{"title":"Symposium – Crisis and Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union","authors":"Cormac Mac Amhlaigh","doi":"10.1017/cel.2019.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ratification difficulties associated with the Maastricht Treaty — not least the German Bundesverfassungsgericht ’ s (BVerfG) assertion of the supremacy of the German constitution during German ratification 1 — and its creation of a ‘ Europe of Bits and Pieces ’ , 2 signalled a watershed in the European integration project and a move away from the federalist-oriented ‘ permissive consensus ’ which had marked the preceding era. 3 Even if the idea of crisis in European integration was not new, 4 it is no exaggeration to say that Maastricht was the beginning of an era of semi-permanent crisis in European integration. 5 Crisis can, however, be ‘ salutary ’ . 6 The post-Maastricht era was marked by a flour-ishing of creative new thinking about the integration project in the legal academy, offering fresh insights and ideas about European legal integration beyond the con-ventional neo-functionalist and federalist accounts. 7 Perhaps one of the most endur-ing of these new ‘ dynamics ’ of legal integration 8 was MacCormick ’ s constitutional pluralism. When Neil MacCormick first articulated his preliminary thoughts on the","PeriodicalId":52109,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cel.2019.10","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2019.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
The ratification difficulties associated with the Maastricht Treaty — not least the German Bundesverfassungsgericht ’ s (BVerfG) assertion of the supremacy of the German constitution during German ratification 1 — and its creation of a ‘ Europe of Bits and Pieces ’ , 2 signalled a watershed in the European integration project and a move away from the federalist-oriented ‘ permissive consensus ’ which had marked the preceding era. 3 Even if the idea of crisis in European integration was not new, 4 it is no exaggeration to say that Maastricht was the beginning of an era of semi-permanent crisis in European integration. 5 Crisis can, however, be ‘ salutary ’ . 6 The post-Maastricht era was marked by a flour-ishing of creative new thinking about the integration project in the legal academy, offering fresh insights and ideas about European legal integration beyond the con-ventional neo-functionalist and federalist accounts. 7 Perhaps one of the most endur-ing of these new ‘ dynamics ’ of legal integration 8 was MacCormick ’ s constitutional pluralism. When Neil MacCormick first articulated his preliminary thoughts on the
期刊介绍:
The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (CYELS) offers authors and readers a space for sustained reflection and conversation about the challenges facing Europe and the diverse legal contexts in which those challenges are addressed. It identifies European Legal Studies as a broad field of legal enquiry encompassing not only European Union law but also the law emanating from the Council of Europe; comparative European public and private law; and national law in its interaction with European legal sources. The Yearbook is a publication of the Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge.