The European Commission's recent decision to block the US $42 billion proposed merger between General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc. was, as breathlessly reported by the international press, a tale of personalities, high politics, and conflicting ideologies. The respective story lines made for gripping journalism concering the clash between a world business icon and a former Italian economics professor, the US administration's accusations of illegitimate application of extraterritorial jurisdiction and undemocratic exercise of authority by the Commission, the Commission's counter-accusations of attempts at political interference, and the dispute over divergent theories of competitive markets. (Indeed, the events may be worthy subject matter for a sequel to “Antitrust”, a dramatization of the Microsoft antitrust case now playing in theatres).

At the best of times, the issue of immigration is sensitive and related debate heated. At times such as these, it cannot be expected to be handled sensibly. The decision of the German Interior Minister following the terrorist attacks in the United States not to submit proposed immigration legislation to Cabinet on September 26 was, from this perspective alone, wise. Historical examples of the mistakes in policymaking that can result from deficient democratic discourse are legion and are most commonly made during times of political crisis. Unfortunately, the resultant mistakes may be thereby all the graver, as the policies concern issues of fundamental national importance.

In this presentation I shall start with a brief introduction into the concept of Reflexive Law (Part I), in order to examine what makes especially Reflexive Law a promising candidate for a fruitful contribution to the ongoing debate on the normative-legal or mere social-factual status of Lex Mercatoria (Part II), and finally coming up with the suggestion of some criteria or features, which we should draw special attention on in the process of the emergence of a New Law Merchant as an autonomous legal system (Part III).

In two recent decisions, the German Federal Constitutional Court [Bundesverfassungsgericht - FCC] has clarified important issues of the interaction of national and European law. While both decisions deal with the obligation of German courts to refer questions of European law to the ECJ, one of them particularly addresses the crucial question whether national laws implementing European directives can be challenged before the FCC.

“Not a year goes by without some fresh blueprint being drawn up and fed into the continuing debate. Each succeeding blueprint can be likened to the way in which some artists go over their work again and again, gradually building up a deep richness to the emerging picture.” “Old paint on canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent. When that happens it is possible, in some pictures, to see the original lines: a tree will show through a woman's dress, a child makes way for a dog, a large boat is no longer on an open sea. That is called pentimento because the painter ‘repented,’ changed his mind. Perhaps it would be as well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again.”

The series of labour market reforms recently introduced across Europe may have struck many observers in North America, as it did critics on the continent, as incongruous. The reforms, whose main purpose is to extend worker protection, come at a time when economic growth on the continent is slowing markedly. From the perspective of German, French, Spanish and European legislators, however, the reforms are sensible and timely, conducive to international competitiveness. How can these diametrically opposed assessments about such a fundamental matter be explained?

A survey on Internet use by employees at their workstations published by Sterling Commerce on 29 August 2000, showed that more than 60% of those employees that have access to the internet surf at least once a day for personal rather than their official business reasons. That means that every employee, on average, is online for about 3.2 hours each week — for personal reasons. This fact — according to the Sterling Report — causes a yearly loss for employers of about 104 Billion Deutsche Marks. In this calculation, costs for the connection to the Internet are not included.

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.

It has been a long journey from the noble declaration in the Federal Republic's new constitution (Grundgesetz [Basic Law]) that women and men have equal rights, to the establishment of concrete laws and jurisprudence that now assure that women and men actually receive equal treatment and that women are no longer disadvantaged in society (and even more, laws and jurisprudence that assure that women receive support if they encounter structural disadvantages). This article, in looking back on its first fifty years of service, surveys the decisive role that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) played in that journey.

As professor Antonio Cassese rightly said in a public speech on September 26, the terrorist attacks on the US not only caused an unbearable number of innocent victims, but they are also disrupting some of the most important international legal categories that seemed to be consolidated until September 11, 2001.

On 9 October 2001, the European Court of Justice dismissed (1) a challenge by the Netherlands with the support of Italy and Norway against the Community Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. (2) Although the Biotech Directive relates to a wide range of public concerns and the Application for its annulment was based on a half-dozen different pleas, the following article will focus on the case as it relates to European Community treaty limitations. It will critically examine the perspectives on the principles of harmonisation and subsidiarity presented in the Application, the Advocate General's Opinion and the Court's Judgment within the broader context of the Community/Union's past and future development. The examination will reveal that in this case the Court has foregone a good opportunity to delimit 'positive integration'. (3) It could have made an important contribution to the on-going discussion about power-sharing between the national and supranational levels. While the judgment does strongly affirm the positive integration paradigm, the margins of the EU's legislative policy competences remain blurred due to its oft-opaque reasoning. The judgment raises, directly and indirectly, as many questions as it answers.

The aim of this article is to contribute to our understanding of the legal and political dimensions of treaty reform in the European Union (EU). It raises a conceptual issue by addressing the conditions under which Chancellor Kohl yielded to an increase in sub-national influence and the extent to which Länder (Federal State) politicians were able to exercise that influence to determine the outcome in a key area during the Amsterdam European Council, 16–18 June 1997. (3) The initial section highlights a political and legal analysis of German politics and European treaty reform during the 1996 process. The second section explores emerging asymmetrical specificity on the German political and institutional landscape post-Maastricht. The closing section offers an explanation of the results in qualified majority voting (QMV) for the treaty provisions on freedom, security and justice at Amsterdam, and the implications for our understanding of treaty reform in the Union.