Article 19 TFEU's unanimity requirement shares a striking similarity with a two-century old debate on voting and minority rights between the ‘father’ of the US Constitution, James Madison, and the ‘rebellious son’, John C. Calhoun. Madison made majority voting a necessary condition for impartial lawmaking and minority protection in multistate unions. Conversely, Calhoun sought to maintain the racial status quo through advocating for a competing unanimity-based structure. Minority protection in Article 19 TFEU aligns with Calhoun's model. This Article reassesses Article 19 TFEU through the foundational principles of constitutionalism underlying the US debate and shows their continued relevance for contemporary case law and minority protection in the EU. Particularly, it demonstrates, first, that Article 19 offends the impartiality principle of nemo judex in causa sua—no person should judge their own cause—which has long been a leitmotiv in Western constitutional theory. Second, it illustrates that unanimity causes de jure and de facto ramifications for ethnic and religious minorities in the EU. Last, the Article provides a theoretically grounded and comparatively informed argument to aid ongoing attempts for treaty amendment.

Treaty amendments constitute a critical but under-researched aspect of international law. In this article, we present a comprehensive survey of 491 amendment procedures across 691 multilateral environmental agreements. We use this data collection to build a typology of amendment procedures based on various combinations of control, adaptability, and flexibility. We introduce the property space reduction method as a valuable tool for building typology and analysing international law. We find a clear trend towards the inclusion of amendment procedures, which makes treaties increasingly adaptable. This adaptability is generally coupled with flexibility to avoid infringing on consent. As a result, amended treaties risk being increasingly fragmented into differentiated bundles of obligations split among subsets of members. We also examine how key features of treaty membership, such as power distribution, correlate with the occurrence and types of amendment procedures.

The first punctual question arising is how, in its (single) constitutional being, a body such as the Union combines its constituent roots in the original founding authorities (the states) with those, autonomous, in its own institutions. These are the ECJ for interpretation; the political institutions for practice and convention. In other words, what is the actual relationship, under the urge of change, between the states as treaty masters and the European Council, the Council, the Parliament and the Court? Secondly, there is the question as to how these shared constituent roots reflect not on constitutional change but on the day-to-day legislative and executive functioning of the Union's body politic. The coming constitutional settlement on the euro's financial support mechanism will not only consist of a new treaty. It will also take the form of secondary legislation and case-law. A third, most fundamental, question is how this ever-unfinished constitutional situation, imperfect by definition, will ultimately allow the development of a sound relationship between the authorities and the people, a relationship which is at the heart of any constitutional settlement. The last question (for now) sends us back to the one put in a previous editorial (in issue 1 of this year). It is: how to account for this incomplete and urged situation in a single and coherent constitutional reading?

International law in constitutional change of EU – Rigidity of amendment – EU amending and accession treaties not reviewable – International law in internal development of Union law – Conventions/treaties by member states jointly – Acts of the representatives of the governments – International law in the agreements with third states – Exportation of legal rules – Conditionality policies – Legislating through international agreements

Since the ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht, the ‘democratic deficit’ is used as a term to describe the democratic deficiencies of the European integration process. What is the influence of the citizens on the process of governmental and constitutional decision-making? Due to the distance between the powers of the Community and the nation state, the power of the executive over parliamentary bodies and the fact that a lot of decision-making takes place behind closed doors, greater democracy and transparency is needed.