Skip to main content Accessibility help

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law



This paper explores subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law. Some authors have appealed to a principle of subsidiarity in order to defend the legitimacy of several striking features of international law, such as the centrality of state consent, the leeway in assessing state compliance and weak sanctions in its absence. The article presents such defences of state-centric aspects of international law by appeals to subsidiarity, and finds them wanting. Different interpretations of subsidiarity have strikingly different institutional implications regarding the objectives of the polity, the domain and role of subunits, and the allocation of authority to apply the principle of subsidiarity itself. Five different interpretations are explored, drawn from Althusius, the US federalists, Pope Leo XIII, and others. One upshot is that the principle of subsidiarity cannot provide normative legitimacy to the state-centric aspects of current international law on its own. It stands in need of substantial interpretation. The versions of subsidiarity that match current practices of public international law are questionable. Many crucial aspects of our legal order must be reconsidered – in particular the standing and scope of state sovereignty.


Corresponding author


Hide All

1 United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

2 G de Búrca, ‘Reappraising Subsidiarity’s Significance after Amsterdam’ (2000) Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper, No. 7/99, available at <>.

3 Kumm, M, ‘The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and Beyond the State’ in Dunoff, JL and Trachtman, JP (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009) 294.

4 Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Liberal Theory of International LawAmerican Society of International Law Proceedings 94 (2000) 240–53.

5 Carozza, PG, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 3879.

6 Interlaken Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, ‘Interlaken Declaration, February 19’ (2010).

7 Kumm (n 3) 295.

8 Marquardt, PD, ‘Subsidiarity and Sovereignty in the European Union’ (1994) 18 Fordham International Law Journal 617.

9 Walzer, M, ‘The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics9 Philosophy and Public Affairs (1980) 209–29.

10 Rawls, J, The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999).

11 Buchanan, A, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec (Westview, Boulder, CO, 1991).

12 Beitz, CR, ‘Cosmopolitanism Liberalism and the States System’ in Brown, Chris (ed), Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994) 123–36; Pogge, TW, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’ (1992) 103 Ethics 4875.

13 Rawls, J, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971); see also Rawls (n 10).

14 Pettit, P, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997).

15 Caney, S, ‘Liberalism and Communitarianism: A Misconceived Debate’ (1992) 40 Political Studies 273–89.

16 Walzer, M, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (Basic, New York, 1983).

17 Althusius, J, Politica Methodice Digesta [1603] (Liberty Press, Indianapolis, IN 1995) ch. 28.

18 A Kuyper, ‘Souvereniteit in Eigen Kring: Rede Ter Inwijding Van De Vrije Universiteit Den 20sten October 1880’ (JH Kryut, Amsterdam, 1880); De Klerk, WA, The Puritans in Africa: A story of Afrikanerdom (Rex Collings, London, 1975) 255–60.

19 Walzer (n 9); Cohen, J, ‘Review of Walzer’s Spheres of Justice’ (1986) 83 Journal of Philosophy 457–68; Scanlon, TM, ‘Local Justice’ (1985) London Review of Books, 5 September, 1718.

20 Montesquieu, C, Spirit of Laws (Prometheus, Amherst, NY, 2002); Scharpf, FW, ‘The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’ (1988) 66 Public Administration 239–78.

21 Beer, SH, To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993) 230.

22 Hamilton, A, Madison, J and Jay, J, The Federalist (Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT, 1961).

23 Sanders, LM, ‘Against Deliberation’ (1997) 25 Political Theory 347–77.

24 Majone, G, ‘Europe’s ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: The Question of Standards’ (1998) 4 European Law Journal 528; Moravcsik, A, ‘In Defence of the ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’ (2002) 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 603–24.

25 Leo, XIII, ‘Rerum Novarum’ in Carlen, C (ed), The Papal Encyclicals 1903–1939 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1981).

26 Pius, XI, ‘Quadragesimo Anno’ in Carlen, C (ed), The Papal Encyclicals 1903–1939 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1981).

27 Maritain, J, Man and the State (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1951).

28 Roepke, W, ‘Liberalism and Christianity’ (1947) 46 Commonweal 328–32, 18 July.

29 Koskenniemi, M, ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law,’ (2009) 15 European Journal of International Relations 395422; Koskenniemi, M, ‘The Future of Statehood’ (1991) 32 Harvard International Law Journal 397410.

30 Rawls, J, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, New York, 1993); Barry, B, Theories of Justice: A Treatise on Social Justice (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1989).

31 Letsas, G, ‘Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 705–32.

32 Deutschland Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl) (1949) art 72.2.3.

33 Treaty of Lisbon, Official Journal of the European Union, C 306 of 17 December 2007.

34 Weiler, JHH, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100 Yale Law Review 2403–83.

35 Lisbon Treaty art 5.3.

36 Lisbon Treaty Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, art 8.

37 Cooper, I, ‘The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU’ (2006) 44 Journal of Common Market Studies 281304.

38 Lisbon Treaty art 7.

39 Art F.1.

40 Miller, D, On Nationality (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995) 257; Manin, cf B, ‘On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation’ (1987) 15 Political Theory 352.

41 Walzer (n 9). Cf Doppelt, G, ‘Statism without Foundations’ (1980) 9 Philosophy and Public Affairs 398–43.

42 Weiler, JHH, The Constitution of Europe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).

43 John, XXIII, ‘Mater et Magistra’ in The Papal Encyclicals 1958–1981 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1961) para 20; Leo, XIII, ‘Sapientiae Christianae’ (1890) in Cronin, JF, Catholic Social Principles: The Social Teaching of the Catholic Church Applied to American Economic Life (Bruce Publishing, Milwaukee, WI, 1950).

44 Follesdal, A, ‘The Political Theory of the White Paper on Governance: Hidden and Fascinating’ (2003) 9 European Public Law 7386.

45 Lisbon Treaty arts 2 and 3.

46 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art 19.

47 Donnelly, J, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (2nd edn, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 2003).

48 Walzer (n 10) 215; cf Doppelt (n 41).

49 Kumm (n 3).

50 Crema, L, ‘Disappearance and New Sightings of Restrictive Interpretation(s)’ (2010) 21 The European Journal of International Law 681700 .

51 Advisory Opinion, ‘Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne’ (1925) PCIJ Series B No. 12 7 cited in Crema ibid 685.

52 United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) art 31.

53 Bernhardt, R, ‘Human Rights and Judicial Review: The European Court of Human Rights’ in Beatty, M (ed), Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1994) 297319.

54 Shany, Y, ‘Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?’ (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 907–40.

55 Walzer (n 9) 229.

56 Beitz, CR, The Idea of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).

57 Macdonald, RSJ, ‘The Margin of Appreciation,’ in Macdonald, RSJ, Matscher, F and Petzold, H (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) 123.

* Professor of Philosophy, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. PhD, Harvard 1991. Principal Investigator, ERC Advanced Grant MultiRights.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.