Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:54:27.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2012

Ming-Sung Kuo*
Assistant Professor, University of Warwick School of Law; JSD, LLM, Yale Law School; LLM, LLB, National Taiwan University,


Globalization redefines the relationship between law and space, resulting in the emergence of transnational administrative law in a globalizing legal space. I aim to shed light on transnational administrative law by examining how administrative law relates to the process of European integration. I argue that the idea of administrative legitimation is at the core of this relationship. In the European Union, transnational administration grounds its legitimacy on the fulfilment of administrative law requirements. However, given that in the European Union, administrative legitimation is rooted in Europe's constitutional transformation, I caution against the projection of Europe's experience onto global governance.

Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2012

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.)


1 See D Kennedy, ‘The Mystery of Global Governance’ in JL Dunoff and JP Trachtman (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (CUP 2009). See also Koskenniemi, M, ‘The Fate of Public International Law: Between Techniques and Politics’ (2007) 70 MLR 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Slaughter, A-M, A New World Order (Princeton University Press 2004)Google Scholar. See also Esty, DC, ‘Good Governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law’ (2006) 115 YaleLJ 1490Google Scholar; Calliess, G-P and Renner, M, ‘Between Law and Social Norms: The Evolution of Global Governance’ (2009) 22 Ratio Juris 260CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See Offe, C, ‘Governance: An “Empty Signifier”?’ (2009) 16 Constellations 550–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Weiler, JHH, ‘The Geology of International Law—Governance, Democracy and Legitimacy’ (2004) 64 Heidelberg Journal of International Law (ZaöRV) 560–2Google Scholar; Krisch, N, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (OUP 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G Anthony et al, ‘Values in Global Administrative Law: Introduction to the Collection’ in G Anthony et al (eds), Values in Global Administrative Law (Hart 2011) 1–3.

5 See Krisch (n 4) 54–61. See also Bogdandy, A von, ‘Constitutionalism in International Law: Comment on a Proposal from Germany’ (2006) 47 HarvIntlLJ 233–6Google Scholar. Cf Preuss, UK, ‘Equality of States—Its Meaning in a Constitutionalized Global Order’ (2008) 9 ChiJIntlL 41–5Google Scholar.

6 See, eg, Esty (n 2); Anthony et al (n 4); Cassese, S, ‘Administrative Law without the State? The Challenge of Global Regulation’ (2005) 37 NYUJIntlL&Pol 663Google Scholar.

7 See Cassese (n 6) 687–9; N Krisch, ‘Global Administrative Law and the Constitutional Ambition’ in P Dobner and M Loughlin (eds), The Twilight of Constitutionalism (OUP 2010) 245. See also Krisch (n 4) 57–104.

8 See Esty (n 2) 1561; Cassese (n 6) 687–9. See also S Correia, ‘Administrative Due or Fair Process: Different Paths in the Evolutionary Formation of a Global Principle and a Global Right’ in G Anthony et al (n 4) 343.

9 See Esty (n 2); Kingsbury, B et al. , ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68 LCP 3741Google Scholar; Kingsbury, B, ‘The Concept of “Law” in Global Administrative Law’ (2009) 20 EJIL 3450CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Bogdandy, A von, ‘General Principles of International Public Authority: Sketching a Research Field’ (2008) 9 GermanLJ 1928–38Google Scholar.

10 See JL Dunoff and JP Trachtman, ‘A Functional Approach to International Constitutionalization’ in Dunoff and Trachtman (n 1).

11 See Esty (n 2); G Anthony et al (n 4).

12 The comparison of the revolutionary tradition of legitimacy and administrative legitimation will be further addressed in parts B and C of section III.

13 See Esty (n 2); J Morison and G Anthony, ‘The Place of Public Interest’ in Anthony et al (n 4) 217. See also Krisch (n 4) 12–13; Krisch (n 7) 256–8.

14 See, eg, Chimni, BS, ‘Co-Option and Resistance: Two Faces of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 37 NYUJIntlL&Pol 799Google Scholar; Marks, S, ‘Naming Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 37 NYUJIntlL&Pol 995Google Scholar; Shapiro, M, ‘“Deliberative,” “Independent” Technocracy v. Democratic Politics: Will the Globe Echo the E.U.?’ (2005) 68 LCP 357Google Scholar.

15 For the purpose of the present discussion, the EU law is conveniently used to refer to the pre-Lisbon Community law as well.

16 See, eg, contributions by F Goudappel and T van den Brink, and T Koopmans in Anthony et al (n 4). See also E Chiti and RA Wessel, ‘The Emergence of International Agencies in the Global Administrative Space: Autonomous Actors or State Servants’ in R Collins and ND White (eds), International Organizations and the Idea of Autonomy: Institutional Independence in the International Legal Order (Routledge 2011) 149–50.

17 In this article, I use European legal order to refer to the multilevel governance ordering centred on the EU structure. While it is underpinned by the process of integration leading to the establishment of the EU and the subsequent development, European legal order is a broader concept than the EU legal order. Cf N Walker, ‘Flexibility within a Metaconstitutional Frame: Reflections on the Future of Legal Authority in Europe’ in G de Búrca and J Scott (eds), Constitutional Change in the EU: From Uniformity to Flexibility? (Hart 2000).

18 See, eg, Shapiro (n 14); C Harlow, ‘Accountability as a Value in Global Governance and for Global Administrative Law’ in Anthony et al (n 4) 173–92.

19 This point will be further discussed in part C of section III.

20 See Pound, R, ‘Comparative Law in Space and Time’ (1955) 4 AmJCompL 70Google Scholar; Frankenberg, G, ‘Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law’ (1985) 26 HarvIntlLJ 411Google Scholar.

21 See Riles, A, ‘The View from the International Plane: Perspective and Scale in the Architecture of Colonial International Law’ (2000) 6 Law and Critique 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Twining, W, Globalisation and Legal Theory (CUP 2000)Google Scholar.

22 See, eg, M Kumm, ‘The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and beyond the State’ in Dunoff and Trachtman (n 1).

23 See generally Benda-Beckmann, F von et al. (eds), Spatializing Law: An Anthropological Geography of Law in Society (Ashgate 2009)Google Scholar.

24 See Rahdert, MC, ‘Comparative Constitutional Advocacy’ (2007) 56 AmULRev 553Google Scholar. See also A Riles, ‘Introduction: The Projects of Comparison’ in A Riles (ed), Rethinking the Masters of Comparative Law (Hart 2001).

25 Cf Watson, A, ‘Legal Transplants and Law Reform’ (1976) 92 LQR 79Google Scholar.

26 One of the reasons that conservative jurists are opposed to references to comparative law, or rather, foreign law, in US courts is the cosmopolitan orientation in comparative law argument, which is feared to lead to the compromise of US constitutional values. See Sunstein, CR, A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before (Princeton University Press 2009) 187209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 See Cleveland, SH, ‘Our International Constitution’ (2006) 31 YaleJIntlL 1Google Scholar.

28 See, eg, Kuo, M-S, ‘The Duality of Federalist Nation-Building: Two Strains of Chinese Immigration Cases Revisited’ (2003) 67 AlbLRev 27Google Scholar.

29 See, eg, Kingsbury et al (n 9) 18–20; DM Trubek and MP Cottrell, ‘Robert Hudec and the Theory of International Economic Law: The Law of Global Space’ in C Thomas and JP Trachtman (eds), Developing Countries in the WTO Legal System (OUP 2009).

30 See Kahn, PW, ‘Comparative Constitutional Law in a New Key’ (2003) 101 MichLRev 2679Google Scholar; Mark Tushnet, ‘Some Reflections on Method in Comparative Constitutional Law’ in S Choudhry (ed), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (CUP 2006). See also Mistelis, LA, ‘Regulatory Aspects: Globalization, Harmonization, Legal Transplants and Law Reform – Some Fundamental Observations’ (2000) 34 IntlLaw 1055Google Scholar.

31 See Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’ (1994) 29 URichLRev 99Google Scholar; Slaughter, A-M, ‘Judicial Globalization’ (2000) 40 VaJIntlL 1103Google Scholar; Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Global Community of Courts’ (2003) 44 HarvIntlLJ 191Google Scholar. Cf Krisch (n 4) 119–43.

32 See H Beale, ‘The “Europeanisation” of Contract Law’ in R Halson (ed), Exploring the Boundaries of Contract (Dartmouth 1996); C Joerges, ‘The Impact of European Integration on Private Law: Reductionist Perceptions, True Conflicts and a New Constitutional Perspective’ (1997) 3 ELJ 378.

33 Joerges (n 32) 384.

34 See Eidenmüller, Horst et al. , ‘The Common Frame of Reference for European Private Law—Policy Choices and Codification Problems’ (2008) 28 OJLS 660CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 See Schwarze, J, European Administrative Law (rev edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2006) 85–6Google Scholar; M Ruffert, ‘The Transformation of Administrative Law as a Transnational Methodological Project’ in M Ruffert (ed), The Transformation of Administrative Law in Europe (European Law Publishers 2007).

36 See Choudhry (n 30); Ackerman, B, ‘The Rise of World Constitutionalism’ (1997) 83 VaLRev 771Google Scholar.

37 See, eg, Symposium, ‘Global Constitutionalism’ (2007) 59 StanLRev 1153. See also Kahn (n 30).

38 See JHH Weiler et al, ‘Prologue – The European Courts of Justice’ in A-M Slaughter et al (eds), The European Courts and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence (Hart 1998); E Smith, ‘Give and Take: Cross-Fertilisation of Concepts in Constitutional Law’ in J Beatson and T Tridimas (eds), New Directions in European Public Law (Hart 1998). See also Kahn (n 30) 2679.

39 See FI Michelman, ‘Integrity-Anxiety?’ in M Ignatieff (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton University Press 2005).

40 See generally Rose-Ackerman, S and Lindseth, PL (eds), Comparative Administrative Law (Edward Elgar 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Ruffert (n 35) 5–9.

41 See Schwarze (n 35) 93; T Heukels and J Tib, ‘Towards Homogeneity in the Field of Legal Remedies: Convergence and Divergence’ in P Beaumont et al (eds), Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law (Hart 2002) 114; K-H Ladeur (ed), The Europeanisation of Administrative Law: Transforming National Decision-Making Procedures (Ashgate 2002).

42 See Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth (n 40).

43 See also Kumm (n 22).

44 Administrative law is even more impenetrable to comparative analysis than constitutional law. See Schwarze, J, ‘Enlargement, the European Constitution, and Administrative Law’ (2004) 53 ICLQ 971–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Notably, the question of administrative discretion is at the core of how to define the limits of bureaucratic power. See Stewart, RB, ‘The Reformation of American Administrative Law’ (1975) 88 HarvLRev 1671–88Google Scholar. Edley, CF Jr., Administrative Law: Rethinking Judicial Control of Bureaucracy (Yale University Press 1990) 112Google Scholar. See also Nolte, G, ‘General Principles of German and European Administrative Law – A Comparison in Historical Perspective’ (1994) 57 MLR 196–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B Sordi, ‘Révolution, Rechtsstaat, and the Rule of Law: Historical Reflections on the Emergence of Administrative Law in Europe’ in Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth (n 40).

46 See Stewart (n 45) 1688. See also Harlow, C and Rawlings, R, Law and Administration (2nd edn, CUP 2006) 29127Google Scholar.

47 See Kingsbury (n 9) 34–50.

48 Thomas, R, Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law (Hart 2000) 1314Google Scholar.

49 See Kingsbury (n 9) 31.

50 See Morison and Anthony (n 13) 216–17, 229–31; B Kingsbury, ‘International Law as Inter-Public Law’ in HS Richardson and MS Williams (eds), Moral Universalism and Pluralism (NOMOS XLIX, NYU Press 2009). See also Habermas, J, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W Rehg trans, MIT Press 1996) 168–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 See Morison and Anthony (n 13) 217–23.

52 See Kingsbury (n 9) 32–3; Kingsbury (n 50) 178–9.

53 See also Cassese, S, ‘Global Standards for National Administrative Procedure’ (2005) 68 LCP 109Google Scholar. Cf Esty (n 2) 1524.

54 See Morison and Anthony (n 13) 223–37.

55 See Kingsbury (n 9) 41–50.

56 Cf Krisch (n 4) 97–8.

57 Cf Habermas (n 50) 168–93.

58 See Frug, J, ‘Administrative Democracy’ (1990) 40 UTLJ 559CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fisher, E, Risk: Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism (Hart 2007) 32–5Google Scholar.

59 For the influence of APA on the debate as to the enactment of a European administrative procedure act, see Meuwese, A et al. , ‘Towards a European Procedure Act’ (2009) 2 (2) Review of European Administrative Law 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 5 USC sections 554, 556–57 (2006). According to 5 USC section 554(a), the formal adjudication procedure applies only when adjudications are ‘required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing’. See also Asimow, M, ‘The Spreading Umbrella: Extending the APA's Adjudication Provisions to All Evidentiary Hearings Required by Statute’ (2004) 56 AdminLRev 1005–6Google Scholar; Breyer, SG et al. , Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases (6th edn, Aspen 2006) 489–92Google Scholar.

61 5 USC section 553 (2006). See Breyer et al (n 60) 493–4.

62 5 USC sections 553(c), 556–57 (2006). The formal rule-making procedure applies only ‘[w]hen rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing’. 5 USC section 553(c). After United States v Florida East Coast Railway (410 US 224 (1973)), administrative regulations are almost exclusively made through the channel of informal rulemaking. See also Breyer et al (n 60) 492–4, 514–20.

63 5 USC section 553(c) (2006). See also DeLong, JV, ‘Informal Rulemaking and the Integration of Law and Policy’ (1979) 65 VaLRev 258Google Scholar.

64 See Stewart (n 45) 1760–70. Cf Craig, PP, Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America (OUP 1990) 116–36Google Scholar.

65 See Breyer et al (n 60) 527–44.

66 See Bingham, LB, ‘The Next Generation of Administrative Law: Building the Legal Infrastructure for Collaborative Governance’ [2010] WisLRev 297, 316–22Google Scholar. See also Rose-Ackerman, S, Controlling Environment: The Limits of Public Law in Germany and the United States (Yale University Press 1994) 1415, 126–7Google Scholar.

67 Bruce Ackerman notes, ‘The German Administrative Procedures Act … ignor[es] almost entirely the distinctive problems involved in legitimating bureaucratic rule-making’. Ackerman, B, ‘The New Separation of Powers’ (2000) 113 HarvLRev 633, 697Google Scholar. Cf Ziamou, TT, Rulemaking, Participation and the Limits of Public Law in the USA and Europe (Ashgate 2001) 78, 143–6Google Scholar.

68 See E Schmidt-Aßmann and C Möllers, ‘The Scope and Accountability of Executive Power in Germany’ in P Craig and A Tomkins (eds), The Executive and Public Law: Power and Accountability in Comparative Perspective (OUP 2006) 281; V Mehde, ‘Political Accountability in Germany’ in L Verhey et al (eds), Political Accountability in Europe: Which Way Forward? (European Law Publishing 2008) 104.

69 See Mehde (n 68). For an American account of the transmission-belt theory of legitimacy, see Stewart (n 45) 1675–6.

70 See Ziamou (n 67) 56–9.

71 The German conceptual equivalent of adjudication is Verwaltungsakt, while the closest German counterpart of the object of the rule-making procedures in APA is Rechtsverordnung. See Schmidt-Aßmann and Möllers (n 68) 275.

72 ibid 280–3.

73 ibid 281.

74 See Rose-Ackerman (n 66) 59–60.

75 See Schwarze (n 35) 18–20, 85–6. See also Nolte (n 45) 212; Rose-Ackerman (n 66); Lindseth, PL, ‘The Paradox of Parliamentary Supremacy: Delegation, Democracy, and Dictatorship in Germany and France, 1920s–1950s’ (2004) 113 YaleLJ 1341Google Scholar.

76 See Rose-Ackerman (n 66) 12–13, 15–16. See also Nolte (n 45) 197–8.

77 See Rose-Ackerman (n 66) 1–3.

78 See B Ackerman, ‘Rooted Cosmopolitanism’ (1994) 104 Ethics 516.

80 See also P Lindseth, ‘“Always Embedded” Administration: the Historical Evolution of Administrative Justice as an Aspect of Modern Governance’ in C Joerges et al (eds), The Economy as a Polity: The Political Constitution of Contemporary Capitalism (UCL Press 2005).

81 See Schwarze (n 35) 4–10.

82 See generally JHH Weiler, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100 YaleLJ 2403. For recent literature on the constitutionalization of the EU, see, eg, Stone Sweet, A, The Judicial Construction of Europe (OUP 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rittberger, B and Schimmelfennig, F (eds), The Constitutionalization of the European Union (Routledge 2007)Google Scholar; Christiansen, T and Reh, C, Constitutionalizing the European Union (Palgrave Macmillan 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 See, eg, Weiler, JHH, The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration (CUP 1999)Google Scholar; Bogdandy, A von and Bast, J (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law (2nd and rev edn, Hart and CH Beck 2010)Google Scholar.

84 See A von Bogdandy and J Bast, ‘The Constitutional Approach to EU Law – From Taming Intergovernmental Relationships to Framing Political Processes’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83); FC Mayer, ‘Multilevel Constitutional Jurisdiction’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83). See also Everson, M and Eisner, J, The Making of a European Constitution: Judges and Law Beyond Constitutive Power (Routledge-Cavendish 2007) 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see PL Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State (OUP 2010) 1 (urging an administrative rather than a constitutional account of the EU legal order).

85 See U Haltern, ‘On Finality’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83). Needless to say, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe not only poses existential challenges to the eurozone but also calls the constitutional order of the EU into question.

86 See Weiler (n 82) 2413.

87 See Weiler, JHH, ‘Thinking about Rethinking’ (2005) EuConst 415–16Google Scholar; Walker, N, ‘Legal Theory and the European Union: A 25th Anniversary Essay’ (2005) 25 OJLS 581CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kuo, M-S, ‘From Myth to Fiction: Why a Legalist-Constructivist Rescue of European Constitutional Ordering Fails’ (2009) 29 OJLS 589600CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 But see Lindseth (n 84) 4–14 (the legitimacy of the EU legal order is underpinned by a chain of legitimacy traced to the member states).

89 See Weiler (n 82). See also Krisch (n 4) 29–31.

90 For an extensive account of constitutionalization that includes both the legal and sociological aspects of constitution-making, see Cass, DZ, The Constitutionalization of the World Trade Organization: Legitimacy, Democracy, and Community in the International Trading System (OUP 2005) 2848CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also F Snyder, ‘The Unfinished Constitution of the European Union: Principles, Processes and Culture’ in JHH Weiler and M Wind (eds), European Constitutionalism Beyond the State (CUP 2003) 55.

91 See B Ackerman, We the People: Foundations, vol 1 (Belknap 1990).

92 See C Walter, ‘International Law in a Process of Constitutionalization’ in J Nijman and A Nollkaemper (eds), New Perspectives on the Divide between National and International Law (OUP 2007) 192. See also Weiler, JHH, ‘On the Power of the Word: Europe's Constitutional Iconography’ (2005) 3 ICON 173–6Google Scholar.

93 See Harris, WF II, The Interpretable Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press 1993)Google Scholar. As a matter of historical fact, the making of a constitution takes a period of time. However, the whole period in which a constitution is drafted, deliberated, and approved is conceptually regarded as a constitutional moment. See Kuo, M-S, ‘Reconciling Constitutionalism with Power: Towards a Constitutional Nomos of Political Ordering’ (2010) 23 Ratio Juris 399400CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 See Kuo, M-S, ‘The End of Constitutionalism As We Know It? Boundaries and the State of Global Constitutional (Dis)Ordering’ (2010) 1 Transnational Legal Theory 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Case 26/62 [1963] ECR 1.

96 See Weiler (n 82) 2434.

97 See Walter (n 92) 192–4.

98 See Kuo (n 93).

99 ibid; Krisch (n 4) 33.

100 See C Möllers, ‘Pouvoir Constituant—Constitution—Constitutionalisation’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83) 195. See also Kuo (n 94) 358–64.

101 Kuo (n 87) 585; Möllers (n 100) 195–6.

102 See Möllers (n 100) 196. On this view, whether the EU treaties constitute the EU constitution is beside the point. The EU treaties are constitutional to the extent that their provisions take on constitutional significance as construed by the ECJ. See also Case 294/83 Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v Parliament, [1986] ECR 1339, 1365, para 23. Cf Möllers (n 100) 189–95.

103 See Weiler (n 82) 292–8. See also Snyder (n 90) 62–7.

104 See Lindseth (n 84) 58–9.

105 See Robertson, D, The Judge as Political Theorist: Contemporary Constitutional Review (Princeton University Press 2010) 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Lasser, M de S-O-L'E, Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy (OUP 2004) 356–60Google Scholar.

106 See Everson and Eisner (n 84) 27–32, 119–21; Maduro, MP, We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution – A Critical Reading of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (Hart 1998) 734Google Scholar.

107 See Everson and Eisner (n 84).

108 See Möllers (n 100) 175–6, 185–8, 198–9, 201–3.

109 Federico Mancini, G, ‘The Making of a Constitution for Europe’ (1989) 26 CML Rev 595Google Scholar. But see B de Witte, ‘The European Union as an International Legal Experiment’ in G de Búrca and JHH Weiler (eds), The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (CUP 2012).

110 See Weiler (n 82); Snyder (n 90) 62–7.

111 Cf A von Bogdandy, ‘Founding Principles’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83) 46; Snyder (n 90) 62–7.

112 See Möllers (n 100) 170–8.

113 ibid.

114 See Kuo (n 101).

115 See R Wahl, ‘In Defence of “Constitution”’ in Dobner and Loughlin (n 7) 221–2 (quoting and translating P Badura, Staatsrecht: Systematische Erläuterung des Grundgesetzes für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (3rd edn, CH Beck 2003) 7 (emphasis omitted)).

116 Even in British constitutional thought: see Kuo (n 93) 400; Kuo (n 94) 345. Cf Bogdanor, V, The New British Constitution (Hart 2009) 11Google Scholar.

117 See Möllers (n 100) 185–88. See also Everson and Eisner (n 84) 10.

118 Cf JHH Weiler, ‘In Defence of the Status Quo: Europe's Constitutional Sonderweg’ in Weiler and Wind (n 90).

119 See Kuo, M-S, ‘Cutting the Gordian Knot of Legitimacy Theory? An Anatomy of Frank Michelman's Presentist Critique of Constitutional Authorship’ (2009) 7 ICON 683–7Google Scholar. See also Kay, RS, ‘Constituent Authority’ (2011) 59 AmJCompL 715Google Scholar. But cf Everson and Eisner (n 84); Maduro (n 106).

120 See Schwarze (n 35) 4.

121 Case 26/62 [1963] ECR 1.

122 Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585.

123 Case 29/69 [1969] ECR 419.

124 See also M Everson, ‘The Constitutionalisation of European Administrative Law: Legal Oversight of a Stateless Internal Market’ in C Joerges and E Vos (eds), EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics (Hart 1999) 281 (characterizing European administrative law as one ‘for or of the internal market’).

125 See Dehousse, R, The European Court of Justice: The Politics of Judicial Integration (Palgrave Macmillan 1998) 1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Claes, M, The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution (Hart 2006) 399423Google Scholar; Hinarejos, A, Judicial Control in the European Union: Reforming Jurisdiction in the Intergovernmental Pillars (OUP 2010) 114Google Scholar. But cf Schwarze (n 35) 60–1.

126 See T Koopmans, ‘Globalisation of Administrative Law—the European Experience’ in Anthony et al (n 4) 399. See also Morison and Anthony (n 13) 220–1.

127 See Schwarze (n 35) 1460–5.

128 See generally T Ginsburg, ‘Written Constitutions and the Administrative State: On the Constitutional Character of Administrative Law’ in Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth (n 40)

129 von Bogdandy (n 111) 23. See also Koopmans (n 126) 400–1.

130 See, eg, S Kadelbach, ‘Union Citizenship’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83) 466.

131 For the types of and the nature of the ECJ's jurisdiction, see Dehousse (n 125) 7–28.

132 See Schwarze (n 35) 1455–65.

133 See Shapiro, M, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (p/b edn, University of Chicago Press 1986) 27Google Scholar. The allocation of power and competence between public agencies is also a part of administrative law. Accordingly, Case 22/70 Commission v Council (AETR) [1971] ECR 263 can be regarded as an administrative law case as well.

134 See also Everson (n 124) 283.

135 See J Küling, ‘Fundamental Rights’ in von Bogdandy and Bast (n 83) 499.

136 Möllers (n 100) 197; Everson (n 124) 283. See also Snyder (n 90) 63.

137 See generally Ladeur (n 41).

138 See Everson (n 124); Küling (n 135) 497, 499. Cf Fisher (n 58) (embedding the values of constitutionalism in administrative practice and regulatory culture).

139 See Möllers (n 100) 197–8. See also Snyder (n 90) 62–3.

140 Solange I, BVerGE 37, 271 2 BvL 52/71 (1974), [1974] 2 CMLR 540; Solange II, BVerfGE 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83 (1986), [1987] CMLR 225.

141 See, eg, Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491.

142 See Claes (n 125) 690–1.

143 ibid. 452–64.

144 See Schwarze (n 35) 1461–2.

145 See Lindseth (n 84) 6–14; Möllers (n 100) 170–2, 185–8, 198, 202–3. Cf Kuo (n 119).

146 See Mayer (n 84) 429–31.

147 See Lindseth (n 84) 53–57. Cf de Witte (n 109).

148 See JHH Weiler, ‘Dialogical Epilogue’ in de Búrca and Weiler (n 109) 262–70. See also Everson (n 124) 289–90.

149 For the uniqueness of the legitimacy challenge facing the EU, see Haltern, U, ‘Pathos and Patina: The Failure and Promise of Constitutionalism in the European Imagination’ (2003) 9 ELJ 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150 See, eg, Pernice, I, ‘Multilevel Constitutionalism and the Treaty of Amsterdam: European Constitution-Making Revisited?’ (1999) 36 CML Rev 703Google Scholar; Pernice, I, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: Multilevel Constitutionalism in Action’ (2009) 15 ColumJEurL 349Google Scholar. See also Mayer (n 84) 426–31.

151 See Krisch (n 4) ch 2; Kuo, M-S, ‘Between Law and Language: When Constitutionalism Goes Plural in a Globalising World’ (2010) 73 MLR 858CrossRefGoogle Scholar.