Constitutional pluralism in the European Union : a critical reassessment

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to offer a comprehensive and critical analysis of one of the most popular and prolific strands in European legal scholarship, i.e., constitutional pluralism. Specifically, the thesis seeks to challenge the central claim advanced by pluralist scholars with regard to the legal structure of the European Union: namely that the relationship between the EU and national legal orders is best conceptualized and understood as a heterarchical rather than hierarchical one. To that purpose, the thesis examines the work of leading scholars of pluralism– –Neil MacCormick, Kaarlo Tuori, Mattias Kumm, and Miguel Poiares Maduro–– all of whom advanced such heterarchical rather than hierarchical understandings of the aforesaid relationship. In so doing, the thesis attempts to address two main questions: first, does pluralism succeed in offering a descriptively and analytically sound account of the common European legal ordering; and second, how do the traditional, positivist, and hierarchical accounts of law fare in comparison with their pluralist contenders? The thesis concludes that while pluralist scholars should be given credit for bringing to light certain distinctive features of the European legal ordering, upon closer examination, their analyses appear to confirm (rather than deny) some crucial insights of said positivist theories, along with their allegedly outdated and distorting, hierarchical understanding of law and legality. Furthermore, it is argued that the pluralist attempts to set aside the positivist questions about the ultimate grounds of law, final authority and constitutional supremacy in the European Union prove unsuccessful in view of the growing constitutional disagreement therein. Finally, the thesis suggests that the nature of the current European legal or constitutional setting is better captured by the notion of national constitutional supremacy, rather than the core pluralist idea of heterarchy.