Search

This paper explores the lessons drawn by German constitutional scholars from the breakdown of the Weimar Republic, and how this traumatic experience became a starting point at the end of the 1930s for a new conception of democracy both liberal and robust (or “defensive”). Emigré constitutional scholars devised three distinctive versions of this “democratic robustness”: an “anti-extremist” (which originated in Weimar legal antipositivism); a “militant democracy” (first exposed by Karl Loewenstein); and a “constitutional dictatorship” (Carl J. Friedrich, Frederick W. Watkins). At the heart of each one lies a decisive debate with Carl Schmitt, even if implicit or diffracted. By reconstructing these debates one can appreciate to what extent postwar constitutional democracies have incorporated Schmitt's ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In political discourse as well as scholarly research on the European Union, the last decade of the 20th century was the decade of citizenship. But, despite numerous unresolved questions, there has been a virtual silence on the matter since 2001. Does this mean that there have been no major developments in European citizenship over the past few years? The answer is clearly negative. Via a comparison of the White Paper on European Governance (2001) and the draft Constitution (2004), this article documents a certain tension in the institutional discourse about European citizenship. It proposes a new theoretical model to grasp this tension and to understand European citizenship as it is conceived nowadays. This analytic prism is based on the distinction between "government citizenship" and "governance citizenship." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]