jurisdiction of ESA on the basis of Section 20(2) of the Courts Act, the German courts did not exceed their margin of appreciation. Taking into account in particular the alternative means of legal process available to the applicants, it cannot be said that the limitation on their access to the German courts with regard to ESA impaired the essence of their “right to a court” or was disproportionate for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.”, id., para. 73.Google Scholar

²⁵ See in this respect Christian Walter, Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als Konstitutionalisierungsprozeß, 59 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 961, 980 (1999).Google Scholar

²⁶ The German Federal Constitutional Court has used similar arguments in a recent decision concerning the European Patent Office, which is an organ of the European Patent Organization based in Munich. See Federal Constitutional Court, 4th Chamber of the Second Senate, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2705 (2001).Google Scholar

²⁷ Eur. Court H. R., Loizidou v. Turkey, Series A, Decision of 23 March 1995, No. 310, 23; Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 May 2001, No. 25781/94; Bankovic v. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, Decision of 12 December 2001, No. 52207/99, para. 61. Instructive on the development of case-law in this respect Parliamentary Assembly Report – Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Rapporteur Christos Pourgourides, Areas where the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be implemented (Doc. 9730) of 11.3.2003, available at: http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc03/EDOC9730.htm.Google Scholar

²⁸ An introduction to this conflict is given by Kampf, Roger, Patents versus patients?, 40 Archiv des Völkerrechts 90 (2002).Google Scholar

²⁹ Section 27 of the Constitution: Health care, food, water and social security (1) Everyone has the right to have access to – (a) health care services, including reproductive health care; (b) sufficient food and water; and (c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance. (2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights. […].Google Scholar

³⁰ Constitutional Court of South Africa, Case CCT 8/02, Judgment of 5 July 2002, available at: http://www.concourt.gov.za/.Google Scholar

³¹ A systematic overview is given by Peter-Tobias Stoll / Frank Schorkopf, WTO – Welthandelsordnung und Welthandelsrecht, para 587 et seq. (2002).Google Scholar

³² Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2, 14 November 2001, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm. See Frederick M. Abbott, The Doha Declaration of the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, 5 Journal of international economic law 469 (2002) and Christoph Herrmann, TRIPS, Patentschutz für Medikamente und staatliche Gesundheitspolitik, 13 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 37 (2002).Google Scholar

³³ This is sometimes called the “Paragraph 6 issue”, coming as it does under that paragraph in the separate Doha declaration on TRIPS and health.Google Scholar

³⁴ Implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health, WT/L/540, Decision of 30 August 2003, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/implem_para6_e.htm. See Michael Slonina, Durchbruch im Spannungsverhältnis TRIPS and Health: Die WTO-Entscheidung zu Exporten unter Zwangslizenzen, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, vol.20, September 2003, pp. 8 available at: http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de.Google Scholar

³⁵ Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, O.J. 1997 L 73/5.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Georg C. Umbricht, An “amicus curiae brief” on amicus curiae briefs at the WTO, 4 Journal of international economic law 773 (2001).Google Scholar

³⁷ Compare WT/DS58/AB/R of 12 October 1998 – US – Countervailing Duty; WT/DS135/AB/R of 7 June 2000, para. 39-42, see also the Report on the General Council Meeting of 23 January 2001, WT/GC/M/57, para. 7.Google Scholar

³⁸ Case C-224/98, Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop v. Office national de l'emploi, 2002 ECR I-6191; Case C-413/99, Baumbast und R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2002 ECR I-7091. See Anastasia Iliopoulou / Helen Toner, A new approach to discrimination against free movers?, 28 European Law Review 389 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁹ Article 19 (1) TEC.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ But see Uerpmann, Robert, Internationales Verfassungsrecht, 56 JZ 565 (2001).Google Scholar