La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada
The Author gives a commentary, from a critical point of view, about the Lisbon Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). He begins by taking into account the controversy provoked by the Decision in Germany both on the doctrinal and political levels. After that he goes on to point out the p...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
Junta de Andalucía: Instituto Andaluz de Administración Pública
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=3263715 |
| Source: | Revista de derecho constitucional europeo, ISSN 1697-7890, Nº. 12, 2009, pags. 397-429 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0000364007
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Revista de derecho constitucional europeo, ISSN 1697-7890, Nº. 12, 2009, pags. 397-429
|
| language |
Spanish
|
| topic |
Tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán
Sentencia Lisboa Soberanía estatal integración europea Derecho constitucional europeo Federal Constitutional Court of German Lisbon Decision State Sovereignty European integration European Constitutional Law |
| spellingShingle |
Tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán
Sentencia Lisboa Soberanía estatal integración europea Derecho constitucional europeo Federal Constitutional Court of German Lisbon Decision State Sovereignty European integration European Constitutional Law Häberle, Peter Balaguer Callejón, Francisco La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada |
| description |
The Author gives a commentary, from a critical point of view, about the Lisbon
Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). He begins by taking into account
the controversy provoked by the Decision in Germany both on the doctrinal and
political levels. After that he goes on to point out the positive and negative profiles
of the Decision. Referring to the positive aspects he mentions the consideration of
comparative Law, the inference of the democracy principle from human dignity, the
invocation of the «European common» constitutional traditions and the use of the
concept of «responsibility for integration» among other questions.
Referring to the negative aspects �which leads him to define the Decision as a
retrospective one and as «Maastricht II»� the author considers that the decision is
constructed in relation to a general theory of the State, which is very Germanic but
outdated. According to the author, the FCC does not take into account the doctrinal
debate that provoked the Maastricht Decision. Because of that, the FCC remains
anchored in an obsolete notion of State as well as sovereignty, and as a result, it has
lost the opportunity to intervene in the European debate using German «constitutional
reason» instead of German «state reason». He also considers that the concept of
democracy used by the Court, based on the representative democracy, is questionable
and that the Court is not conscious of the function that democracy includes today in
relation to the protection of minorities. The author criticizes likewise the
underassessment that the FCC produces of the citizenship of the Union as well as
the concept of constitutional identity used by the Court. According to the author,
nevertheless, the FCC cannot assume the position of sole incumbent for guaranteeing
German constitutional identity. At last the Decision contradicts the evolutional
process of constitutionalization of Europe and remains anchored to a retrospective
theory of State instead of using a European constitutional theory that cannot be
unilaterally developed, but rather elaborated by the 27 scientific communities of
Europe. In sum, European juridical unity in its diversity will be not strengthen but
endangered by the Lisbon Decision.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Häberle, Peter
Balaguer Callejón, Francisco |
| author_facet |
Häberle, Peter
Balaguer Callejón, Francisco |
| author_sort |
Häberle, Peter
|
| title |
La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada
|
| title_short |
La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada
|
| title_full |
La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada
|
| title_fullStr |
La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosada
|
| title_sort |
la regresiva "sentencia lisboa" como "maastricht-ii" anquilosada
|
| publisher |
Junta de Andalucía: Instituto Andaluz de Administración Pública
|
| publishDate |
2009
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=3263715
|
| _version_ |
1709709336792530944
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00003640072016-09-15La regresiva "Sentencia Lisboa" como "Maastricht-II" anquilosadaHäberle, PeterBalaguer Callejón, FranciscoTribunal Constitucional Federal AlemánSentencia LisboaSoberanía estatalintegración europeaDerecho constitucional europeoFederal Constitutional Court of GermanLisbon DecisionState SovereigntyEuropean integrationEuropean Constitutional LawThe Author gives a commentary, from a critical point of view, about the Lisbon Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). He begins by taking into account the controversy provoked by the Decision in Germany both on the doctrinal and political levels. After that he goes on to point out the positive and negative profiles of the Decision. Referring to the positive aspects he mentions the consideration of comparative Law, the inference of the democracy principle from human dignity, the invocation of the «European common» constitutional traditions and the use of the concept of «responsibility for integration» among other questions. Referring to the negative aspects �which leads him to define the Decision as a retrospective one and as «Maastricht II»� the author considers that the decision is constructed in relation to a general theory of the State, which is very Germanic but outdated. According to the author, the FCC does not take into account the doctrinal debate that provoked the Maastricht Decision. Because of that, the FCC remains anchored in an obsolete notion of State as well as sovereignty, and as a result, it has lost the opportunity to intervene in the European debate using German «constitutional reason» instead of German «state reason». He also considers that the concept of democracy used by the Court, based on the representative democracy, is questionable and that the Court is not conscious of the function that democracy includes today in relation to the protection of minorities. The author criticizes likewise the underassessment that the FCC produces of the citizenship of the Union as well as the concept of constitutional identity used by the Court. According to the author, nevertheless, the FCC cannot assume the position of sole incumbent for guaranteeing German constitutional identity. At last the Decision contradicts the evolutional process of constitutionalization of Europe and remains anchored to a retrospective theory of State instead of using a European constitutional theory that cannot be unilaterally developed, but rather elaborated by the 27 scientific communities of Europe. In sum, European juridical unity in its diversity will be not strengthen but endangered by the Lisbon Decision.El autor realiza un comentario crítico de la Sentencia Lisboa del TCFA. Comienza dando cuenta de la controversia que ha suscitado en Alemania tanto en el plano doctrinal como en el político. Seguidamente señala los que pueden considerarse aspectos positivos y negativos de la sentencia. Por lo que se refiere a la vertiente positiva, menciona la atención al Derecho comparado, el hecho de que se haga derivar el principio democrático de la dignidad de la persona, la apelación a las tradiciones constitucionales «comunes europeas» y el uso del concepto de «responsabilidad sobre la integración» entre otras cuestiones. En cuanto a los aspectos negativos, que le llevan a definirla como una sentencia retrospectiva y como «Maastricht II», considera que la sentencia se construye desde una teoría general del Estado muy alemana pero ya desfasada. Para el autor, el TFCA no ha tenido en cuenta el debate doctrinal que siguió a la sentencia Maastricht. Por ese motivo, sigue anclado en una concepción obsoleta del Estado y de la soberanía y ha perdido la oportunidad de intervenir en el debate europeo desde la «razón constitucional» en lugar de hacerlo desde la «razón estatal» de Alemania. También considera cuestionable el concepto de democracia que utiliza el tribunal, centrado en la democracia representativa y poco consciente de la función de protección de las minorías que actualmente incorpora. Critica igualmente la minusvaloración que el TCFA realiza de la ciudadanía de la Unión así como el concepto de identidad constitucional que maneja el tribunal. Para el autor, en todo caso, el TCFA no puede arrogarse la condición de garante único de la identidad constitucional alemana. En última instancia, la sentencia contradice el proceso evolutivo de constitucionalización de Europa y permanece anclada en una teoría del Estado retrospectiva en lugar de recurrir a una teoría constitucional europea que, debe reconocerse, no podrá ser desarrollada unilateralmente sino elaborada por representantes de las 27 comunidades científicas. En definitiva, la unidad jurídica europea en la «diversidad» no se verá fortalecida sino puesta en peligro por la sentencia Lisboa.Junta de Andalucía: Instituto Andaluz de Administración PúblicaUniversidad de Granada: Departamento de Derecho Constitucional2009text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=3263715(Revista) ISSN 1697-7890Revista de derecho constitucional europeo, ISSN 1697-7890, Nº. 12, 2009, pags. 397-429spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|