Search

Invention and promotion of the concept of ‘Community of law’ in the EEC – The role and thought of Walter Hallstein – Moving beyond the traditional opposition between ‘constitutionalists’ and ‘internationalists’ – The diversity and struggles among the ‘constitutionalists’ – Constitutional imaginaries as different conceptions of the relation of law, market, and democracy – Social processes at work in the elaboration of a transnational constitutional imaginary – Political and academic making of the imaginary of the ‘Community of law’

This chapter explores the recent history of the EU’s constitutional imaginary. It argues that the constitutional imaginary that had solidified during the early decades of European integration was deeply reconfigured in the early 1990s with the emergence and increasing popularity of constitutional pluralism, a theory forged by the legal philosopher Neil MacCormick. It has not only produced a new legal description of the EU but, though more discreetly, redefined its political horizon too. Combining ideational and sociological approaches, the chapter first reconstructs the original constitutional imaginary of the EEC. It then carefully contextualizes the emergence of constitutional pluralism with regard to the work of MacCormick and the legal and political situation of European integration at the time. Finally, it clarifies how these ideas contributed to redefining the European constitutional imaginary.

This Article uncovers the normative political theory underlying the legal doctrine of constitutional pluralism, as it is used in the EU today. Constitutional pluralism, once described as a semi-official legal doctrine in the EU, is now being used by some member states to challenge its authority and rules. By reconstructing the political thought of one of its founders, N. MacCormick, this Article takes issue with two most common interpretations of constitutional pluralism: On the one hand, it has been claimed that the normative political content of constitutional pluralism is virtually identical, or at least compatible, with that of Kantian rights-based cosmopolitanism; on the other, it has been contended, especially with regard to its uses in Hungary and Poland, that it was an inherently dangerous, illiberal, normative theory. This Article offers to move away from current legal debates to go back to the origins of constitutional pluralism. It argues that constitutional pluralism is not a purely liberal theory indeed. But neither is it inherently illiberal. Rather, both liberal and illiberal readings are possible, but partial, interpretations of MacCormickian constitutional pluralism. A more systematic interpretation shows that constitutional pluralism opens a path to move beyond this somewhat archetypical divide.

This article contributes to the debate about the history of the political economy of the European Economic Community (EEC). It retraces the efforts during the early years of the EEC to implement a form of ‘European economic programming’, that is, a more ‘dirigiste’ type of economic governance than is usually associated with European integration. Based on a variety of archives, it offers a new account of the making and failure of this project. It argues that, at the time, the idea of economic programming found many supporters, but its implementation largely failed for political as well as practical reasons. In so doing, it also brings to light the role of economists during the early years of European integration.

This paper reconstructs the political thought of the Scottish legal philosopher, and eventually MEP, Sir Neil MacCormick (1941–2009), the founder of “constitutional pluralism,” one of the most influential legal theories of the European union today. It argues that his legal theory is underpinned by a coherent and original political theory of post-sovereignty. But, contrary to many current interpretations, this article argues that normatively, constitutional pluralism is not a purely liberal theory. Neither is it inherently illiberal, as has been contended. Instead, this article spells out the hybrid institutional design imagined by N. MacCormick and inspired by the thought of D. Hume, as well as the lineaments of an ethical theory of post-sovereignty he developed. So doing, while I will argue that it ultimately leads to a kind of republican cosmopolitanism, the political theory of constitutional pluralism is shown to open up an important, if not fully developed, avenue to escape some shortcoming commonly associated with post-sovereignty.

This essay investigates the intellectual history of one of the purportedly most “revolutionary” concepts of post-1945 international thought—the concept of supranationality. While the literature has generally analyzed the concept as a direct continuation of progressive cosmopolitan ideas, or, to the contrary, as a political watchword formulated after 1945 to promote the European project, this essay highlights other, more ambiguous origins for the concept. It retraces the early uses of the concept in French debates. It argues that the irruption of supranationality in the political and legal vocabulary was far from revolutionary, as is typically claimed—without referring directly to the writings of the great classical philosophers. Rather, the concept drew on earlier discourses whose emergence can be identified in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century debates, ranging from Catholic thought to international law. To retrace the genealogy of supranationality in the decades preceding the supranational vogue of the 1950s contributes to illuminating the complex intellectual origins of the European Union and of international thought more generally.

Pour le lecteur contemporain, habitué aux défenses libérales de la construction européenne, le texte de Friedrich Hayek traduit ici pourra sonner étrangement familier. Pourtant, à sa publication il y a 80 ans, cette concordance n’était en rien acquise. À travers ce texte, présenté par Hadrien Clouet et Hugo Canihac, c’est ainsi une certaine vision libérale de la « construction européenne » qui se laisse apercevoir.

Cet article etudie la production de manuels universitaires sur l’Europe communautaire dans deux de ses pays fondateurs : la France et la RFA. Il s’agit de mettre en relation deux ensembles de recherches sur un groupe particulier d’intellectuels – les universitaires – qui n’ont entretenu que des rapports distants jusqu’ici. D’un cote, les manuels scolaires ont suscite de riches travaux explorant leur role dans la construction et la legitimation du pouvoir dans le cadre stato-national. D’un autre cote, les recherches de sociologie historique ont attire l’attention sur la participation des universitaires, et singulierement des juristes, au travail de production et de legitimation d’un ordre politique communautaire. Nous examinons ici la facon dont s’est construite une litterature savante, principalement juridique, sur les Communautes qui a, a ce titre, participe a la normalisation de certaines formes de connaissance de l’Europe communautaire. En adoptant une approche comparative, l’enjeu est de montrer les formes differenciees qu’a prises ce processus selon les contextes. L’article se fonde sur une recherche portant sur un corpus de 58 manuels traitant de l’Europe communautaire parus des annees 1950 aux annees 1990 en France et en RFA. Il met au jour les conditions sociales de production de ces manuels, et suggere que l’objet communautaire n’a pas ete saisi de facon identique par les savoirs universitaires francais et allemands, ce que reflete la production des manuels. Ce constat invite a etudier la facon dont ces manuels ont, en retour, contribue a solidifier des definitions differentes de l’objet europeen dans les deux pays.

Issu d’un colloque organise a l’universite de Rennes en 2016, l’ouvrage dirige par Brunessen Bertrand se signale a la fois par l’importance du probleme dont il traite – l’unite du droit de l’Union europeenne (UE) – et par son actualite, dans un contexte ou une Europe a « geometrie variable » parait de plus en plus inevitable a de nombreux observateurs. Comme le souligne le rapport introductif, le droit de l’UE a traditionnellement ete concu comme obeissant a une « logique d’ensemble », comme ...

Au sein de l’importante litterature qui s’est consacree ces dernieres annees a l’exploration des origines intellectuelles des politiques economiques europeennes, peu de doctrines ont suscite autant d’interet que ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler l’ordoliberalisme allemand. Cet article voudrait inviter a reinterroger la carriere internationale des idees ordoliberales et le recit, souvent quelque peu lineaire, de leur diffusion lente de l’Allemagne a l’Europe. Nous examinerons pour cela l’introduction des idees ordoliberales en France, c’est-a-dire les processus qui leur ont permis de circuler, d’etre recues et discutees des les annees 1950. L’enquete est appuyee sur la collecte de l’archive de cette circulation – traductions, prefaces, comptes rendus, commentaires, etc. –, sur l’identification des configurations d’acteurs impliques, et sur le reperage des usages qu’ils deploient de ces idees. Nous montrerons ainsi que les idees ordoliberales sont connues en France plus largement que le recit traditionnel ne le laisse penser. Mais, tout en les naturalisant dans le contexte francais, cela contribue a les distinguer des usages qu’elles recevaient dans le contexte allemand. La circulation des idees ordoliberales vers la France est donc precoce, mais elle se fait par une hybridation avec les debats economiques francais.

This paper explores the recent history of the European constitutional imaginary. It argues that the constitutional imaginary that solidified during the early decades of European integration has been deeply challenged in the 1990s, with the emergence of a body of thought known as ‘constitutional pluralism’. In order to do so, the paper first reconstructs the original constitutional imaginary of the EEC. It then analyses the socio-historical context of the emergence of constitutional pluralism, on the one hand, and clarifies how these ideas contributed to redefining the European constitutional imaginary, on the other. The paper was written as part of a workshop organized in the framework of the Project IMAGINE, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 803163).

Cet article interroge la facon dont le concept de solidarite etait, dans les mouvements lies au solidarisme du debut du siecle dernier, associe a l’idee de la construction d’une Europe unie. Il analyse le concept de solidarite dans la pensee d’un auteur qui se situe a l’articulation des mouvements solidaristes et des premiers pas de l’Europe d’apres-guerre : le juriste francais Georges Scelle (1878-1961). Ce faisant, il s’agit de mettre en evidence les passages possibles – et parfois les impasses – entre un concept de solidarite forge dans le cadre francais et l’idee d’une Europe sociale, dont l’avenement demeure une promesse lointaine de la construction europeenne. Nous montrerons que la conceptualisation d’une solidarite europeenne est etonnamment limitee dans l’œuvre de G. Scelle. Nous nous interrogerons alors sur les raisons de cette sous-conceptualisation de l’Europe sociale dans la pensee de G. Scelle.

EnglishThe contribution of academics to European integration has attracted renewed interest in recent years. But while the role of jurists has been frequently highlighted with regard to the production of forms of knowledge, the contribution of economists seems surprisingly limited during the early years of the Common Market. This article investigates the paradox of a form of economic knowledge that doesn’t “come” to the Common Market. In this regard, we shall study the mobilisation, in the early 1960s, of a collective of economists and politicians who promoted European economic planning. We argue that the difficulty of producing economic knowledge that is recognised as “scientific” is an important explanation for their relative failure. It is therefore necessary to emphasise the obstacle faced by any attempt at exploiting (economic) science in politics: the success of a “scientific government” not only depends on the ability of its advocates to call on science, but also to establish a stable distinction between science and politics. francaisLa contribution des savants a la construction europeenne a fait l’objet d’un interet nouveau ces dernieres annees. Mais, si le role des juristes dans la production de formes de connaissance de l’Europe a ete mis en evidence, la contribution des economistes semble etrangement limitee durant les premieres annees d’existence du Marche commun. C’est ce paradoxe d’un savoir economique qui ne « vient pas » au Marche commun qu’interroge cet article. Nous etudions pour cela les mobilisations, au debut des annees 1960, d’un collectif evoluant entre science economique et politique pour faire exister une « programmation economique communautaire ». Nous avancons que la difficulte a produire un savoir reconnu comme « scientifique » est une raison importante de la faiblesse de leur entreprise. Il s’agit alors de souligner la tension a laquelle est confrontee toute entreprise de mobilisation de la science (economique) dans le jeu politique : le succes des revendications d’un gouvernement « scientifique » depend de la capacite de ses partisans non seulement a enroler la science, mais aussi a stabiliser une distinction entre le savant et le politique.