What Kind of Constitution for What Kind of Polity? Responses To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Editors Christian Joerges Yves Mény Contributions by J. H. H. Weiler Giuliano Amato Klaus von Beyme Tanja Börzel Renaud Dehousse Christian Joerges What Kind of Constitution Charles Leben M. Rainer Lepsius for What Kind of Polity? Agustín José Menéndez Yves Mény Iulia Motoc Responses to Joschka Fischer Dietmar Nickel Johan P. Olsen Thomas Risse Helen Wallace J. H. H. Weiler Jan Zielonka Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE The Jean Monnet Chair HARVARD LAW SCHOOL THE ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES AT THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, MA What Kind of Constitution for What Kind of Polity? – Responses to Joschka Fischer – Christian Joerges, Yves Mény & J.H.H. Weiler (editors) Websites: The contributions to this volume may also be found at: http://www.iue.it/RSC/symposium/ http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/JeanMonnet/papers/00/symp.html Joschka Fischer’s speech and official translations may be found at: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/2_aktuel/index.htm All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the authors © Remains with the individual authors Printed in Italy in November 2000 European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I-50016 San Domenico (FI) Italy Table of Contents Table of Contents: ........................................................................................................................i Prologue: THE FISCHER DEBATE: THE BRIGHT SIDE .........................................................1 Christian Joerges, Yves Mény, & J.H.H. Weiler The Speech: VOM STAATENVERBUND ZUR FÖDERATION: GEDANKEN ÜBER DIE FINALITÄT DER EUROPÄISCHEN INTEGRATION.................................................5 FROM CONFEDERACY TO FEDERATION: THOUGHTS ON THE FINALITY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION .........................................................................19 DE LA CONFÉDÉRATION À LA FÉDÉRATION: RÉFLEXION SUR LA FINALITÉ DE ĽINTÉGRATION EUROPÉENNE ....................................................31 Speech by Joschka Fischer at the Humboldt University in Berlin, 12 May 2000 Comments: Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse WHO IS AFRAID OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION? HOW TO CONSTITUTIONALISE A MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM ........................45 Klaus von Beyme FISCHERS GRIFF NACH EINER EUROPÄISCHEN VERFASSUNG...........................61 FISCHER'S MOVE TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION...............................73 Charles Leben FÉDÉRATION D'ETATS-NATIONS OU ÉTAT FÉDÉRAL?......................................85 A FEDERATION OF NATION-STATES OR A FEDERAL STATE?............................99 Giuliano Amato UN CŒUR FORT POUR ĽEUROPE....................................................................113 A STRONG HEART FOR EUROPE ....................................................................119 Agustín José Menéndez ANOTHER VIEW OF THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ........................................................................125 Table of Contents Helen Wallace POSSIBLE FUTURES FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION: A BRITISH REACTION .........139 Jan Zielonka ENLARGEMENT AND THE FINALITY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION .................151 Johan P. Olsen HOW, THEN, DOES ONE GET THERE?............................................................163 Iulia Motoc EUROPE AND ITS TELEOLOGY: IS THERE A CENTRAL-EASTERN VISION?………….………..……….…..…181 Renaud Dehousse REDISCOVERING FUNCTIONALISM ...............................................................195 M. Rainer Lepsius DIE EUROPÄISCHE UNION ALS HERRSCHAFTSVERBAND EIGENER PRÄGUNG ....................................................................................................203 THE EUROPEAN UNION AS A SOVEREIGNTY ASSOCIATION OF A SPECIAL NATURE ......................................................................................................213 Dietmar Nickel MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITIES OF THE ENLARGED EUROPEAN UNION..........................................................223 Epilogue: FISCHER: THE DARK SIDE ............................................................................235 J.H.H. Weiler Bibliography: ......................................................................................................................iii List of Contributors: ....................................................................................................................xiii ii Prologue The Fischer Debate: The Bright Side I. Does Europe need a Constitution? Does it already have one, albeit one which does not generate the type of legitimacy that good European governance would require? What are the failures of the European construct that we have to address? How could the necessary changes be brought about? Such questions nurture endless discussions among lawyers and political scientists all over Europe and beyond. To its surprise, this learned community hears about a talk given on 12 May 2000 at the Humboldt University in Berlin by Joschka Fischer. ‘Allow me … to cast aside for the duration of this speech the mantle of German Foreign Minister …. Although I know it is not really possible to do so,’ Herr Fischer explained. Whether possible or not, one huge virtue was on display: that this was not a speech with electoral returns or the prospects of pre-election pep-talks in mind—a truly bright and a refreshing breath of fresh air in today’s politics. His talk became immediately accessible in three languages not only through the website of the Walter Hallstein Institute at the Humboldt University but also as a ‘Grundsatzrede’ on the website of the German Bundestag. A wide degree of public attention was hoped for and was, in fact, received. The German Foreign Minister had initiated an intensive public debate. The responses in Europe were heard primarily in the various political arenas of the Union’s Member States and were often enough articulated by citizen Fischer’s high ranking colleagues. Public attention was not restricted to the political system and organised public opinion. Only rarely do politicians free themselves in public from the constraints of their roles of being either the specialist managing necessities or the generalist delivering uncontroversial messages. Our initiative was born out of academic curiosity for a tertium. We witnessed the emergence of a European-wide discussion on problems and prospects of the European polity inspired by an unconventional type of political act and wondered whether we could mirror this event: how does the academic world address the issues raised in the political system and what, indeed, do academics have to say when they themselves leave their own circles to raise their voices as citizens? Prologue Such an initiative can neither be representative or original1 in any way nor can it articulate some form of communis opinio—academics, appropriately, are good at unveiling ever more problems but not, perhaps, at coming up with common answers. What we sought to bring about was a multi-disciplinary, multi- national, pluralist response which would document common concerns and the existence of a European public sphere—at least in the social sub-system we inhabit. With our initiative, we step outside the ordinary confines of the academic world in much the same way as Joschka Fischer operates outside the conventional borders of the political system. This is neither to suggest that both worlds could merge nor to establish a hierarchy among them. However, it nonetheless remains our ambition to enrich the public debate. II. How might one read this collection of essays? We did not try to assign specific tasks to the individual contributors. Each and every one of them represents specific research priorities, long-term orientations and normative preferences. Their interdisciplinary and multi-national composition ensured a range of responses which, in some, would, to some degree, be complementary, in others controversial, but never ever simply redundant. We also did not bother too much with editing style: on the websites where these contributions were made accessible,2 the voices one could read were authentic, having met only with the lightest of touches from the editor’s pen. In these printed versions, the English of non-native writers has been edited, albeit not with the ambition of camouflaging the origin of texts. Hence, it would be futile to try to organise their collective contents in line with some all-encompassing system. It may, however, be useful to sketch out briefly just three main common themes of this collective exercise. Such guidance may help readers to identify the contributions which are closest to their particular interest. They should, however, also be prepared to discover many more interesting comments which are not included in the following sketch. 1 Cf, ‘The Forum’ in Integration 3/00149-197 with contributions by Peter-Christian Müller- Graff, Heinrich Schneider, Beate Kohler-Koch. 2 http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/JeanMonnet/papers/papers00.html; http://www.iue.it/RSC/Treaties.html. 2 Prologue Federation ‘Less than a Federation. More than a Regime’:3 this famous characterisation of the European project has proved to be of long-term validity. But this success stems from its very indeterminacy. When proclaiming ‘a very simple answer’ to the queries posed by this formula, namely ‘the transition from a union of states to full parlamentarisation as a European Federation,’ Joschka Fischer rejects what has so far been a very successful compromise formula.