Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in European Union Law: Considering the Existence of Substantive Constraints on Treaty Revision

R. Passchier, M. Stremler
{"title":"Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in European Union Law: Considering the Existence of Substantive Constraints on Treaty Revision","authors":"R. Passchier, M. Stremler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2561209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of unconstitutional constitutional amendments is extremely topical in the field of na-tional and comparative constitutional law. In a recent article (2013), Roznai signals that ‘the global trend is moving towards accepting the idea of limitations – explicit or implicit – on constitutional amendment power’. But what about the ‘supranational’ EU? Would there be room to argue that substantive limitations of amendability – explicit or implicit – also exist as regards the EU Treaties? Furthermore, if so, would the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have the competence to enforce such limits? These questions are the central focus of this article. We argue that accepting the idea of substantive requirements of Treaty revision may be one of the next important steps in the ongoing process of EU constitutionalisation. In the first part of the article, we explore what kind of arguments are being used to justify a doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments in national systems. Next, we ascertain to what extent such arguments can be used to justify a doc-trine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment in EU law. In conclusion, we argue that it is quite conceivable that certain EU Treaty amendments would indeed be deemed a violation of the Treaties. Moreover, we contend that it is not unimaginable that the CJEU will assume the power to substantively review amendments to the EU Treaties, in cases where the Member States would choose to put forth suspect revisions to these documents.","PeriodicalId":169604,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge journal of international and comparative law","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge journal of international and comparative law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2561209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The issue of unconstitutional constitutional amendments is extremely topical in the field of na-tional and comparative constitutional law. In a recent article (2013), Roznai signals that ‘the global trend is moving towards accepting the idea of limitations – explicit or implicit – on constitutional amendment power’. But what about the ‘supranational’ EU? Would there be room to argue that substantive limitations of amendability – explicit or implicit – also exist as regards the EU Treaties? Furthermore, if so, would the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have the competence to enforce such limits? These questions are the central focus of this article. We argue that accepting the idea of substantive requirements of Treaty revision may be one of the next important steps in the ongoing process of EU constitutionalisation. In the first part of the article, we explore what kind of arguments are being used to justify a doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments in national systems. Next, we ascertain to what extent such arguments can be used to justify a doc-trine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment in EU law. In conclusion, we argue that it is quite conceivable that certain EU Treaty amendments would indeed be deemed a violation of the Treaties. Moreover, we contend that it is not unimaginable that the CJEU will assume the power to substantively review amendments to the EU Treaties, in cases where the Member States would choose to put forth suspect revisions to these documents.
欧盟法中的违宪宪法修正:考虑条约修订存在的实质制约
违宪宪法修正案的问题是国内法和比较宪法领域的一个非常热门的问题。在最近的一篇文章(2013年)中,Roznai表示,“全球趋势正在朝着接受限制宪法修正案权力的想法——无论是明示的还是隐含的——发展”。但是“超国家”的欧盟呢?对于欧盟条约而言,是否有理由认为可修正性的实质性限制——无论是明确的还是隐含的——也存在?此外,如果是这样的话,欧洲联盟法院(CJEU)是否有执行这些限制的权限?这些问题是本文的中心焦点。我们认为,接受条约修订的实质性要求的想法可能是正在进行的欧盟宪法化进程中的下一个重要步骤之一。在文章的第一部分,我们探讨了在国家制度中,什么样的论点被用来证明违宪宪法修正案的学说是正确的。接下来,我们确定这些论点在多大程度上可以用来证明欧盟法律中违宪宪法修正案的学说。总之,我们认为,完全可以想象,某些欧盟条约修正案确实会被视为违反条约。此外,我们认为,在成员国选择对这些文件提出可疑修订的情况下,欧洲法院将承担对欧盟条约修正案进行实质性审查的权力,这并非不可想象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信