跨国宪政多元化及其承诺和陷阱

P. Holmes
{"title":"跨国宪政多元化及其承诺和陷阱","authors":"P. Holmes","doi":"10.5007/2177-7055.2019v41n82p61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In today’s world society, constitutional theories converge in assigning an emerging role to legal forms of regulation not bound by national political systems and authorities. Several approaches try to grasp the diversity and multiplicity of layers, levels and stake-holders which constitute the post-national constellation of regulatory structures. One of the most prominent of these approaches is the idea of a transnational constitutional pluralism. This piece presents theframework of a plurality of transnational constitutional structures as conceived by authors like Gunther Teubner, among others, to critically address the possibility of a global constitutionalization of law based on post-democratic structures in different domains of social regulation. In the end, the piece argues that, although pluralist approaches offer an useful description of current relations between law and power on the transnational level, there are functional limits to the constitutional claim emerging from the pluralist approaches. Such limits are, most importantly, pluralist approaches' incapability of offering democratic mechanisms of legitimization for decision-making processes.","PeriodicalId":30170,"journal":{"name":"Sequencia Estudos Juridicos e Politicos","volume":"41 1","pages":"61-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5007/2177-7055.2019v41n82p61","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transnational constitutional pluralism, its promises and pitfalls\",\"authors\":\"P. Holmes\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/2177-7055.2019v41n82p61\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In today’s world society, constitutional theories converge in assigning an emerging role to legal forms of regulation not bound by national political systems and authorities. Several approaches try to grasp the diversity and multiplicity of layers, levels and stake-holders which constitute the post-national constellation of regulatory structures. One of the most prominent of these approaches is the idea of a transnational constitutional pluralism. This piece presents theframework of a plurality of transnational constitutional structures as conceived by authors like Gunther Teubner, among others, to critically address the possibility of a global constitutionalization of law based on post-democratic structures in different domains of social regulation. In the end, the piece argues that, although pluralist approaches offer an useful description of current relations between law and power on the transnational level, there are functional limits to the constitutional claim emerging from the pluralist approaches. Such limits are, most importantly, pluralist approaches' incapability of offering democratic mechanisms of legitimization for decision-making processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sequencia Estudos Juridicos e Politicos\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"61-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5007/2177-7055.2019v41n82p61\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sequencia Estudos Juridicos e Politicos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2019v41n82p61\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sequencia Estudos Juridicos e Politicos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2019v41n82p61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当今的世界社会中,宪法理论集中在为不受国家政治制度和当局约束的法律形式的监管分配一个新兴角色。有几种方法试图把握构成后国家监管结构星座的层次、层次和利益相关者的多样性和多样性。这些方法中最突出的一个是跨国宪政多元化的思想。这篇文章展示了由Gunther Teubner等作家构想的跨国宪法结构的多元化框架,以批判性地解决基于不同社会监管领域的后民主结构的全球法律宪法化的可能性。最后,这篇文章认为,尽管多元主义方法在跨国层面上对当前法律与权力之间的关系提供了有用的描述,但从多元主义方法中产生的宪法主张存在功能限制。这些限制最重要的是,多元主义方法无法为决策过程提供民主的合法化机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transnational constitutional pluralism, its promises and pitfalls
In today’s world society, constitutional theories converge in assigning an emerging role to legal forms of regulation not bound by national political systems and authorities. Several approaches try to grasp the diversity and multiplicity of layers, levels and stake-holders which constitute the post-national constellation of regulatory structures. One of the most prominent of these approaches is the idea of a transnational constitutional pluralism. This piece presents theframework of a plurality of transnational constitutional structures as conceived by authors like Gunther Teubner, among others, to critically address the possibility of a global constitutionalization of law based on post-democratic structures in different domains of social regulation. In the end, the piece argues that, although pluralist approaches offer an useful description of current relations between law and power on the transnational level, there are functional limits to the constitutional claim emerging from the pluralist approaches. Such limits are, most importantly, pluralist approaches' incapability of offering democratic mechanisms of legitimization for decision-making processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信