Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:05:38.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The principle of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2013

ANDREAS FOLLESDAL
ANDREAS FOLLESDAL*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 6706, St. Olavs plass (Cort Adelersgate 30) N-0130 Oslo
*
*†Email: andreas.follesdal@nchr.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

constitutionalismLisbon Treatysovereigntysubsidiarity
Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 37 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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 <http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/archive/papers/99/990701.rtf>.

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.Google Scholar

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

5 Carozza, PG, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 38–79.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

12 Beitz, CR, ‘Cosmopolitanism Liberalism and the States System’ in Brown, Chris (ed), Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994) 123–36Google Scholar; Pogge, TW, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’ (1992) 103 Ethics 48–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

19 Walzer (n 9); Cohen, J, ‘Review of Walzer’s Spheres of Justice’ (1986) 83 Journal of Philosophy 457–68Google Scholar; Scanlon, TM, ‘Local Justice’ (1985) London Review of Books, 5 September, 17–18.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

24 Majone, G, ‘Europe’s ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: The Question of Standards’ (1998) 4 European Law Journal 5–28Google Scholar; Moravcsik, A, ‘In Defence of the ‘‘Democratic Deficit’’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’ (2002) 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 603–24.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

29 Koskenniemi, M, ‘Miserable Comforters: International Relations as New Natural Law,’ (2009) 15 European Journal of International Relations 395–422Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, M, ‘The Future of Statehood’ (1991) 32 Harvard International Law Journal 397–410.Google Scholar

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

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

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Lisbon Treaty art 7.

39 Art F.1.

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

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

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

43 John, XXIII, ‘Mater et Magistra’ in The Papal Encyclicals 1958–1981 (McGrath, Raleigh, NC, 1961)Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar

44 Follesdal, A, ‘The Political Theory of the White Paper on Governance: Hidden and Fascinating’ (2003) 9 European Public Law 73–86.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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 681–700 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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) 297–319.Google Scholar

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

55 Walzer (n 9) 229.

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

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.Google Scholar