Michl Ebner

Between Expectations and Realization: The Path toward a European Constitution

On 15 December 2001 the European Council approved the "Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union", which includes a decision to set up a broad-based Convention to pave the way for an open, transparent reform of the EU. With the establishment of the Convention, the EU governments have accepted that the earlier method of reforming the Union by Inter-Governmental Conferences (IGCs) has failed. The task of the Convention is now to draft a new institutional design for the Union, aimed at producing a more democratic and efficient political system. Although the outcome will hopefully be a constitutional treaty, the Convention debate cannot be understood as a merely legal debate. It is a debate about the Future of the European Union and consequently a debate of imminent political, legal, social and economic importance. In particular, the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the present institutions, role of national parliaments, the efficiency of decision-making and the workings of the institutions in a Union of some thirty Member States are the topics with primary importance.
The Convention on the European Union cannot of course, solve all problems. But it is the duty of the Convention Member to pave the way for the next Intergovernmental Conference as broadly and openly as possible.

Michl Ebner, Dr., Verleger, Rechtsstudium Bologna, Innsbruck, Padua, seit 1979 Mitglied der SVP-Parteileitung, 1979 bis 1994 Abgeordneter zur Römischen Kammer, seit 1981 Vorstandsmitglied der Verlagsanstalt Athesia, seit 1994 Mitglied im Europäischen Parlament.

Stefan Fröhlich

US Perceptions of EU-Institutional Reform and the "Convention on the Future of Europe"

The question of a Constitution for Europe is one of the most interesting aspects of the ongoing work of the Convention to Americans as this could not only contribute to a greater transparency by hopefully avoiding to take over the complicated 'three pillar structure' of the EU but also because talking about Constitutions in the EU suggests the idea of the Community coming to grips with Europe's Finalitaet.
But certainly the most relevant issue to Americans is related to EU governance, that is the question of how to reform the Institutions of the EU to make them more efficient and transparent to third countries dealing with the EU. To Washington the EU is characterized by a lack of political leadership with regard to prospective thinking, steering capacity and consistent action. Thus there is little understanding for the discussion between those in favor of a more supranational Union like Germany and most of the smaller member states, arguing for the election of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament, and those instead proposing the appointment of a President of the European Council. To Americans the executive - no matter which institution it is - should have the authority to take the initiative and co-ordinate the actions of the member states. And any approach should be pragmatic as to avoid transposing solutions that would be meaningless in the EU's unique institutional framework. In other words: one cannot simply follow the letter of Montesquieu's separation of powers but one should adopt its spirit in clarifying legislative and executive responsibilities.
A possible third option to the US would have been the merging of both presidencies into one single office, presiding over both institutions - a proposal made by German Foreign Minister Fischer. Such a single Presidency could help to overcome tensions between the two centers of executive power respectively the intergovernmental and supranational model.

Stefan Fröhlich, Univ.-Prof. Dr., Studies of German, English and Sports at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University in Bonn 1978-1980, Studies of Political Sciences, English and Spanish Literature at the University Bonn, studies abroad in Paris (Sorbonne); internships with the Konrad-Adenauer foundation, different federal ministries and the European Commission in Brussels 1980-1983, Studies at Tempel University, Philadelphia/USA, Research fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States 1994/95, Manager of American Young Leader seminars for the Robert Bosch foundation 1992-1994, Habilitation at the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Bonn 1996, Full Professor of Political Science at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Guest Professor at the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D. C.

Thomas Fröschl

Republicanism and Democracy: European Perceptions of American Political Principles 1776- 1848

If the United States, at least in the Revolution of 1776, indeed realized the European imagination of the Enlightenment, as the American historian Henry Steele Commager suggested in the subtitle of his book "The Empire of Reason", as a result the European interest in the American republican experiment and constitutional achievement should have been significant and profound. However, in spite of the many European visitors to the infant United States in the late 18th century, Old World observers - following a long established tradition since the 16th century - in most cases still tried to make America conform "as closely as possible to European hopes, aspirations, and requirements", and "European preoccupations set the agenda and largely determined the degree of interest" in the New World - to quote the British scholar John H. Elliott. European intellectuals and politicians in the Age of Democratic Revolution primarily projected their hopes on America, looked at the events there as points of reference in order to curb reform at home.
The promises and principles of the American Revolution, however, though in part of European origin, like popular rights, representative government, freedom of the press, democracy, and republicanism, posed a profound threat to the old order in Europe. Unlike the situation in colonial times, America now was a reality which no longer could be ignored, which no longer could be as easily "invented" as before by the European imagination. The obvious success of political democracy and economic growth in the American republic during the first half of the 19th century only deepened European distrust and made democracy emerge as a more direct threat to the principles of monarchical order and aristocratic regimes in the Old World.
The paper will discuss the European perceptions of America's constitutional order and civil society from the founding period until the European Revolutions of 1848, when the American Constitutions of 1777 (!) and 1787 directly influenced constitutional debates in Germany and Switzerland. It will point as well to the fact that a broad and deep ideological gap of political principles existed between the Western hemisphere and Europe, an observation strongly confirmed by the highly ideological character of the Monroe Doctrine, the widely known embodiment of the antagonism of the New World principle of democratic republicanism and Old World monarchy and aristocracy.

Thomas Fröschl, Dr. phil. habil., außerordentlicher Universitätsprofessor für Geschichte der Neuzeit, Universität Wien, Studium an der Universität Wien 1975-1982; wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1982-1985; Erwin Schrödinger-Stipendiat 1987-1988; Alexander von Humboldt-Stipendiat 1991-1992; Forschungs- und Studienaufenthalte in Deutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten; Gastprofessuren in Graz, Passau, Leiden und Washington, DC. Arbeitsgebiete und Forschungsfelder: Die Amerikas und Europa im atlantischen Zusammenhang, politische und kulturelle Geschichte der USA und Brasiliens. Aktuelles Arbeitsthema: "Eine Geschichte der atlantischen Zivilisation, 1773-1827".

Michael Gehler

Von der Vertrags- zur Verfassungsgemeinschaft? Der Weg zum "Konvent zur Zukunft Europas"

Politische Konzepte und Verfassungsvorschläge für Europa sind zwar schon jahrhundertealt, das Europa der Institutionen in Strassburg, Luxemburg und Brüssel hat aber eine noch relativ junge Entwicklung mit Vertrags-, aber nur schwach ausgeprägter Verfassungstradition. Die bisherige Entwicklung des Integrationsprozesses war von Anfang an wirtschaftlich orientiert und politisch intendiert. Mit Gründung der Kohle- und Stahlunion 1952, der EWG und von EURATOM 1958 war die westeuropäische Kernregion zum "Gemeinsamen Markt" mit koordinierter Außenhandelspolitik verbunden, mit den "Vier Freiheiten" (Personen-, Waren-, Dienstleistungs- und Kapitalverkehr) 1993 der "Binnenmarkt" im Rahmen der EG realisiert. Mit der Finalisierung der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion (WWU) 1999 wurde dem ökonomischen Einigungsprozess die Krone aufgesetzt. Ein erweitertes EURO-Land ist derzeit aber noch nicht realistisch. Militärisch ist EU-Europa noch schwach und die "Politische Union" lässt weiter auf sich warten. Ob der "Konvent zur Zukunft" aufgrund neuer äußerer und innerer Spannungen ([EU-]Europa-USA mit Blick auf die Irakfrage) und den daraus erwachsenen Divergenzen zwischen den EU-Staaten und Beitrittskandidaten einen verfassungspolitischen Durchbruch erzielen kann, ist fraglich. Hochgespannte supranationale Erwartungshaltungen scheinen kaum in Erfüllung zu gehen. Es deutet viel in Richtung einer Rückorientierung und Festschreibung intergouvernementaler, d.h. status quo-orientierter Strukturen einer Art "Verfassungsvertrag" hin, der mit Blick auf die anstehende Erweiterung der Union um 10 sehr unterschiedlich verfasste neue Mitglieder ab 1. Mai 2004 auch pragmatischer und realistischer erscheint als überspannte überstaatliche Integrationsmodelle. Der bisher primär ökonomisch geprägte Integrationsprozess ist um seine geistig-kulturelle Dimension zu bereichern. Die Einführung einer "fünften Freiheit" (der Ideen und Meinungen) wird bezogen auf das erweiterte Europa und sein äußeres Umfeld (Russland, Türkei, Islam und US-Interessen) gesteigerte Relevanz erhalten. Ein abschließender Vergleich der Gründungsgeschichte der USA mit der der EU zeigt Parallelen im positiven wie negativen Sinne, die enger verlaufen als die häufig zitierten vermeintlichen Unterschiede zwischen den Kontinenten.

From a Treaty to a Constitution Community? The Path towards the "Convention on the Future of Europe"

Although political concepts and constitutional suggestions for Europe are already centuries old, the Europe of institutions in Strasbourg, Luxemburg, and Brussels still has a relatively youthful development with a tradition of treaties and a very weak constitutional tradition. From the very beginning, the intent of the development of the integration process has been economically and politically oriented. With the founding of the Coal and Steel Union in 1952 and the EEC and EURATOM in 1958, the Western European core region was joined together as the "Common Market" with a coordinated foreign trade policy. In addition, in 1993, with the "four freedoms" (open flow of persons, merchandise, services, and capital), the "internal market" was realized within the framework of the EU. The crowning achievement of the process of economic unification was the finalization of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in 1999.
An enlarged euro zone, however, is currently not yet realistic. The Europe of the EU is still militarily weak, and the "political union" is still to be awaited. Because of new external and internal tensions (such as between the Europe of the EU and the USA in light of the Iraq issue) and the growing divergences between the EU states and the candidates for entry, the matter of whether the "Convention on the future of Europe" can achieve a constitutional breakthrough is questionable. Highly charged supranational expectations seem to have little chance of being fulfilled. The indications are much more in the direction of a return to the past orientation and establishment of intergovernmental - that is, status quo-oriented - structures of a type of "constitutional treaty". With a view toward the upcoming enlargement by ten very differently constituted new members as of May 1, 2004, this sort of treaty also appears more pragmatic and realistic than an extravagant, supranational model of integration.
The integration process, which up until now has been primarily characterized by economics, must be enriched by its spiritual-cultural dimension. The introduction of a "fifth freedom" (of ideas and opinions) will take on increased relevance with regard to the enlarged Europe and its outer ranges (Russia, Turkey, Islam, and U.S. interests). A concluding comparison of the history of the founding of the USA with that of the EU shows parallels in both the positive and negative sense that are closer than the frequently cited supposed differences between the continents.

Michael Gehler, Mag., Dr. phil. habil., ao. Univ.-Prof. am Institut für Zeitgeschichte der Universität Innsbruck, Studium der Geschichte und Germanistik an der Universität Innsbruck 1981-1988, Stipendiat des Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung in Wien 1992-1996; Permanent Senior Fellow des Zentrums für Europäische Integrationsforschung (ZEI) an der Universität Bonn, Mitglied des erweiterten Vorstands der Leopold-von-Ranke- Gesellschaft Kiel-Hamburg; Stipendiat der Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung 2000-2001; Arbeitsgebiete: Deutsche Geschichte, Österreich im 20. Jahrhundert, Europäische Integration.

Marcus Höreth

The U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice: Comparable Institutions?

We cannot understand the European Court and its role for the legal integration of the Community if we see it only as a somewhat isolated non-political judicial body in a contested political environment. It is also, as is the German Constitutional Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, a policymaking body. Constitutional Courts always act in a nexus between themselves and the environment in which they operate. From this perspective it is important to analyse the Court's doings in relation to other actors and policy-making processes. Moreover, European Constitutional Politics, which means the development of the EC's Constitutional law, to a very large extent develops as the Court (as agent) and not the member states (as principals), see fit. This was only possible because the Court, originally established as agent, has been able to become a principal itself in the sphere of Constitutional politics. This spectacular act of self-empowerment of the ECJ and its acceptance by politicians is only explainable when you compare this process of partial self-empowerment with the experiences of other constitutional courts which all became very powerful actors in constitutional politics and, therefore, a decisive part in the governance system in most Western Democracies. Constitutional Courts, and so also the ECJ, became that powerful because of two functions they have to fulfil: As dispute resolver and as an engine of integration in a pluralistic and heterogenious environment. In using the P-A-framework it can be demonstrated that Constitutional Courts historically are "agents" (and perhaps "trustees") at their starting point (solely interpreting constitutional norms) and then developing to "principals" who make and define constitutional politics themselves (and in the case of Europe the ECJ uses the lower courts as "agents" to enhance its own authority and rule-making power). The general argument is that despite the negative implications for the separation of powers doctrines, this political activism of Constitutional Judges is a prerequisite for successful political integration in heterogeneous multi- level polities.

Marcus Höreth, Dr., Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter, Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Universität Bonn, Studium der Politikwissenschaft, Geschichte und des öffentlichen Rechts an der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Lehrbeauftragter der Universität Freiburg 1997-1999 und Universität Bonn seit 2001; Veröffentlichungen u.a.: Die Europäische Union im Legitimationstrilemma. Zur Rechtfertigung des Regierens jenseits der Staatlichkeit, Baden-Baden 1999; derzeitige Arbeitsschwerpunkte: institutionelle Reformen der EU und Verfassungspolitik im internationalen Vergleich.

Hungdah Su

Asian Perceptions of EU Constitutional Reform Processes

Over the past fifty years, the European Communities and Union have succeeded in establishing a constitutional order. It is a legal order sui generis, different from the international legal on the one hand, and independent of domestic legal order on the other. It is binding to the Member States as well as their nationals and is granted a supreme status over existing domestic legal systems. Moreover, this constitutional order continues its vertical and horizontal expansion ever since its creation. Along with the deepening of European integration, it is transforming from a regulatory system of Common Market and CAP into a supranational governance structure covering nearly every issue traditionally under the jurisdiction of the Member States. At the same time, the success of European integration has obliged more and more European countries either to apply for entry or to follow the rules imposed by the EU. The governance of EU has in effect gone outside its borders and is contributing to the formation of a pan-European constitutional order on the continent.
However, European integration suffers from three difficulties. First, vertical expansion has forced the EU to enter into conflict with other transnational governance structures. For example, the EU is now challenging the role of the Council of Europe in the protection of human rights. Second, as the case law and the ECJ play a key role in the constitutionalization process and the Commission is responsible for execution, the constitutional order of EU has been criticized for a lack of legitimacy, clarity, and support for democracy. The EU is therefore under pressure to demonstrate its competencies and rebuild its accountability. Third, the situation will be aggravated by the coming eastward enlargement. This enlargement has obliged the EU and its Member States to clarify and codify the basic values of European integration. The clarification and codification have paved the way for the constitution-making of EU. Particularly, vis-à-vis federalist aggression launched by Joschka Fischer in his famous speech in May 2000, constitution-making has become a safe harbor for those who do not agree with Fischer's proposal but fear to be labeled as "anti-Europe". In the end, constitution-making prevailed in the agenda-setting battle with federation-making, leading to the debate over constitutional treaty in the Convention on the Future of EU between March 2002 and June 2003.
Among the theoretical approaches to explaining the evolution from constitutionalization to constitituion-making, I will argue that the normative approach offers a very useful framework of analysis, within which historical institutionalism can give a relatively satisfactory explanation. According to this theoretical analysis, constitution-making of the EU will reduce the pressure for a European federation in the short term, but could accelerate its creation in the long run.
The structure of my paper will be in principle as follows:
Introduction
I. Success of Constitutionalization
- A legal order
- A supreme status
- A pan-European governance
II. Entry into Agenda of Constitution-Making
- Shortcomings of constitutionalization
- Challenges of eastward enlargement
- Resistance against federalism
III. Theoretical Explanations
- Intergovernmentalism
- Neofunctionalism
- Rational Institutionalism
- Historical Institutionalism
- Normative Approach
Conclusion

Hungdah Su, Dr., Assistant Research Fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies/Academia Sinica, Taiwan, Assistant Professor at the Institute of European Studies/Nan Hwa University, Taiwan, Studies at the University of Paris-Sorbonne, Postgraduate Diploma of EC Law of University of Panthéon-Sorbonne/Paris, Master Degree of Graduate School of Diplomacy an International Law of National Chengchi University/Taiwan, Field of research: European Integration History and Theory, EC Law and Transnational Integration.

James Hutson

Miracle at Philadelphia: The drafting of the American Constitution of 1787

In February 1788 George Washington informed the Marquis de Lafayette that the successful drafting of the United States Constitution in Philadelphia during the preceding summer was a "miracle" because so many different and contending interests were reconciled. My paper will identify those interests, among the most important of which were the differences between large states and small states, slave states and free states, manufacturing states and agricultural states, and explain how there were successfully accommodated by the Philadelphia Convention. I will also explain how some of the peculiar features of the American constitutional system, i.e., the election of the president, were a product of the Convention's compromises and suggest that the Philadelphia Convention can be more appropriately compared to the formation of the ECSC in 1951 than to the current proceeding at Brussels.

James H. Hutson, Ph.D in History Yale University, Chief of the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Author and Editor, i.e. To Make All Laws: The Congress of the United States, 1789-1989 (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 2nd ed., 1990); Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 6th ed., 2002); Essays on the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973).

Ludger Kühnhardt

Globalisierung und europäischer Konstitutionalismus

Der Prozeß der europäischen Integration hat unterdessen Auswirkungen auf die Ausprägung zentraler Begriffe der politischen Philosophie und des Verfassungsverständnisses in Europa gehabt. Dies bezieht sich vor allem auf die Entwicklung eines Begriffs von der Souveränitat sui generis, die Entwicklung eines Demokratiebegriffs sui generis und die Entwicklung eines Begriffs von der Weltordnung sui generis. Damit sind parallele Begrifflichkeiten zu dem gängigen Verständnis von der Europäischen Union als einer politischen Form sui generis entstanden, die in dem Vortrag einer ausführlichen Analyse und Interpretation unterzogen werden. Diese Interpretation versteht sich als ein Beitrag zum europäischen Verfassungsverständnis, das sich infolge der in Vorbereitung befindlichen Europäischen Verfassung herausbilden wird und zu einem spezifischen europäischen Verfassungspatriotismus führen könnte.

Ludger Kühnhardt, Univ.-Prof., Direktor am Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn; Studien der Geschichte, Philosophie und Politischen Wissenschaft in Bonn, Genf, Tokio, Harvard. 1987-1989 Mitarbeiter des Bundespräsidenten Richard von Weizsäcker, 1991-1997 Ordinarius am Seminar für Wissenschaftliche Politik der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Gastprofessuren in Jena, Kapstadt, Mailand, am Collège d'Europe, Brügge, am Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, und an der Diplomatischen Akademie in Wien; Forschungsaufenthalte in Oxford (St.Antony's College), Wien (Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen), Stanford (Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace) und in Washington D.C. (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars). Forschungsgebiet: Europäische Integration.

Franz Matscher

Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte und seine Bedeutung mit Blickrichtung auf die EU-Grundrechtecharta

I. Zur Einleitung: Die EMRK und die Rechtsprechung des EGMR
1. Die Entstehung und das System der EMRK
2. Der Arbeitsanfall bei den Konventionsorganen
3. Der Gegenstand der Rechtsprechung des EGMR
II. Das Verhältnis von Europäischem Gemeinschaftsrecht und EMRK
1. Bindung des Gemeinschaftsrechts an die EMRK
2. Beurteilung von Rechtsakten der Gemeinschaftsorgane und von in Umsetzung von Gemeinschaftsrecht durch die Mitgliedsstaaten getroffenen Maßnahmen im Lichte der EMRK und deren Unterwerfung unter den EGMR
3. Faktische Berücksichtigung von Gemeinschaftsrecht und von Organakten der Gemeinschaft in Verfahren vor dem EGMR
III. Die Grundrechtecharta
1. Zur Entstehung der Charta
2. Der Inhalt der Charta
3. Kurze Bewertung der Charta
4. Das Verhältnis der Charta zur EMRK
IV. Die Bedeutung der Judikatur des EGMR für die Grundrechtecharta
1. Nochmals zum Verhältnis der Charta zur EMRK und zum Verhältnis der Judikatur des EGMR zur Charta
2. Ergebnis: Die Bedeutung der Judikatur des EGMR für die Charta

Franz Matscher, Univ.-Prof. DDr., Studien in Graz und Paris, diplomatischer Dienst, 1969 bis 1996 Professur für Österreichisches und Internationales Zivilgerichtliches Verfahrensrecht an der Universität Salzburg, Richter am Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Rechtsschutzbeauftragter im Innenministerium für die "erweiterte Gefahrenforschung".

Sieglinde Rosenberger

Die Union der Gleichberechtigten? Entwicklungen der Geschlechterdemokratie

1. Gleichberechtigung gehört zu den Fundamenten der EU. Seit den Römischen Verträgen bis zum Vertrag von Amsterdam ist Gleichberechtigung normiert; Konzepte (gender Mainstreaming) und Instrumente (Verbot der Diskriminierung und Möglichkeit des Einsatzes von affirmative actions) zur Umsetzung liegen vor.
2. Gleichberechtigung beschränkt sich aber bislang auf das Politikfeld Erwerbstätigkeit. Im Zuge der politischen Integration liegen die Herausforderungen bei der Entwicklung eines Institutionengefüges mit Mechanismen, die Gleichberechtigung und Geschlechterdemokratie auch auf das Feld der politischen Repräsentation auszuweiten.
3. Geschlechterdemokratie erfaßt auch die Chance auf gleiche Teilhabe an gesellschaftlichen Ressourcen. Eine europäische Verfassungsdiskussion müßte demnach eine Diskussion der sozialen Staatsbürgerschaftsrechte einschließen. Dies auch aus pragmatischen Gründen: Bereits bisher waren soziale Staatsbürgerrechte eine Art Prüfstein der Akzeptanz einer Entwicklung in Richtung europäischer Bundesstaat. Die Skepsis von Frauen gegenüber vertiefter Integration kommt bei direktdemokratischen Wahlgängen (Volksabstimmungen), insbesondere in den skandinavischen Ländern, zum Ausdruck. Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit und Gender sind cleavages im politischen Raum der Europäischen Union.
4. In demokratiepolitischer Hinsicht stellt sich nicht nur die Frage nach "demos" und des Entwurfs eines funktionierenden Institutionengefüges, sondern auch jene der sozialen Staatsbürgerschaft und einer ausgeglichenen politischen Repräsentation (in diesem Fall zwischen den Geschlechtern). Föderative Vorbilder dafür gibt es wenige. Um so mehr eine Möglichkeit, eine spezifisch europäische Identität, basierend auf dem normativen Referenzsystem der Gleichberechtigung, zu formen.

Sieglinde Katharina Rosenberger, Mag., Dr. rer.soc.oec, habilitiert an der Universität Innsbruck; 1986-1998 Assistentin am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck; 1991/92 Schrödinger Stipendiatin am Department of Women's Studies der San Diego State University; seit 1998 Professorin für Politikwissenschaft an der Universität Wien; Forschungen und Publikationen in den Bereichen Gleichstellungs- und Sozialpolitik, Demokratieforschung und Geschlechterpolitik; politische Identitätskonstruktionen und Rechtspopulismus.

Wolfgang Schmale

Human Rights and International Law in Europe and the U.S.

The Iraq-crisis makes the respect of Human Rights and International Law a strong problem. Some tendencies in public discussions suggest that the U.S. is no longer more acknowledging both as principles of international policy. The E.U., on the contrary, would be insisting on these principles. The ideological gap between the U.S. and the E.U. would become deeper, some would like to see coming soon the end of a historical era which had begun in the 18th century and had been characterized by a common Western (North America and Enlightenment-Europe) political and intellectual culture.
It is, of course, hazardous to conclude from the attitudes of the present U.S. government on the end of a historical era but human rights and international law are doubtless in question as working principles in international policies. My paper focuses on only one aspect among a lot of other relevant aspects, it focuses on the question how far human rights and international law are intrinsic principles of the E.U. on the one hand, and the U.S. on the other. This is a historical, and not a juridical question.
In my paper I shall first make clear whether it is useful to compare the U.S. and the E.U. and on which levels comparisons are possible. I, secondly, shall investigate into the historical role of human rights and international law in the U.S. and the E.U.

Wolfgang Schmale, o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. phil. Mag., Universität Wien, Studium Geschichte, Französisch, Pädagogik (mit Philosophie und Didaktik) in Bochum und Bordeaux; 1987- 1999 in unterschiedlichen Funktionen an den Universitäten Tours (Frankreich), Bochum, München, Braunschweig, Graz. Mitglied der Historischen Kommission bei der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Obmann/Präsident der Österreichischen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts; Permanent Senior Fellow am Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung der Universität Bonn; stellv. Vorstand des Instituts für Geschichte der Universität Wien.

Heinrich Schneider

Elements of Continuity an Innovation in the Constitutional Debate

The field of competing ideas, as to why a new constitution for the EU is supposed to be desirable or necessary, has very much grown in complexity and dimensional differentiation in comparison with earlier phases in the constitution debate. The traditional linking of the constitutionalization of the Community to its transformation into a federation is no longer self-evident.
One should not forget meanwhile that the idea of the progressive process character of integration was already being applied to the Community constitution before the Union concept was brought into play: as with integration policy generally, constitutional policy, too, was to be made more dynamic and understood accordingly.
Furthermore, many of the Treaty's provisions were progressively interpreted, occasionally even reinterpreted, by the European Court of Justice, which has often been chided with being too Community-friendly and with pursuing a progressive integration-driven constitutional policy, instead of providing correct legal interpretation and application and of dealing impartially with both sides - the federation and the members - like the constitutional court of a federal community. Admittedly, the progressive integration trait lies in the 'planning constitution' of the Communities itself and is therefore pre-given for the Court of Justice. The concept of the 'planning constitution' as a constitutional framework for a Community policy resolved to bring about successive integration, first of the primary industries and then the national economies, need not have implied per se that the constitutional order created for this ought itself to be successively developed. It was of course possible to incorporate provisions for progressive changes to the political system within the 'Community constitution' from the outset.
In the course of the discussions on the 'European Convention', a renunciation of the idea that the European constitution must change on a virtually permanent basis, in accordance with the dynamics of an 'ever close union among the peoples of Europe', seems at least to be under consideration. Whether or not anyone will succeed in designing a constitution that will actually survive for decades and still enjoy a richness of substance, so that the design can met with broad acceptance among the governments and the political forces at work in the member states and among the citizens, is hard to predict at present. However, only if the attempt does succeed, can the product become the object of reference for a real sense of European political community.

Heinrich Schneider, Dr. phil., bis 1991 o. Universitätsprofessor an der Universität Wien (Institut für Politikwissenschaft), Gastprof. an der Donau-Universität Krems, Studium der Philosophie, Psychologie, Literatur, Theaterwissenschaft, Soziologie und Politikwissenschaft in Bamberg, Cleveland/Ohio (USA) und München, Promotion dort 1955, u.a. 1968-1971 Prof. für Philosophie der Politik und Ideologiekritik in Wien, ab 1971 für Politikwissenschaft; 1995/96 Inhaber des Jacques-Delors-Lehrstuhls für Europapolitik des Universitätenverbunds "ALMA" (Aachen-Lüttich-Maastricht), 1973-2001 Vorsitzender, seit 2001 Ehrenvorsitzender des Wiss. Direktoriums des Instituts für Europäische Politik Berlin (früher Bonn). Arbeitsgebiete: Geschichte des politischen Denkens, Europapolitik, Sicherheitspolitik. Grenzgebiete Politische Kulturforschung/Wissenssoziologie.

Rolf Steininger/Günter Bischof

Containment by Integration: The United States and European Integration

The current dissonances between the U.S. and two of the leading members of the European Union - France and Germany - suggest that American-European relations are at their lowest since the founding of the European Economic Community in 1957. While the EEC played largely a role for economic integration of Western Europe, political integration was always a long-term goal. Now that much of Europe is economically integrated in the EU and progressively more integrated politically, and now that "Europe" speaks out as a political actor - even with many voices - challenging the US in its current Iraqi policy, the Bush administration is not pleased.
Europe acting independent of U.S. interests was always a fear of the U.S. during the Cold War, but due to the Soviet threat it never fully materialized. The U.S. designed a policy towards Western European integration after World War II that may also be called one of "triple containment": first, contain the Soviet Union with a strong integrated Western Europe; second, contain or control such a strengthening integrated Western Europe within NATO; third, strengthen Germany and contain and control it at the same time by integration.
The U.S. encouraged and supported integration in Europe, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. The expectation in Washington was that a strong and integrated Europe would continue to cooperate closely with the United States. Today this basic assumption may perhaps more open to doubt than it used to be. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had once warned, that, "if the price of this [i.e. supporting European unity] is, that we cannot talk with our traditional European friends, then over time this could create a massive change in our relation". Obviously, we are witnessing exactly that.

Rolf Steininger, full professor and head of the Institute of Contemporary History at the University of Innsbruck; Ph.D. 1971, Hannover; Habilitation 1976, Hannover; 1980 professor at the University of Hannover, since 1983 in Innsbruck; member of the Advisory Board and Senior Fellow of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans and European Union Jean-Monnet-Professor; board member of the European Community Studies Association; guest professor at the Universities of Tel Aviv, Queensland (Australia), New Orleans; his credentials include numerous books, articles, television documentaries, and book reviews in leading newspapers and journals.

Günther Bischof, Mag., MA, MA, PhD, Professor of History und Director des Center for Austrian Culture and Commerce an der Universität von New Orleans, Studium der Amerikanistik und Geschichte und der Internationalen Beziehungen in Innsbruck, Wien, New Orleans und Harvard (PhD 1989), Gastprofessuren in München (1992-94), Innsbruck (1993, 1994), Salzburg (1998) und Wien (1998); Mitbegründer der "Eisenhower Center Studies of War and Peace" (Louisiana State University Press) und "Contemporary Austrian Studies" (Transaction); Chairman of the International Advisory Board der Österreichischen Marshallplan Jubiläumsstiftung; Arbeitsgebiete: US-Diplomatiegeschichte, Zweiter Weltkrieg und Kalter Krieg, Österreich im 20. Jahrhundert, Kriegsgefangenschaft, Historisches Gedächtnis, Biographieforschung.

Guido Thiemeyer

Discourses on the Economic and Monetary Union since the 1970s

1) Even though the European Economic Community, which was created by the Rome-Treaty in 1957, was based on the idea of a liberal open market economy, there were at least two different economic philosophies in Europe until the Maastricht Treaty.
2) The French concept of "planification" was based on the thesis that the political authority (i.e. the government) should intervene and give guidelines to the principally free market economy. This concept emerged out of the political theories of Jean Bodin , Jean Jacques Rousseau and Abbé Sieyès and their construction of the French nation as it was defined in the declaration of human rights of 1789. "La Nation" in this context meant that the highest sovereign, the French people, stands above all political life including the economic sector. From this point of view "la Nation" and its representative, the French government, should intervene into the market in order to assert the nations vital interests.
3) In contrast to this stood the German concept of "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" which can be traced back to the tradition of economic liberalism. The principle of a liberal market economy guided by competition is complemented by state guaranteed social adjustment. The decisive point is the autonomy of the economic sector (the market economy) towards the political sector (government) of public life.
4) Both concepts were supplemented by a specific monetary policy: Whereas the French Central Bank was submitted to the instructions of the Ministry of Finance, the German Bundesbank was independent of all political influences and only responsible for monetary stability from 1957 onwards. In other words: The German monetaristic concept (in the sense of Milton Friedman) placed monetary stability on the top of all economic policy goals, whereas the French were anxious to keep the sovereignty of the political sector.
5) As a precondition for the Foundation of the European Monetary System in 1979, the French government launched a fundamental turn in France, performed in the "Blois- Programme" by Valéry Giscard d´Estaing and Raymond Barre. From now on (with only a short interruption in the beginning of the Mitterrand era) French economic and monetary policy was guided by the principles of monetarism aiming at a balanced budget and price stability.
6) These principles were finally laid down in the Maastricht Treaty which therefore provided Europe with an economic constitution in a twofold sense: First, it gave a set of principle rules for national economic policy by removing the responsibility for monetary policy from the national banks to the European Central Bank and prescribing concrete rules for national fiscal policies. Second, it provided the European Union with a body of economic doctrines governing the operation of the economic community.

Guido Thiemeyer, Dr. phil. M.A. wissenschaftlicher Assistent, Lehrstuhl Europawissenschaften Universität Kassel, Studium Universität Köln 1988-1994, Stipendiat Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris, Stipendiat Mitglied der Studiengruppe "Europa" am Kulturwissenschaftlichen Institut NRW, Essen, 2002/3 Lehrbeauftragter an der Universität Metz, Veröffentlichungen u.a. zur Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft, zum Europäischen Währungssystem, zur Europäischen Integration.

Mark Tushnet

The Evolution of Constitutional Federalism in the United States: A Continuing Convention?

What does a written constitution contribute to the development of a system dividing power between a nation and subnational units? Comparison of experience in the United States and Canada suggests that constitutional allocations of authorities, and in particular the clauses dealing with the residual powers not specifically allocated, may produce outcomes seemingly in tension with the constitutions' language. Further, examination of the U.S. experience with the division of legislative authority between nation and subnational units suggests three conclusions:
(1) Constitutional specifications that particular subject matters are to be allocated to one or the other level of government may not play a significant role in determining the actual allocation of effective legislative power;
(2) the effective allocation of power may change substantially over time, without change in the constitutional language purporting to allocate power; and
(3) the effective allocation of power may be determined more by the structure of the national government, including the party system, than by constitutional language directed specifically at allocating power.

Mark Tushnet, J.D. and M.A. in History Yale University, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, visiting Professor at the University of Texas, University of Southern California, University of Chicago, and Columbia University law schools. He has received fellowships from the Rockefeller Humanities Program, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and has written numerous articles on constitutional law and legal history. He is currently serving on the Executive Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, and is President-Elect of the Association. In 2002 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Markus Warasin

A Minority Charter? Opportunities for Perspectives on the Protection of Minorities

Since the Convention started its work on the 28th of February 2002 under the presidency of ex-French Prime Minister Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, minority protection has never been on the agenda and - according to the present state of affairs - it was not officially discussed. Nevertheless, questions related to minorities in general and to regional or minority languages in particular in the context of the future of the European Union have been part of several debates, conferences and round tables outside, so to say ante portas of the Convention. Several organisations working in the field of minority protection have wholeheartedly promoted an open dialogue about these questions, to which not only European institutions, academics, think-tanks or NGOs actively participated, but several Members of the European Convention itself as well. Although the result of the Convention will therefore surely not be a "Charter for Minorities", as suggested in the title, the Convention offers chances and clear perspectives for a potentially significant step forward in the standard setting of European minority protection. This paper tries to outline the most important aspects of this potential. Looking back at the EU's initiatives in favour of lesser-used languages, there is no doubt that the European Parliament was the key player in promoting linguistic diversity in Europe; the EP can clearly be identified as the European institution which has revealed the most intensive interest in issues related to lesser-used languages. The two Arfè Resolutions (1981 and 1983), the Kujpers Resolution (1987), the Reding Resolution (1991) the Killilea Resolution (1994) and the Morgan Resolution (2001) are just the most evident examples for the EP's commitment. They are all milestones in the conservation and promotion of regional languages and cultures. However, one has to bear in mind that these resolutions were all - without any exception - of a non-binding nature and therefore, despite their political impact, from a legal point of view they lack of a real practical effect in the present situation. This changed in 1999. When the first Convention started its work in 1999 to draft a Fundamental Rights Charter for the European Union, many language activists and minority organisations tried to take advantage of this opportunity and to influence the draft text. Although the Convention did not include any article on minority rights nor on the promotion of regional or minority languages in its final proposal, it adopted two articles of significance for minority language communities (Article 21 and 22).
Many of the participating cultural and linguistic organisations believed that the second Convention together with the debate about the future of the European Union would be a unique opportunity for Europe's linguistic and cultural diversity. The debate on the future of the European Union forms part of the process of reflection to prepare an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on reforming the Treaties in 2004. Therefore, the proposals drawn by the Convention will have a very practical and concrete impact and effects. The paper analyses the different approaches of several NGOs working in the field of minority protection, linguistic diversity and human rights to influence the Conventions work and gives a detailed picture about the current tendencies.

Markus Warasin, Dr. MMag., Generalsekretär des Europäischen Büros für Sprachminderheiten (EBLUL) Brüssel, Akkreditierter Journalist beim Rat der Europäischen Union, bei der Europäischen Kommission und beim Europäischen Parlament; Studium Geschichte und Politikwissenschaft Universität Innsbruck, u.a. Lehraufträge am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, Mitarbeit im Parlamentssekretariat von Dr. Michl Ebner, Assistent bei Nationalratspräsident a.D. Hon. Prof. Dr. Heinrich Neisser; Forschungsarbeiten zu Sprachproblemen und zur Europäischen Integration.