Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:57:05.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hybrid Governance Across National Jurisdictions as a Challenge to Constitutional Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Christoph Engel
Christoph Engel
Affiliation:
Director, Max Planck Project Group “Common Goods: Law, Politics and Economics”, Bonn.
Get access

Extract

A technology often reaches perfection when its successor is already in place. Miraculously speedy and reliable punch card readers were finally available on the market when demand shifted to personal computers, to cite only one example. Do constitutions follow the same evolutionary pattern? Constitutional law, in general, and the doctrine of fundamental freedoms, in particular, are in admirable shape. Their dogmatics have been amply tested; they are elegant and rich. But they have been developed for the nation state. Yet governance reality is increasingly different. The state is competing with foreign, international and private governing authorities, or it is joining them in hybrid efforts. Will deconstitutionalisation ensue? Or will the existing constitutions be able to face, or even alter, the new reality?

Type
Research Article
Information
European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 2 , Issue 3-4 , September 2001 , pp. 569 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A coherent overview of competing definitions, and how they have evolved, is to be found in Mayntz, R., New Challenges to Governance Theory (Florence: European University Institute 1998Google Scholar, The Robert Schuman Centre, Jean Monnet Chair Papers 50).

2 Ibid.., 18 et seq., see also 16.

3 Out of the rich literature on the public/ private divide see in particular Streeck, W./ Schmitter, Ph.C. (eds.), Private Interest Government. Beyond Market and State (London: Sage 1985)Google Scholar; Streeck, W. (ed.), Staat und Verbände, special issue 25 of Politische Vierteljahresschrift 35 (1994) 1–401Google Scholar. On the international dimension see in particular Hasenclever, A./ Mayer, P./ Rittberger, V., Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge Studies in International Relations 55, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hewson, M./ Sinclair, T.J. (eds.), Approaches to Global Governance Theory (New York: State University of New York Press 1999).Google Scholar

4 For more on the extraterritorial application of national public law see Schnyder, A.R., Wirtschafiskollisionsrecht. Sonderanknüpfung und extraterritoriale Anwendung wirtschafts-rechtlicher Normen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Marktrecht (Zurich: Schulthess 1990)Google Scholar; Meng, W., Extraterritoriale Jurisdiktion im öffentlichen Wirtschaftsrecht (Berlin: Springer 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 This is not obvious at first sight. For the details see Lehmann, , “Private Institutions in Waste Management Policy and Their Antitrust Implications. The Case of Germany's Dual Management System”, Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter Bonn: 1999/13.Google Scholar

6 www.aol.com/info/onlinesafety.html (04-23-2001).

7 www.aol.com/info/bulkemail.html (04-23-2001).

8 Basic (and sceptical) Luhmann, N., Ökologische Kommunikation (Opladen: Westdeutscher 1986)Google Scholar; (mildly optimistic) Teubner, , “Privatregimes: Neo-Spontanes Recht und duale Sozialverfassungen in der Weltgesellschaft?”, in: Zur Autonomie des Individuums, Liber Amicorum Spiros Simitis (Simon, / Weiss, [eds.]) (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2000) 437–453.Google Scholar

9 Using the famous term dubbed by Scharpf, F., Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centred lnstitutionalism in Policy Research (Boulder: Westview 1997) 22 and 138 et seqGoogle Scholar.

10 More by Teubner, supra n. 8.

11 Out of the rich literature see only Gerken, L. (ed.), Competition Among Institutions (Houndmills: Macmillan 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Monopolkommission, Sondergutachten, 27, Systemwettbewerb (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1998)Google Scholar; Markus, Müller, Systemwettbewerb, Harmonisierung und Wettbewerbsverzerrung (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2000).Google Scholar

12 Cf. Der Wissenschaftliche Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft, , “Aktuelle Formen des Korporatismus”, in: Gutachten vom Februar 1998 bis Juli 2000 (Stuttgart: Lucius 2000) 2077–2103.Google Scholar

13 For more on the following see Engel, , “Institutionen zwischen Staat und Markt”, 34 Die Verwaltung (2001) 1, at pp. 18-24.Google Scholar

14 Luhmann, supra n. 8, at pp. 218-226 and passim.

15 Cf. Roemer, , “A Theory of Policy Differentiation in Single Issue Electoral Politics”, 11 Social Choice and Welfare (1994) 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 The concept has been developed by Immergut, E., Health Politics. Interests and Institutions in Western Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992).Google Scholar

17 The classic legal text on integration theory is Smend, R., Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht (Munich: Duncker & Humblot 1928).Google Scholar

18 On over-fitting, see e.g. Geman, , Bienenstock, and Doursat, , “Neural Networks and the Bias/ Variance Dilemma”, 4 Neural Computation (1992) 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Programmatic Frowein, , “Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts”, 39 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Volkerrecht (1999) 427–448.Google Scholar

20 Comprehensive 60Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (2001) 148–415.Google Scholar

21 Farrell, , “Negotiating Privacy in the Age of the Internet – Analysing the EU-US ‘Safe Harbor’ Negotiations”, in: Common Goods and Governance Across Multiple Arenas (Héntier, A. [ed.]) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

22 A graphic example of the strategy is the Maastricht judgement of the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). It in essence means that the German Court threatens the European Court of Justice, i.e. that it will apply German fundamental rights to European legislation, should the autonomous European fundamental rights appear grossly unsatisfactory, BVerfGE 89, 155.

23 See again BVerfGE 89, 155.

24 BVerfGE 4, 157.

25 BVerfGE 92, 26.

26 For an overview of dogmatic avenues to be used for the purpose see Engel, , “Legal Experiences of Competition among Institutions”, in: Competition among Institutions (Gerken, L. [ed.]) (Houndmills: Macmillan 1995) 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Comprehensive Rengeling, , “Deutsches und Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht – Wechsel-seitige Einwirkungen”, 53 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (1994) 202–239.Google Scholar

28 Although the dogmatic consequences derived from the idea are too strong in Elbing, the idea is to be found in Elbing, G., Zur Anwendbarkeit der Grundrechte bei Sachverhalten mit Auslandsberühntng (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1992) 317.Google Scholar

29 Cf. ibid., 190.

30 The idea is offered by Dam, K.W., Self-Help in the Digital Jungle (Chicago: John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper 59, 1998).Google Scholar

31 BVerfGE, 155, Leitsatz 7.

32 The distinction between outputs and outcomes is basic in implementation research of political scientists, see Windhoff-Héritier, A., Politikimplementation (Konigstein: Hain 1980) 5 and passim.Google Scholar

33 On attempts to reach substantive regulatory aims by affecting the organisation or procedure see Engel, , “Regulierung durch Organisation und Verfahren”, in: Festschrift für Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker (Immenga, / Möschel, / Reuter, [eds.]) (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1996) 119–138.Google Scholar

34 Besides Elbing, supra n. 28, see Hofmann, R., Grundrechte und grenzüberschreitende Sachverhalte (Berlin: Springer 1993)Google Scholar; Kronke, , “Die Wirkungskraft der Grundrechte bei Fallen mit Auslandsbezug”, 38 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (1998) 33–67.Google Scholar

35 Elbing, supra n. 28, 190.

36 Cf. Kronke, supra n. 34, 42 (using the category of active legitimation for a related question).

37 Comprehensive Stern, K./ Sachs, M., Staatsrecht III/I (München: Beck 1988) 1511 et seq.Google Scholar

38 Dietlein, J., Die Lehre von den grundrechtlichen Schutzpflichten (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1992).Google Scholar

39 BVerfGE 89, 155, Leitsatz 7: “Auch Akte einer besonderen, von der Staatsgewalt der Mitgliedstaaten geschiedenen öffentlichen Gewalt einer supranationalen Organisation betreffen die Grundrechtsberechtigten in Deutschland. Sie berühren damit die Gewährleistungen des Grundgesetzes und die Aufgaben des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, die den Grundrechtsschutz in Deutschland und insoweit nicht nur gegenüber deutschen Staatsorganen zum Gegenstand haben (Abweichung von BVerfGE 58, 1 (27)). Allerdings übt das Bundesverfassungsgericht seine Rechtsprechung über die Anwendbarkeit von abgeleitetem Gemeinschaftsrecht in Deutschland in einem, Kooperationsverhältnis' zum Europäischen Gerichtshof aus”; literally the same sentences are to be found in BVerfGE 89, 155, 175; there the passage ends with “[…], Kooperationsverhältnis' zum Europäischen Gerichthshof aus, in dem der Europäische Gerichtshof den Grundrechtsschutz in jedem Einzelfall für das gesamte Gebiet der Europäischen Gemeinschaften garantiert, das Bundesverfassungsgericht sich deshalb auf eine generelle Gewährleistung der unabdingbaren Grundrechtsstandards […] beschränken kann.”

40 Classic on the conceptual structure of delegation Triepel, H., Delegation und Mandat im öffentlichen Recht (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1942).Google Scholar

41 This is why the European Court of Human Rights has recently held that the fundamental rights of the European Convention on Human Rights apply to secondary law of the European Union qua the participation of Member States governments in the Council of Ministers, ECtHR 18.2.1999, Case 24833/94, R 32 – Matthews.

42 This is how the German Constitutional Court brought foreign private law under constitutional control, if autonomous German rules of conflict of laws oblige German courts to apply such rules, BVerfGE 31, 58 – Spanier.

43 Comprehensive Chr. Engel, , Völkerrecht als Tatbestandsmerkmal deutscher Normen (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1989) 166–171Google Scholar; see also Puttfarken, , “Grundrechte im internationalen Rechtsraum”, 41 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (1995) 617–627Google Scholar; Geefken, , “Soziale Grundrechte unter Vorbehalt?”, 12 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht (1995) 504–508.Google Scholar

44 BVerfGE 4, 157, 168 and 170.

45 BVerfGE 92, 26, 26 and 41 et seq.

46 BVerfGE 31, 58, 77.

47 BVerfGE 6, 32, 44 (restricted right to leave the country); BVerfGE 6, 290, 299 (limited protection of property lying abroad); BVerfGE 77, 1, 47 (only the conditional right of foreign spouses to immigrate).

48 BVerfGE 55, 349, 366 et seq. – Hess; see also BVerfGE 58, 1, 41 – Eurocontrol I; Engel, , Völkerrecht als Tatbestandsmerkmal, supra n. 43, 101–130Google Scholar (on consensus over the interpretation of public international law rules).

49 These are the basic elements of the dogmatics of fundamental freedoms under German constitutional law. In German they read “geeignet, erforderlich, angemessen”. For an overview see e.g. Ipsen, J., Staatsrecht II (Grundrechte), 3rd ed. (Neuwied: Luchterhand 2000), R 169–182Google Scholar; Pieroth, B./ Schlink, B., Grundrechte (Staatsrecht II), 16th ed. (Heidelberg: Müller 2000) R 279–297.Google Scholar

50 BVerfGE 92, 26, 43 et seq.

51 Ibid., 44.

52 BVerfGE 59, 63, 90 et seq. – Eurocontrol II.

53 BVerfGE 55, 349, 364 et seq.

54 Leading case BVerfGE 55, 349 – Hess; more by Hofmann, supra n. 34, 108-111; Klein, E., “Anspruch auf diplomatischen Schutz?”, in: Der diplomatische Schutz im Völker- und Europarecht (Ress, G./Stein, T. [eds.]) (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1996) 125–136.Google Scholar

55 BVerfGE 55, 349, 364 et seq.

56 See in particular the preamble, Art. I Il, Art. 23-26, Art. 59 Basic Law; classic Vogel, K., Die Verfassungsentscheidung für die offene Staatlichkeit (Tübingen: Mohr 1964).Google Scholar

57 Art. 23 and 24 Basic Law.

58 Art. 59 Basic Law.

59 Art. 25 Basic Law.

60 BVerfGE 4, 157, 170.

61 BVerfGE 89, 155.

62 See in greater detail Engel, , “A Constitutional Framework for Private Governance”, Preprints aus der Max-Planck-Projektgruppe Recht der Gemeinschaftsgüter Bonn: 2001/2004.Google Scholar

63 BAGE 1, 185, 193.

64 Consequently, the Federal Court for Labour Law gave in, BAGE 52, 88, 97 s.

65 More by Engel, “Constitutional Framework”, supra n. 62.