Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-n7x5d Total loading time: 0.158 Render date: 2021-12-02T06:11:09.367Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2013

ANDREAS FOLLESDAL*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 6706, St. Olavs plass (Cort Adelersgate 30) N-0130 Oslo

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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 LawAmerican Society of International Law Proceedings 94 (2000) 240–53.

Google Scholar

5 Carozza, PG, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 3879.

CrossRefGoogle 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 Critics9 Philosophy and Public Affairs (1980) 209–29.

Google Scholar

10 Rawls, J, The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999).

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 4875.

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

15 Caney, S, ‘Liberalism and Communitarianism: A Misconceived Debate’ (1992) 40 Political Studies 273–89.

CrossRefGoogle 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 [1603] (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, 1718.

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

22 Hamilton, A, Madison, J and Jay, J, The Federalist (Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT, 1961).

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Sanders, LM, ‘Against Deliberation’ (1997) 25 Political Theory 347–77.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Majone, G, ‘Europe’s ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: The Question of Standards’ (1998) 4 European Law Journal 528; 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

27 Maritain, J, Man and the State (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1951).

Google Scholar

28 Roepke, W, ‘Liberalism and Christianity’ (1947) 46 Commonweal 328–32, 18 July.

Google Scholar

29 Koskenniemi, M, ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law,’ (2009) 15 European Journal of International Relations 395422; Koskenniemi, M, ‘The Future of Statehood’ (1991) 32 Harvard International Law Journal 397410.

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).

31 Letsas, G, ‘Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 705–32.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

34 Weiler, JHH, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100 Yale Law Review 2403–83.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Lisbon Treaty art 5.3.

36 Lisbon Treaty Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, art 8.

37 Cooper, I, ‘The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU’ (2006) 44 Journal of Common Market Studies 281304.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 7386.

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).

50 Crema, L, ‘Disappearance and New Sightings of Restrictive Interpretation(s)’ (2010) 21 The European Journal of International Law 681700 .

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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) 297319.

Google Scholar

54 Shany, Y, ‘Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?’ (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 907–40.

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Walzer (n 9) 229.

56 Beitz, CR, The Idea of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).

CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
19
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *