In a thought-provoking article, Alec Stone Sweet put forward a problem he called the juridical Coup d'État. His work was the opening of a debate to which Neil Walker, Wojciech Sadurski and Gianluigi Palombella contributed. In a subsequent essay, Stone Sweet responded to their comments. In this article, I would like to sketch this debate and explore its significance for legal theory. It is my hypothesis that the problem of the juridical coup is closely connected with the relationship between constituent (constituting) and constituted (constitutional) power. Moreover, the juridical coup shows in an exemplary way how this relationship should be understood. Before addressing the problem in these terms (Section C), analyzing an additional example of a juridical coup in EU law (Section D) and developing my own position vis-à-vis the different contributors (Section E), in the following section, I will give an overview of the argument of Stone Sweet. Taking into account the wealth of issues raised by him, I will concentrate on those aspects of his essay that are of most interest from a legal-philosophical point of view. Thus, the first question to be answered is: What are we to understand under a Juridical Coup d'État and what is its theoretical importance?

The practice of law has been challenged by the promulgation of transnational norms associated with “corporate social responsibility” (“CSR”), arising beyond the State, with little or no connection to traditional sources of positive law. These phenomena, which we will refer to as “transnational CSR norms,” are increasingly important guides to behaviour for corporate actors, despite the fact that adherence to such norms is not “required” by positive legal systems. Perhaps for this reason, transnational CSR norms are typically poorly understood and possibly underutilized in the practice of law. The purpose of this paper will be to determine, by recourse to legal theory, whether, and if so how, transnational CSR norms may be related to positive legal systems, and therefore to the practice of law. In so doing, we will seek to develop a theoretical understanding of the role transnational CSR norms can, do, and ought to play within processes of legal reasoning, particularly from the theoretical starting points offered by analytical/ positivist, and discursive theories of law.

Only a few European integration experts know that Jean Monnet, one of the masterminds of the European Coal and Steel Community, strongly preferred the European Atomic Energy Community to the European Economic Community in the 1950s and 1960s. From his point of view, sectoral and technical cooperation in the field of nuclear energy seemed to be much more promising in order to foster European integration than cross-sectoral economic integration. Monnet and others believed that nuclear energy could, inter alia, solve all energy supply problems, would revolutionize research and technical development, and could contribute to unifying the peoples of Europe in a few decades. However, nuclear energy in general and Euratom in particular have belied these expectations.

In recent years, German nationality law was subject to changes. Several legal issues that had previously not been decided by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court—FAC) and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court—FCC) were clarified by these courts. Still, some questions had been left unanswered; the courts explicitly demanded that parliament become active. Issues were namely the time limit for revocation of naturalization, the effect of revocations on third parties (like children) that had been naturalized at the same time and the effects of the discontinuance of certain premises that had been the condition for the obtainment of citizenship by children ex lege on their naturalization. Parliament complied with this call to action; in February of 2009, the changes came into force.

Globalization has led to the emergence of broadcasting services and books aimed at a global audience. Authors of books, journals, and articles have gained readers worldwide. Due to the Internet, the spreading of ideas on a global level has never been easier. The other side of the coin is that authors run a risk of being exposed to civil proceedings in many jurisdictions. What is considered to be proactive journalism, or a provocative academic comment in some jurisdictions is considered to be libel or defamation in others. We speak of “libel tourism” when defamation proceedings are brought in a forum that has only vague connections to the case, but happens to be very plaintiff-friendly.