Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:41:31.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equilibrium, Demoi-cracy, and Delegation in the Crisis of European Integration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Peter L. Lindseth

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As my work has argued previously, European integration enjoys an “administrative, not constitutional” legitimacy. This view is in obvious tension with the deeply-rooted conceptual framework—what we might call the “constitutional, not international” perspective—that has dominated the public-law scholarship of European integration over many decades. Although the alternative presented in my work breaks from that traditional perspective, we should not view it as an all-or-nothing rejection of everything that has come before it. The administrative alternative can be seen, rather, as providing legal-historical micro-foundations for certain theories that also emerged out of the traditional perspective even as they too are in tension with it. I am referring in particular to Joseph Weiler's classic notion of European “equilibrium”—now updated as “constitutional tolerance”—as well as Kalypso Nicolaïdis's more recently developed theory of European “demoi-cracy” on which this article focuses in particular. The central idea behind the “administrative, not constitutional” interpretation—the historical-constructivist principal-agent framework rooted in delegation, as well as the balance demanded between supranational regulatory power and national democratic and constitutional legitimacy— directly complements both theories. The administrative alternative suggests how the relationship between national principals and supranational agents is one of “mediated legitimacy” rather than direct control. It has its origins in the evolution of administrative governance in relation to representative government over the course of the twentieth century (indeed before). By drawing on the normative lessons of that history—notably the need for some form of national oversight as well as enforcement of outer constraints on supranational delegation in order to preserve national democratic and constitutional legitimacy in a recognizable sense—this article serves an additional purpose. It suggests how theories of European equilibrium and demoi-cracy might be translated into concrete legal proposals for a more sustainable form of integration over time—a pressing challenge in the context of the continuing crisis of European integration.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , 01 July 2014 , pp. 529 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Hipp, Dietmar & Darnstädt, Thomas, Der Bundesstaat ist ein Irrtum, Der Spiegel (Dec. 23, 2011), www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-83328883.html. The quotations are from my own translation of the original German rather than from the version on Der Spiegel's online English site, which contains a number of strange and misleading choices by the translator. See Dietmar Hipp & Thomas Darnstädt, SPIEGEL Interview with Ex-German High Court Justice: “It is a Mistake to Pursue a United States of Europe,” Spiegel Online (Dec. 28, 2011), www.spiegel.de/international/germany/spiegel-interview-with-ex-german-high-court-justice-it-is-a-mistake-to-pursue-a-united-states-of-europe-a-805873.html. For more analysis, see Peter Lindseth, Understanding the German Constitutional Fault Lines in the Eurozone Crisis: Der Spiegel's Interview with Udo Di Fabio, EUtopialaw.com, (Jan. 12, 2012), www.eutopialaw.com/2012/01/12/understanding-the-german-constitutional-fault-lines-in-the-eurozone-crisis-der-spiegels-interview-with-udo-di-fabio/.Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Habermas, Jürgen, Lecture at KU Leuven, Belgium: Democracy, Solidarity and the European Crisis (Apr. 26, 2013), www.kuleuven.be/communicatie/evenementen/evenementen/jurgen-habermas/en/democracy-solidarity-and-the-european-crisis (“the steering capacities which are lacking at present, though they are functionally necessary for any monetary union, could and should be centralized only within the framework of an equally supranational and democratic political community”). See, more generally, Jürgen Habermas, The Crisis of the European Union: A Response (2012). In the midst of the Eurozone crisis, Der Spiegel has focused regularly on the views of Habermas. See, e.g., Georg Diez, Habermas, the Last European: A Philosopher's Mission to Save the EU, Spiegel Online (Nov. 25, 2011), www.spiegel.de/international/europe/habermas-the-last-european-a-philosopher-s-mission-to-save-the-eu-a-799237.html; see also Thomas Darnstädt et al., Citizens of the EU: How to Forge a Common European Identity, Spiegel Online, (Feb. 12, 2011), www.spiegel.de/international/europe/citizens-of-the-eu-how-to-forge-a-common-european-identity-a-800775.html; Thomas Darnstädt et al., Phoenix Europe: How the EU Can Emerge from the Ashes, Spiegel Online, (Nov. 18, 2011) www.spiegel.de/international/europe/phoenix-europe-how-the-eu-can-emerge-from-the-ashes-a-797626.html; Thomas Darnstädt et al., The Great Leap Forward: In Search of a United Europe, Spiegel Online, (Nov. 24 2011), www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-great-leap-forward-in-search-of-a-united-europe-a-799292.html.Google Scholar

3 See Habermas, Jürgen, Merkel's European Failure: Germany Dozes on a Volcano, Spiegel Online (Aug. 9, 2013), www.spiegel.de/international/germany/juergen-habermas-merkel-needs-to-confront-real-european-reform-a-915244.html.Google Scholar

4 See, e.g., Fabio, Udo Di, Die Zukunft einer stabilen Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion: Verfassungs- sowie europarechtliche Grenzen und Möglichkeiten, Stiftung Familienunternehmen (May 2013), www.familienunternehmen.de/media/public/pdf/studien/Studie_Stiftung_Familienunternehmen_Die-Zukunft-Europas_ebook.pdf.Google Scholar

5 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BverfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2/08 (June 30, 2009), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html.Google Scholar

6 Hipp & Darnstädt, supra note 1.Google Scholar

7 See, e.g., Mayer, Franz, Rebel Without a Cause: A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court's OMT Reference, 15 German L.J. 111 (2014); Drifting Into Politics: Is Germany's High Court Anti-European?, Spiegel Online (Mar. 13, 2014), www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-eu-critical-course-of-the-german-high-court-a-958018.html; Daniel Halberstam & Christoph. Möllers, The German Constitutional Court Says “Ja zu Deutschland!”, 10 German L.J. 1241 (2009).Google Scholar

8 See, e.g., Weiler, J.H.H., The Community System: The Dual Character of Supranationalism, 1 Y.B. Eur. L. 267 (1982) [hereinafter The Community System]; J.H.H. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L. J. 2403–83 (1991) [hereinafter The Transformation of Europe]; J.H.H. Weiler, Federalism Without Constitutionalism: Europe's Sonderweg, in The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union 54 (Kalypso Nicolaïdis & Robert Howse eds., 2001); J.H.H. Weiler, in Defence of the Status Quo: Europe's Google Scholar

9 See, e.g., Nicolaïdis, Kalypso, The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy'?, 7 Critical Rev. Int'l Soc. & Pol. Phil. 76 (2004) [hereinafter The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy'?]; Kalypso Nicolaïdis, We, the Peoples of Europe …, 83 Foreign Aff. 97 (2004) [hereinafter We, the Peoples of Europe]; Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Trusting the Poles? Constructing Europe through Mutual Recognition, 14 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 682 (2007); Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Sustainable Integration: Towards EU 2.0?, 48 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 21 (2010) [hereinafter Sustainable Integration]; Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Germany as Europe: How the Constitutional Court Unwittingly Embraced EU Demoi-cracy: A Comment on Franz Mayer, 9 Int'l J. Const. L. 786 (2011) [hereinafter Germany as Europe]; Kalypso Nicolaïdis, The Idea of European Demoicracy, in Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law 247 (J. Dickson & P. Eleftheriadis eds., 2012); Kalypso Nicolaïdis, European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, 51 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 351 (2013). Others have of course also advanced the idea of Europe as a “demoi-cracy”; see, e.g., Samantha Besson, Deliberative Demoi-cracy in the European Union: Towards the Deterritorialization of Democracy, in Deliberative Democracy And Its Discontents 141 (Samantha Besson & José Luis Marti eds., 2006); Francis Cheneval & Frank Schimmelfennig, The Case for Demoicracy in the European Union, 51 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 334 (2012); Richard Bellamy, “An Ever Closer Union Among the Peoples of Europe”: Republican Intergovernmentalism and Demoicratic Representation Within the EU, 35 Eur. Integration 499 (2013). Nicolaïdis's work arguably both initiated this line of thinking and represents its most sustained development; hence the focus on her work here.Google Scholar

10 See infra notes 35, 55–56 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

11 Weiler, J.H.H., The Geology of International Law—Governance, Democracy and Legitimacy, 64 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 560 (2004).Google Scholar

12 See infra notes 37–40 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

13 See infra notes 44–46 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

14 See Lindseth, Peter, The Eurozone Crisis, Institutional Change, and “Political Union,” in Political, Fiscal, and Banking Union in the Eurozone? 149 (F. Allen et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

15 See generally Lindseth, Peter, Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State (2010). Portions of this article are drawn from Power and Legitimacy and are used with permission.Google Scholar

16 See infra notes 31–34 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

17 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15; see also, e.g., Peter Lindseth, Democratic Legitimacy and the Administrative Character of Supranationalism: The Example of the European Community, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 628 (1999) [hereinafter Democratic Legitimacy]; Peter Lindseth, “Weak” Constitutionalism? Reflections on Comitology and Transnational Governance in the European Union, 21 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 145 (2001) [hereinafter “Weak” Constitutionalism?]; Peter Lindseth, Delegation is Dead, Long Live Delegation: Managing the Democratic Disconnect in the European Market-Polity, in Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market 139 (Christian Joerges & Renaud Dehousse eds., 2002); Peter Lindseth, The Contradictions of Supranationalism: Administrative Governance and Constitutionalization in European Integration Since the 1950s, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 363 (2003); Peter Lindseth, Agents Without Principals?: Delegation in an Age of Diffuse and Fragmented Governance, in Reframing Self-Regulation in European Private Law 107 (Fabrizio Cafaggi ed., 2006) [hereinafter Agents Without Principles].Google Scholar

18 See Lindseth, Peter, Disequilibrium and Disconnect: On Weiler's (Still Robust) Theory of European Transformation (U. Conn. Sch. of L. Working Papers No. 2013/01, 2013), available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2270119 (forthcoming in abbreviated form in The Transformation of Europe—Twenty Years On (Marlene Wind & Miguel Poiares Maduro eds.)).Google Scholar

19 The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy‘?, supra note 9, at 86; We, the Peoples of Europe, supra note 9, at 104; Sustainable Integration, supra note 9, at 44; Germany as Europe, supra note 9, at 788; The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 248; European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9, at 354.Google Scholar

20 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BverfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2728/13 (Jan. 14, 2014) http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html.Google Scholar

21 Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 726–34; see also Lindseth, supra note 15, at 275–77.Google Scholar

22 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15.Google Scholar

23 See supra note 1 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

24 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 91–132.Google Scholar

25 Id. at 133–88.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 189–250.Google Scholar

27 Id. at 61–90.Google Scholar

28 See, e.g., Majone, Giandomenico, Dilemmas of European Integration: the Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth 64 (2005) (describing the imposition of national constraints on supranational autonomy as “the symptom of a deeper crisis: a growing mistrust between the member states and the supranational institutions”).Google Scholar

29 See infra notes 70–78 and accompanying text. See also Lindseth, supra note 15, at 21–23.Google Scholar

30 See infra notes 117–122 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

31 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 35.Google Scholar

32 See id. at 88–90; for the national origins of mediated legitimacy in the twentieth-century administrative state, see Peter Lindseth, The Paradox of Parliamentary Supremacy: Delegation, Democracy, and Dictatorship in Germany and France, 1920s–1950s, 113 Yale L.J. 1341 (2004). For a related view in the context of integration and the Eurozone crisis, see Fritz Scharpf, Legitimacy Intermediation in the Multilevel European Polity and Its Collapse in the Euro Crisis (MPIfG Discussion Paper 12/6, 2012), www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp12-6.pdf.Google Scholar

33 Menon, Anand & Weatherill, Stephen, Legitimacy, Accountability, and Delegation in the European Union, in Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union 113, 118 (Anthony Arnull & Daniel Wincott eds., 2002).Google Scholar

34 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15.Google Scholar

35 See, e.g., Weiler, J.H.H. & Trachtman, Joel, European Constitutionalism and Its Discontents, 17 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 354 (1996–97). Recent historical and sociological research has uncovered the extent to which the “constitutional” conceptualization was, from its inception, a conscious strategy by a transnational legal elite to legitimize the integration project. See, e.g., Morten Rasmussen, Establishing a Constitutional Practice of European Law: The History of the Legal Service of the European Executive, 1952-1965, 21(3) Contemp. Eur. Hist. 237 (2012); Antoine Vauchez, “Integration-Through-Law”: Contribution to a Socio-History of EU Political Commonsense (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS 2008/10 2008) available at http://cadmus.iue.it/handle/1814/8307; Antonin Cohen, Constitutionalism Without Constitution: Transnational Elites Between Political Mobilization and Legal Expertise in the Making of a Constitution for Europe (1940s-1960s), 32 Law & Soc. Inquiry 109 (2007).Google Scholar

36 See Avbelj, Matej, Questioning EU Constitutionalisms, 9 German L.J. 1 (2008).Google Scholar

37 Lindseth, Peter, Of the People: Democracy, the Eurozone, and Lincoln's Threshold Criterion, 22 Berlin J. 4–7 (2012).Google Scholar

38 Rubenfeld, Jed, Freedom and Time: A Theory of Constitutional Self-Government (2001).Google Scholar

39 Ackerman, Bruce, We the People: Foundations (1991).Google Scholar

40 Weiler, J.H.H., The Political and Legal Culture of European Integration: An Exploratory Essay, 9 Int'l J. Const. L. 678 (2011).Google Scholar

41 Lindseth, , supra note 37.Google Scholar

42 MacCormick, Neil, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth 173 (1999) (emphasis added).Google Scholar

43 See generally Fligstein, Neil, Euroclash: The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe (2008).Google Scholar

44 Bartolini, Stefano, Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring Between the Nation State and the European Union 175 (2005).Google Scholar

45 Cf. Pisani-Ferry, Jean, Whose Economic Reform?, Project Syndicate (Jul. 30, 2013), www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-purpose-and-strategy-of-structural-reofrm-by-jean-pisani-ferry.Google Scholar

46 Cf. Krugman, Paul, What a Real External Bank Bailout Looks Like, Conscience of a Liberal (Jul. 17, 2012), krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/what-a-real-external-bank-bailout-looks-like/.Google Scholar

47 See, e.g., Maduro, Miguel Poiares, A New Governance for the European Union and the Euro: Democracy and Justice, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Global Governance Programme, RSCAS Policy Paper 2012/11, October 2012), cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/24295/RSCAS_PP_2012_11rev.pdf?sequence=1; for a commentary, see Peter Lindseth, Thoughts on the Maduro Report: Saving the Euro Through European Democratization?, EUtopialaw.com (Nov. 13, 2012), www.eutopialaw.com/2012/11/13/1608/. For an effort to move beyond functional demands of interdependence as a basis of legitimate authority beyond the state— articulating the notion of “justice-sensitive externalities”—see Mattias Kumm, The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: An Integrated Conception of Public Law, 20 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 605 (2013). The theory of justice-sensitive externalities is interesting but limited. It ultimately grounds denationalized legitimacy in claims of fault or responsibility among states, grounded in violations of duties. This is no doubt important and can have significant redistributive consequences. See Peter Lindseth, Fault, Not Solidarity: A Normative Argument to Save the Eurozone, EUtopialaw.com (Jul. 30, 2012), eutopialaw.com/2012/07/30/fault-not-solidarity-a-normative-argument-to-save-the-eurozone/. But it is an insufficient basis to establish robust legitimacy for positive claims of solidarity between states in the absence of fault. As Kumm readily concedes, “those governing themselves within the framework of the state have a right not to be required to make themselves an instrument of the well-being of others.” Kumm, supra, at 622. But see id. at 624 (“[t]he more dense and more demanding mutually agreed upon frameworks of cooperation are, the more demanding the justice obligations that flow from such a practice are”). While the latter statement is clearly directed at the EU, it is empirically questionable whether the theory could sustain denationalized taxing, spending, and borrowing power that resolving the Eurozone crisis in an optimal fashion may demand, which in turn would demand a true “constitutional” legitimacy for the EU in the fullest sense of the term. See supra note 14 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

48 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 13–14.Google Scholar

49 See, e.g., European Commission, A Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union: Launching a European Debate (2013), www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0777:FIN:EN:PDF.Google Scholar

50 Prologue, supra note 8, at 12.Google Scholar

51 The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy‘?, supra note 9, at 84; We, the Peoples of Europe, supra note 9, at 102.Google Scholar

52 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 52–53. I did not formulate this concept with the notion of “symbolic capital” integral to Bourdieu's field theory in mind. Nevertheless, it is certainly sympathetic to that idea and points to the continuing strength of the national “field” in the process of European integration. In that regard, my administrative perspective is consistent with Antoine Vauchez's notion of European law as a “weak field.” See Antoine Vauchez, Introduction: Euro-lawyering, Transnational Social Fields and European Polity-Building, in Lawyering Europe: European Law as a Transnational Social Field 1–20 (Antoine Vauchez & Bruno de Witte, eds., 2013). On the application of field theory to European integration more generally, see Didier Georgakakis & Jay Rowell, The Field of Eurocracy: Mapping EU Actors and Professionals (2013), as well as Fligstein, supra note 43.Google Scholar

53 This holds true even as several European states—e.g., Belgium—are finding it difficult to claim to represent a historically coherent political community, which in turn makes the claim of democratic and constitutional legitimacy vastly more difficult to sustain within those polities. The fact that, in certain member states, pressures exist to drive the institutional locus of legitimate governance downward from the state to the regional level—not just in Belgium, but also in Spain or the United Kingdom, for example—hardly supports the claim of democratic and constitutional legitimacy at the European level. If anything, such pressures reinforce the conclusion that democratic and constitutional legitimacy resides at the level of sub-European political communities, not at the level of the European transnational community.Google Scholar

54 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 265.Google Scholar

55 Especially so with regard to international or supranational adjudicative authority in the protection of human rights against the excesses of state power. See Weiler, supra note 11, at 551 (referring to a third stratum “of [international] dispute settlement which may be called constitutional, and consists in the increasing willingness, within certain areas of domestic courts to apply and uphold rights and duties emanating from international obligations. The appellation constitutional may be justified because of the ‘higher law’ status conferred on the international legal obligation”).Google Scholar

56 Majone, , supra note 28, at 7.Google Scholar

57 Rubin, Edward, Law and Legislation in the Administrative State, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 369, 380–85 (1989) (describing “transitive” versus “intransitive” legislation).Google Scholar

58 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 54–55. See also infra notes 69–78 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

59 See Agents Without Principals?, supra note 17.Google Scholar

60 Cassese, Sabino, The Global Polity: Global Dimensions of Democracy and the Rule of Law 23 (2012).Google Scholar

61 Bogdandy, Armin von & Dann, Philipp, International Composite Administration: Conceptualizing Multi-Level and Network Aspects in the Exercise of International Public Authority, 9 German L.J. 2013 (2008).Google Scholar

62 In Defence of the Status Quo, supra note 8.Google Scholar

63 See, e.g., Nicolaïdis, The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9; Nicolaïdis, European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9.Google Scholar

64 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 53.Google Scholar

65 See supra notes 24–27 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

66 See, e.g., Rosenfeld, Michael, Constitutional Versus Administrative Ordering in an Era of Globalization and Privatization: Reflections on Sources of Legitimation in the Post-Westphalian Polity, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 2339 (2011); Michael Rosenfeld, The Constitutional Subject, Its Other, and the Perplexing Quest for an Identity of Its Own: A Reply to My Critics, 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 1937 (2012).Google Scholar

67 This approach has admitted affinity to the groundbreaking work of Giandomenico Majone. See Giandomenico Majone, The European Community: An “Independent Fourth Branch of Government?”, in Verfassungen fur ein ziviles Europa 23 (Gert Br ggemeier ed., 1994). I certainly share with Majone the view that the nature and legitimacy of European power can best be measured against standards derived from modern administrative governance. See Giandomenico Majone, Europe's “Democratic Deficit”: The Question of Standards, 4 Eur. L.J. 5 (1998). However, my work has tried to make clear that the claim in fact entails a good deal historical and legal complexity as to what those standards in fact demand. See Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 657–59, 684–91, 696; Lindseth, supra note 15, at 36–37; see also infra notes 69–78, 102–15 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

68 Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 630.Google Scholar

69 See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union art. 5, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 18 [hereinafter TEU]; Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 7, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 53 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

70 See generally Sheehan, James, Presidential Address: The Problem of Sovereignty in European History, 111 Am. Hist. Rev. 1 (2006).Google Scholar

71 See Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 54–56. The capacity for hierarchical administrative control is generally overstated even within states, often on the basis of stylized principal-agent models. See, e.g., Dierdre Curtin, Holding (Quasi-)Autonomous EU Administrative Actors to Public Account, 13 Eur. L.J. 523, 524–25 (2007). For reflections on the continuing limited capacities of principals to exercise “control” over agents in modern administrative states, see Mark Thatcher, The Third Force? Independent Regulatory Agencies and Elected Politicians in Europe, 18 Governance 347 (2005); see also Mark Thatcher & Alec Stone Sweet, Theory and Practice of Delegation in Non-Majoritarian Institutions, 25 W. Eur. Pol. 1, 6 (2002) (discussing how, in situations of administrative complexity, “the analyst cannot assume that principals can control agents”).Google Scholar

72 See Majone, Giandomenico, Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance, 2 Eur. Union Pol. 103 (2001).Google Scholar

73 See, e.g., infra notes 102–15 and accompanying textGoogle Scholar

74 See Novak, William, The Myth of the “Weak” American State, 113 Am. Hist. Rev. 752, 763 (2008). Cf. also Charles Maier, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (1975); Martin Lodge, Regulation, the Regulatory State and European Politics, 31 W. Eur. Pol. 280, 285 (2008).Google Scholar

75 See Anne-Marie. Slaughter, A New World Order (2004).Google Scholar

76 For a description, see Lindseth, supra note 18.Google Scholar

77 Lindseth, Peter et al., Administrative Law of the European Union: Oversight (George. Bermann, Charles Koch & James O'Reilly eds., 2008); see also Peter Strauss, Forward: Overseer, or “the Decider”? The President in Administrative Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 696 (2007).Google Scholar

78 Cf. Eley, Geoff, The Social Construction of Democracy in Germany, 1871-1933, in The Social Construction of Democracy, 1870-1990 90, 110 (George Andrews & Herrick Chapman eds., 1995) (referring to “the constitutional frameworks fashioned [throughout Europe] in the 1860s” as “remarkably resilient”).Google Scholar

79 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 253–56.Google Scholar

80 See A Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union: Launching a European Debate, supra note 49 and accompanying text; see also Lindseth, supra note 14, at 155–56.Google Scholar

81 See supra notes 114–117 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

82 See Lindseth, , supra note 27 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

83 See Nicolaïdis, Kalypso, Conclusion: The Federal Vision Beyond the State, in The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union 439 (Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Rorbert Howse eds., 2001) (suggesting analogously the need for such constraints, albeit within a conceptual framework of federalism beyond the state).Google Scholar

84 For further elaboration of this point in relation to integration, see Peter Lindseth, Author's Reply: “Outstripping”, or the Question of “Legitimate for What?” in EU Governance, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 153 (2012).Google Scholar

85 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 264. For a more sanguine but unconvincing counter perspective, see, e.g., Gráinne de Búrca, Robert Keohane & Charles Sabel, New Modes of Pluralist Global Governance, 45 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 723 (2013).Google Scholar

86 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 248.Google Scholar

87 The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy‘?, supra note 9, at 85; We, the Peoples of Europe, supra note 9, at 104.Google Scholar

88 The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy‘?, supra note 9, at 85 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

89 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 270.Google Scholar

90 The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy‘?, supra note 9, at 85 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

91 European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9, at 364 (“Guiding Principle 6 (Mediation): In a Demoicracy, the Enforcement of Common Disciplines Requires Strong, Legitimate Domestic Mediation”) (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

92 Id. at 364.Google Scholar

93 Germany as Europe, supra note 9, at 790.Google Scholar

94 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 256.Google Scholar

95 We, the Peoples of Europe, supra note 9, at 102.Google Scholar

96 European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9, at 353.Google Scholar

97 Lindseth, et al., supra note 77, at 142.Google Scholar

98 We, the Peoples of Europe, supra note 9, at 104; see also In Defence of the Status Quo, supra note 8, at 23.Google Scholar

99 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 265 (citing The Transformation of Europe, supra note 8).Google Scholar

100 Witte, Bruno de, Sovereignty and European Integration: The Weight of Legal Tradition, in The European Court and National Courts—Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in Its Social Context 303 (Anne-Marie Slaughter et al. eds., 1998).Google Scholar

101 See In Defence of the Status Quo, supra note 8, at 9 (referring to the “bottom-to-top hierarchy of authority and real power,” e.g., legitimacy, in European integration).Google Scholar

102 Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 54–55.Google Scholar

103 March, James & Olsen, Johan, The Logic of Appropriateness (Ctr. for Eur. Studies, Univ. of Oslo, ARENA Working Paper No. 04/09), www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/workingpapers/working-papers2004/wp04_9.pdf.Google Scholar

104 European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9, at 360.Google Scholar

105 Cf. Borgwardt, Elizabeth, A New Deal for the World: America‘s Vision for Human Rights (Belknap Press 2005); Elizabeth Borgwardt, Re-examining Nuremberg as a New Deal Institution: Politics, Culture, and the Limits of Law in Generating Human Rights Norms, 23 Berkeley J. Int‘l. L. 401–62 (2005); see also Lindseth, supra note 15, at 153.Google Scholar

106 Cassese, Sabino, The Rise of the Administrative State in Europe, 60 Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico 981 (2010).Google Scholar

107 Cf. Eley, , supra note 78, at 106–15.Google Scholar

108 For a useful summary for Europe, see Charles Tilly, Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650-2000 213–17 (2003) (“A Rough Map of European Democratization”).Google Scholar

109 Landis, James, The Administrative Process 1 (1938).Google Scholar

110 For a suggestive overview of trans-Atlantic developments in “social politics,” see Daniel Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (1998). For corresponding shifts in law and legal thought, compare Duncan Kennedy, Three Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought: 1850-1968, in The New Law and Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal 19 (David Trubek & Alvaro Santos eds., 2006). On the complex interplay between democratization, regulation, and administration in modern societies, see also Pierre Rosanvallon, L'Etat en France de 1789 à Nos Jours 276–80 (1990). Indeed, some argue that over the last quarter century this process has now led to the emergence of an “administrative space” decoupled from the nation-state entirely, not merely regional in character (as in the EU) but also “global” in many respects. See generally Benedict Kingsbury et al., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, in 68 L. & Contemp. Probs. 15–61 (2005); Sabino Cassese, What Is Global Administrative Law and Why Study It? in Global Administrative Law: An Italian Perspective 1 (Sabino Cassese, et al., eds., 2012) (Robert Schuman Ctr. for Advanced Studies, Global Governance Programme, RSCAS Policy Paper No. 2012/04), available at cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/22374; see also Joshua Cohen & Charles Sabel, Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy, 3 Eur. L.J. 767–68 (1997). For a critique of this approach, see infra notes 128–30 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

111 See generally Lindseth, , The Paradox of Parliamentary Supremacy, supra note 17; see also Lindseth, supra note 15, at 61–90.Google Scholar

112 On the specific sense in which I am using the term “cultural” here, as well as my broader theory of institutional change, see Lindseth, supra note 15, at 13–14.Google Scholar

113 See supra notes 71–78 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

114 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 32.Google Scholar

115 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 133–88.Google Scholar

116 Rasmussen, Carlsen v., Case No. I-361/1997, 1998 UfR 800, reprinted in 2 Andrew Oppenheimer, The Relationship Between European Community Law and National Law: The Cases 191 (2d ed. 2003).Google Scholar

117 See Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 86–87, 133–34, 184–85.Google Scholar

118 See generally id., at 133–88.Google Scholar

119 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 987/10 (Sep. 7, 2011), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html [hereinafter Judgment of Sept. 7, 2011]; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvE 8/11 (Feb. 28, 2012), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html [hereinafter Judgment of February 28, 2012]; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvE 4/11 (June 19, 2012), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html [hereinafter Judgment of June 19, 2012]; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 1390/12 (Sept. 12, 2012), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html; OMT Reference, supra note 20; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 1390/12 (Mar. 18, 2014), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html.Google Scholar

120 See, in particular, Judgment of Sept. 7, 2011, supra note 119, at para. 124 (“if supranational legal obligations were created without a corresponding decision by the free will of the Bundestag, then the parliament would find itself in the roll of a mere rubber-stamp [a Nachvollzug—literally a ‘re-enacting'] and could no longer exercise overall responsibility for spending policy within the framework of its budgetary rights”), as well as para. 125 (“in particular [the Bundestag] is not permitted, even by statute, to subject itself [sich ausliefern—literally to ‘deliver itself up'] to any mechanism of financial effect, which—whether on the basis of its overall conception or an overall assessment of its individual measures—could lead to unclear burdens of budgetary significance, be they expenditures or revenue losses, without prior constitutive consent” of the Bundestag). Translation by author.Google Scholar

121 See especially Judgment of February 28, 2012, supra note 119; Judgment of June 19, 2012, supra note 199.Google Scholar

122 Lindseth, Peter, Greek “Sovereignty” and European “Democracy”—A Bit of a Walk-Back, Due to Some “Colossal” Concerns, EUtopialaw.com (Feb. 15, 2012), www.eutopialaw.com/2012/02/15/greek-sovereignty-and-european-democracy-a-bit-of-a-walk-back-due-to-some-colossal-concerns/.Google Scholar

123 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9; European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9.Google Scholar

124 See Bellamy, , supra note 9; see also Scharpf, supra note 32.Google Scholar

125 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 265.Google Scholar

126 See Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 47–48. I owe this concept to Ernest Young, Constitutional Avoidance, Resistance Norms, and the Preservation of Judicial Review, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1549–1614 (2000).Google Scholar

127 Nicolaïdis, Kalypso & Shaffer, Gregory, Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance Without Global Government, 68 L. & Contemp. Probs. 263–317 (2005).Google Scholar

128 Id. at 314 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

129 Somek, Alexander, Administration Without Sovereignty, in The Twilight of Constitutionalism? 267 (Petra Dobner & Martin Loughlin eds., 2010).Google Scholar

130 See generally Agents Without Principals, supra note 17.Google Scholar

131 Cf. Scharpf, , supra note 32.Google Scholar

132 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9; European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9; see also Sustainable Integration, supra note 9.Google Scholar

133 Understanding the EU and its Crisis through the Lens of Demoicracy: A Conversation, NYU Law School, Mar. 7– 8, 2013.Google Scholar

134 See generally Sustainable Integration, supra note 9.Google Scholar

135 European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9, at 364.Google Scholar

136 Id. Google Scholar

137 Lindseth, Peter, “Demoicracy” Follow-up: Reflections on the Legal and Institutional Implications of the Concept, Europæus|law (Mar. 19, 2013), www.europaeuslaw.blogspot.com/2013/03/demoicracy-follow-up-reflections-on.html.Google Scholar

138 The Community System, supra note 8; The Transformation of Europe, supra note 8. See also Lindseth, supra note 18.Google Scholar

139 Halberstam, Daniel, Rescue Package for Fundamental Rights: Comments by Daniel Halberstam, Verfassungsblog (Feb. 22, 2012), www.verfassungsblog.de/rescue-package-fundamental-rights-comments-daniel-halberstam/#.U3doI1hdVqk.Google Scholar

140 Kischel, Uwe, Delegation of Legislative Power to Agencies: A Comparative Analysis of United States and German Law, 46 Admin. L. Rev. 239 (1994) (“the striking down of statutes on delegation grounds [in Germany] is considered a normal event that frequently occurs”). See also Lindseth, supra note 15, at 134. But see Rob van Gestel, The ‘Deparliamentarisation’ of Legislation: Framework Laws and the Primacy of the Legislature, 9 Utrecht L. Rev. 106–22 (2013) (analyzing the Dutch case as a counter-example). But van Gestel also notes that the Dutch Constitution is not wholly devoid of delegation constraints, “such as Article 104 determining that imposed by the state shall be levied pursuant to an Act of Parliament” as well as “restrictions on delegation in the sphere of fundamental rights.” Id. at 111.Google Scholar

141 See Lindseth, Peter, Rescue Package for Fundamental Rights: Further Comments from Peter Lindseth, Verfassungsblog (Feb. 28, 2012), www.verfassungsblog.de/rescue-package-fundamental-rights-comments-peter-lindseth-2/#.U3dpFFhdVqk (citing Cass Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 315–43 (2000); John Manning, The Nondelegation Doctrine as a Canon of Avoidance, 2000 Sup. Ct. Rev. 223–77 (2000)).Google Scholar

142 See, e.g., European Demoicracy and Its Crisis, supra note 9, at 364. (“Subsidiarity under democratic interdependence calls for cities, regions and other sub-state entities to govern in horizontal consideration of each other. It may sometimes necessitate devolving back competences from the EU level”).Google Scholar

143 Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 641.Google Scholar

144 For a discussion, see Lindseth, supra note 15, at 197–98.Google Scholar

145 Id. at 198–201.Google Scholar

146 Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 717–18; Lindseth, supra note 15, at 196.Google Scholar

147 Bermann, George, Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 391 (1994).Google Scholar

148 See, e.g., Bignami, Francesca, The Democratic Deficit in European Community Rulemaking: A Call for Notice and Comment in Comitology, 40 Harv. Int'l L.J. 451–515 (1999).Google Scholar

149 Joerges, Christian & Neyer, Jürgen, From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative Political Processes: The Constitutionalisation of Comitology, 3 Eur. L.J. 273–99 (1997); Michelle Everson, The Constitutionalization of European Administrative Law: Legal Oversight of a Stateless Internal Market, in EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics 281 (Christian Joerges & Ellen Vos eds., 1999). More recently, see Dierdre Curtin et al., Constitutionalising EU Executive Rule-Making Procedures: A Research Agenda, 19 Eur. L.J. 1–21 (2013).Google Scholar

150 Sabel, Charles & Zeitlin, Jonathan, Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU, 14 Eur. L.J. 313–15 (2008).; Charles Sabel & William Simon, Epilogue: Accountability Without Sovereignty, in Law and New Governance in the EU and the US 402 (Grainne De Burca & Joanne Scott eds., 2006).Google Scholar

151 Cohen, & Sabel, , supra note 110, at 313. On the way in which Sabel and his co-authors seem to be backing away from this “democratic” claim in the strongest sense, see Lindseth, supra note 15, at 260. For a recent, more nuanced statement, see Charles Sabel & Jonathan Zeitlin, Experimentalism in the EU: Common Ground and Persistent Differences, 6 Regulation & Governance 410, 424 (2012) (claiming not “to assert that current parliamentary institutions could not, [but] indeed probably would have to, play a role in a re-imagined form of representative democracy that can respond to the world as it is”). Moreover, Sabel and Zeitlin equally acknowledge, id. at 423–24, that interests, culture, and history “matter” in a manner that begins to approach the theory of institutional change outlined in Lindseth, supra note 15, at 13–14.Google Scholar

152 “Weak” Constitutionalism?, supra note 17, at 157.Google Scholar

153 See generally Lindseth, , supra note 15, at 261–62.Google Scholar

154 Id. at 199–201.Google Scholar

155 See Curtin, et al., supra note 149, at 5.Google Scholar

156 For an overview, see Lindseth, supra note 15, at 135–37, 270–72.Google Scholar

157 For an overview, see id. at 168–87.Google Scholar

158 See generally Lindseth, Peter, Barking vs. Biting: Understanding the German Constitutional Court's OMT Reference … and its implications for EU Reform, EUtopialaw.com (Feb. 10, 2014), eutopialaw.com/2014/02/10/barking-vs-biting-understanding-the-german-constitutional-courts-omt-reference-and-its-implications-for-eu-reform (drawing on Arthur Dyevre, Judicial Non-Compliance in a Non-Hierarchical Legal Order: Isolated Accident or Omen of Judicial Armageddon? (June 15, 2012), available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2084639.Google Scholar

159 See, e.g., Mayer, , supra note 7, at 117 (“Considering the clear wording of the EU treaties and the role attributed to the ECJ as final arbiter, the ultra vires doctrine of the German Constitutional Court is … incompatible with Germany's obligations under EU law”).Google Scholar

160 See supra note 136 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

161 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 687/85, BVerfGE 75, 223 (Apr. 8, 1987); [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 1 (interpreting Article 101 of the Basic Law in the context of integration). But see the Court's judgment (First Senate) in Antiterrordatei [Counter-Terrorism Database], Case No. 1 BvR 1215/07, para. 91 (April 24, 2013) [hereinafter Antiterrordatei] (holding that the ECJ could not, by virtue of its expansive interpretation of its authority under Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Årkerberg Fransson, be deemed the “lawful judge” under Article 101 GG because the ECJ's interpretation of its own authority would constitute either an ultra vires act or potentially a violation of Germany's constitutional identity) (I thank Ingrid Leijten of the Leiden University for bringing this passage to my attention). As summarized in the Court's English-language press-release: European fundamental rights are from the outset not applicable [to this case], and the European Court of Justice is not the lawful judge according to Art. 101 sec. 1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG). The European Court of Justice's decision in the case Åkerberg Fransson (judgment of 26 February 2013, C-617/10) does not change this conclusion. As part of a cooperative relationship, this decision must not be read in a way that would view it as an apparent ultra vires act or as if it endangered the protection and enforcement of the fundamental rights in the member states in a way that questioned the identity of the Basic Law's constitutional order. The Senate acts on the assumption that the statements in the ECJ's decision are based on the distinctive features of the law on value-added tax, and express no general view. The Senate's decision on this issue was unanimous.Google Scholar

Federal Constitutional Court - Press Office, Press Release No. 31/2013 (Apr. 24, 2013) www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg13-031en.html. This would appear to be an application, albeit in the context of interpreting a judicial decision, of the so-called “nondelegation canons” that the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes finds it necessary to apply in the interpretation of statutes. See generally Sunstein, supra note 141. For the most famous example, see the “Benzene” decision, Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 646 (1980). For a discussion of how this case might provide guidance in interpreting the scope of delegated normative power in the integration context, see Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 721.Google Scholar

162 On the definition of that principle of deference and its limits in the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court, see Lindseth, supra note 15, at 133–88.Google Scholar

163 OMT Reference, supra note 20, at para. 24 (quoting Honeywell, Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. BvR 2661/06, paras. 60–61 (July 6, 2010) (citations omitted), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions.html).Google Scholar

164 Id. at para. 26. Admittedly, from a separation of powers perspective, the German Constitutional Court must be careful to manage (and, if necessary) limit the standing doctrine under Article 38 GG. Cf. Id. at para. 19:Google Scholar

Art. 38 sec. 1 sentence 1 GG does not extend this right any further and does not grant citizens a right to have the lawfulness of democratic majority decisions reviewed by the Federal Constitutional Court. The right to vote does not serve to monitor the content of democratic processes, but is intended to facilitate them.Google Scholar

Nevertheless, the Court's more lenient standing doctrine in the integration is arguably justified. See Lindseth, supra note 15, at 178:Google Scholar

In the parliamentary systems of Europe, the legislative majority (even a coalition) will usually be hesitant to oppose the government's support for a European measure except in rare circumstances. Consequently, the incentive of other institutional players to mount a challenge is significantly weaker in the democracy-protection context, thus necessitating a more aggressive judicial role.Google Scholar

165 Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 731. Compare also the discussion of Antiterrordatei, supra note 161, at para. 91.Google Scholar

166 See, e.g., Goldmann, Matthias, Adjudicating Economics? Central Bank Independence and the Appropriate Standard of Judicial Review, 15 German L.J. 265 (2014); Thomas Beukers, The Bundesverfassungsgericht Preliminary Reference on the OMT Program: “In the ECB We Do Not Trust. What About You?,” 15 German L.J. 343 (2014).Google Scholar

167 See, e.g., Joerges, Christian, Unity in Diversity as Europe's Vocation and Conflicts Law as Europe's Constitutional Form (LEQS Paper, Nov. 28, 2013), available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1723249.Google Scholar

168 For the most complete outline of the proposal, see Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 726–34; for a more abbreviated discussion, see Lindseth, supra note 15, at 275–77.Google Scholar

169 See, e.g., Weiler, & Trachtman, , supra note 35, at 391–92; Joseph Weiler, The Reformation of European Constitutionalism, 35 J. Common Mkt. Studies 127 (1997).Google Scholar

170 See Democratic Legitimacy, supra note 17, at 729–34.Google Scholar

171 Cf. Sustainable Integration, supra note 9.Google Scholar

172 MacCormick, Neil, The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now, 1 Eur. L.J. 265 (1995).Google Scholar

173 Germany as Europe, supra note 9, at 791.Google Scholar

174 Id. Google Scholar

175 Sustainable Integration, supra note 9, at 41.Google Scholar

176 See Agents Without Principals?, supra note 17.Google Scholar

177 See Lindseth, , supra note 32, at 1354 (the postwar constitutional settlement “required, paradoxically, the weakening of elected legislatures—through the imposition of delegation constraints—in order to ensure their place in an evolving, but still democratic, system of separation of powers”).Google Scholar

178 The Idea of European Demoicracy, supra note 9, at 274.Google Scholar

179 Sustainable Integration, supra note 9, at 41.Google Scholar

180 Habermas, Jürgen, Lecture at KU Leuven, Belgium: Democracy, Solidarity and the European Crisis (Apr. 26, 2013), www.kuleuven.be/communicatie/evenementen/evenementen/jurgen-habermas/en/democracy-solidarity-and-the-european-crisis.Google Scholar

181 See, e.g., The Community System, supra note 8, at 293.Google Scholar

182 Sustainable Integration, supra note 9, at 47.Google Scholar

183 See supra notes 31–34 and accompanying text.Google Scholar