The First Senate of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), in its decision from 16 January 2002, found one section of Germany's heavily debated Ladenschlussgesetz (LadschlG – Shop Closing Act) to be unconstitutional.

The bewildering number of articles and books which concern or touch upon the European constitutional debate remind one, at times, of a children's orchestra in which each child plays as loud as possible (more in order to hear themselves than to make themselves heard) and without listening carefully to the parts of others. The result is, simultaneously, an inharmonious cacophony of individual instruments to the skilled listener; an encompassing and confusing wall of sound to the amateur. Refined only slightly, the crude and unoriginal analogy is not far off the mark in describing the community of scholars working in the field of European constitutionalism: it is rare to find a commentator willing to grasp the score as a whole; most choosing, instead, to focus only on their section. Interdisciplinary research seems to be just as often proclaimed as it is ignored. While it would be both undesirable and impossible to have (keeping with musical metaphor) everyone singing from the same song-sheet, an orchestra can accommodate a wide variety of sounds and parts before it descends into the sort of tuneless noise one associates with so many school orchestras.

The accession of up to twelve East-European States to the European Union in the next decade is likely to change the possibilities for substantive consensus within the Union for the worse. Yet, the consensus on the means to pursue the objectives of the Union has thus far made European integration successful. Insofar as the feasibility of substantial consent between the Member States diminishes, the need to have rules and principles regulating the conflict between the relevant actors increases. These rules and principles must facilitate the creation of solutions to the new challenges that face the Union. Thus, it is essential for the Union's future that the law of the European Union offers both such rules and principles. One of the most outstanding principles which could perform this important task is the principle of loyalty as developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) based on Article 10 EC Treaty.

The question of the detention of suspected Al-Quaida terrorists on Cuba is fast on its way to becoming a cause célèbre. It has all the attributes of it: the big names, the imminent courtroom drama, the drumbeat of the media. Camp X-Ray has become a symbol, although, of what is not entirely clear.

On 3 December 2001 the German Minister of Justice, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, presented a draft of legislation aiming at the elimination of discrimination in the private sector and declared her firm determination to have the law passed before the end of this parliamentary term. Presentation of the draft legislation complied with paragraph IX.10 of the Coalition Agreement of 20 October 1998, which anticipates these efforts.

On February 14, 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered a judgement in Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium). The dispute had arisen after a Belgian investigating judge issued an international arrest warrant - based on charges of war crimes in an internal armed conflict and crimes against humanity - against the incumbent Minister for foreign affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi. The arrest warrant was issued under the Belgian Law of 16 June 1993 (as amended by the Law of 10 February 1999) which establishes that Belgian courts shall have “pure” universal jurisdiction in respect of serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Court found that Belgium violated its legal obligations towards the DRC in that it failed to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability which the then Minister for Foreign Affairs of the DRC enjoyed under international law. The Court also found that Belgium must cancel the arrest warrant and so inform the authorities to whom it was circulated.