reasons or just for being German. They feel out of place and uncomfortable. They fear that family members will speak about them when using their own language. Those mentors who are from a migrant background fear rejection because they are not from the same
The Lisbon Treaty has sparked a new round of debate about the nature of membership in the European Union. Constitutional courts of Germany and the Czech Republic played a prominent role in this debate. Parts of their rulings were framed in the traditional vocabulary of ‘sovereignty’. In this paper, I proceed by showing heuristic limitations of the concept of ‘sovereignty’ in addressing the intricate issue of the EU membership. I will, first, argue that none of the aspects of sovereignty – neither international, nor domestic – is significantly affected by the membership in the Union. Moreover, the sovereignty lenses necessarily put emphasis on the question of the final authority, which legal pluralists rightly reject as misleading in the EU context. This rejection is a result of a genuine “heterarchical” relation between the EU and Member States. As a consequence, the EU membership can be more adequately reconstructed through the constitutional identity lenses. This is what both constitutional courts to a certain extent did in their Lisbon rulings. The German court, in addition, tried to determine the “core areas” of competences beyond which the constitutional identity of Germany as a member state can be compromised within the EU. In the last part of the paper, I will challenge this course of action by demonstrating that it is problematic on a number of accounts. In this respect, the Czech Constitutional Court’s (hereinafter: CCC) approach of refraining from determining in advance and in abstracto what might be the ultimate defining elements of the Czech constitutional identity seems to be more commendable.
whole caseload of the Court (10.5% v. less than 0.1%). Further, if admission and rejection rulings are analyzed separately, it results in admission rulings being considerably more disputed than rejection rulings: only one third are unanimity, while
extended the scope of their authority to issues of foreign relations and justice nominations.
Poland’s legislative veto construction is yet another reinforcement of the president’s power. Veto rejection requires the Sejm to vote by a majority of at
rightfully that the rejection of help on the part of the person who is trained to help and works on board mainly for this purpose, creates an unexpected situation extraneous to her, the passenger. In other words, in the causal chain leading to the accident
Scientific observers as well politicians have noted for a long time that European integration is a process led by the elites but supported much less enthusiastically by the public at large. The first part of this paper documents systematically and for the first time how pervasive the split between elites and citizens has become over the last decades; the rejection of the “Constitution for Europe” by clear majorities of the French and Dutch voters in 2005 was only the last and most spectacular event in this regard. The paper proposes two theses which help to explain this split: (1) European integration has brought and still brings many advantages to the powerful elites involved, the political, economic and new “Eurocratic” elites; (2) for the population at large, the gains from integration are much less obvious; significant subsections of the populations in different EU member countries have been affected negatively by integration. These theses are documented by empirical evidence from many different sources: Data about the origins, careers and privileges of European politicians and bureaucrats; historical and contemporary data about the role of economic interests and the successful strategies of economic elites concerning integration; statistical data about the socioeconomic development of the EU and “Euroland” compared to other large advanced countries and macro-regions of the world; and survey data about the perceptions and evaluations of European integration both among the elites and the populations in the different member states.
the rudimentary rejection-by, e.g. Antalffy, Gy.- Papp, I.- Popovics, B.: Lectures on the History of Political and Legal Thinking. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: Acta juridica et politica , Szeged, 20 (1973) 6-to, by Seidler, G. L.: Myśl polityczna