Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2013
This paper explores subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law. Some authors have appealed to a principle of subsidiarity in order to defend the legitimacy of several striking features of international law, such as the centrality of state consent, the leeway in assessing state compliance and weak sanctions in its absence. The article presents such defences of state-centric aspects of international law by appeals to subsidiarity, and finds them wanting. Different interpretations of subsidiarity have strikingly different institutional implications regarding the objectives of the polity, the domain and role of subunits, and the allocation of authority to apply the principle of subsidiarity itself. Five different interpretations are explored, drawn from Althusius, the US federalists, Pope Leo XIII, and others. One upshot is that the principle of subsidiarity cannot provide normative legitimacy to the state-centric aspects of current international law on its own. It stands in need of substantial interpretation. The versions of subsidiarity that match current practices of public international law are questionable. Many crucial aspects of our legal order must be reconsidered – in particular the standing and scope of state sovereignty.
1 United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
2 G de Búrca, ‘Reappraising Subsidiarity’s Significance after Amsterdam’ (2000) Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper, No. 7/99, available at <http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/99/990701.rtf>.
3 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 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009) 294.Google Scholar
4 Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Liberal Theory of International Law’ American Society of International Law Proceedings 94 (2000) 240–53.Google Scholar
6 Interlaken Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, ‘Interlaken Declaration, February 19’ (2010).
7 Kumm (n 3) 295.
8 Marquardt, PD, ‘Subsidiarity and Sovereignty in the European Union’ (1994) 18 Fordham International Law Journal 617.Google Scholar
9 Walzer, M, ‘The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics’ 9 Philosophy and Public Affairs (1980) 209–29.Google Scholar
11 Buchanan, A, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec (Westview, Boulder, CO, 1991).Google Scholar
12 Beitz, CR, ‘Cosmopolitanism Liberalism and the States System’ in Brown, Chris (ed), Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994) 123–36; Pogge, TW, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’ (1992) 103 Ethics 48–75.
13 Rawls, J, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971); see also Rawls (n 10).Google Scholar
14 Pettit, P, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997).Google Scholar
16 Walzer, M, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (Basic, New York, 1983).Google Scholar
17 Althusius, J, Politica Methodice Digesta  (Liberty Press, Indianapolis, IN 1995) ch. 28.Google Scholar
18 A Kuyper, ‘Souvereniteit in Eigen Kring: Rede Ter Inwijding Van De Vrije Universiteit Den 20sten October 1880’ (JH Kryut, Amsterdam, 1880); De Klerk, WA, The Puritans in Africa: A story of Afrikanerdom (Rex Collings, London, 1975) 255–60.Google Scholar
19 Walzer (n 9); Cohen, J, ‘Review of Walzer’s Spheres of Justice’ (1986) 83 Journal of Philosophy 457–68; Scanlon, TM, ‘Local Justice’ (1985) London Review of Books, 5 September, 17–18.
20 Montesquieu, C, Spirit of Laws (Prometheus, Amherst, NY, 2002); Scharpf, FW, ‘The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’ (1988) 66 Public Administration 239–78.
21 Beer, SH, To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993) 230.Google Scholar
24 Majone, G, ‘Europe’s ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: The Question of Standards’ (1998) 4 European Law Journal 5–28; Moravcsik, A, ‘In Defence of the ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’ (2002) 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 603–24.
25 Leo, XIII, ‘Rerum Novarum’ in Carlen, C (ed), The Papal Encyclicals 1903–1939 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1981).Google Scholar
26 Pius, XI, ‘Quadragesimo Anno’ in Carlen, C (ed), The Papal Encyclicals 1903–1939 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1981).Google Scholar
29 Koskenniemi, M, ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law,’ (2009) 15 European Journal of International Relations 395–422; Koskenniemi, M, ‘The Future of Statehood’ (1991) 32 Harvard International Law Journal 397–410.
30 Rawls, J, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, New York, 1993); Barry, B, Theories of Justice: A Treatise on Social Justice (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1989).
32 Deutschland Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl) (1949) art 72.2.3.
33 Treaty of Lisbon, Official Journal of the European Union, C 306 of 17 December 2007.
35 Lisbon Treaty art 5.3.
36 Lisbon Treaty Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, art 8.
38 Lisbon Treaty art 7.
39 Art F.1.
40 Miller, D, On Nationality (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995) 257; Manin, cf B, ‘On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation’ (1987) 15 Political Theory 352.
41 Walzer (n 9). Cf Doppelt, G, ‘Statism without Foundations’ (1980) 9 Philosophy and Public Affairs 398–43.Google Scholar
42 Weiler, JHH, The Constitution of Europe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).Google Scholar
43 John, XXIII, ‘Mater et Magistra’ in The Papal Encyclicals 1958–1981 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1961) para 20; Leo, XIII, ‘Sapientiae Christianae’ (1890) in Cronin, JF, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life (Bruce Publishing, Milwaukee, WI, 1950).
44 Follesdal, A, ‘The Political Theory of the White Paper on Governance: Hidden and Fascinating’ (2003) 9 European Public Law 73–86.Google Scholar
45 Lisbon Treaty arts 2 and 3.
46 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art 19.
47 Donnelly, J, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (2nd edn, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2003).Google Scholar
48 Walzer (n 10) 215; cf Doppelt (n 41).
49 Kumm (n 3).
51 Advisory Opinion, ‘Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne’ (1925) PCIJ Series B No. 12 7 cited in Crema ibid 685.
52 United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) art 31.
53 Bernhardt, R, ‘Human Rights and Judicial Review: The European Court of Human Rights’ in Beatty, M (ed), Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1994) 297–319.Google Scholar
55 Walzer (n 9) 229.
57 Macdonald, RSJ, ‘The Margin of Appreciation,’ in Macdonald, RSJ, Matscher, F and Petzold, H (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) 123.Google Scholar