Constitutional and administrative paradigms in judicial control over EU high and low politics

Open access


This article explores the particular tensions surrounding judicial review in EU external relations. The tensions are classified using a two-dimensional framework. Firstly, a distinction based on policy domains of high and low politics, which is derived from constitutional theory, and external to the CJEU; and secondly a distinction based on legitimizing paradigms of administrative (EU as effective global actor) or constitutional (judicial review as guarantee of fundamental rights) in character and determined by the Court itself. Even though one would expect a dominance of the administrative paradigm in the domain of high politics, the Court uses both the administrative and the constitutional paradigm in its external relations case-law. The decision on which of these becomes the guiding frame seems to depend more on the policy domain, and be made case by case, which suggests politically sensitive adjudication, rather than a coherent approach to legitimizing the nascent judicial review in EU external relations.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • • Adam Stanislas 2011 ‘Le mécanisme préjudiciel limite fonctionnelle à la compétence externe de l’Union’ Cahiers du droit européen XLVII(1): 277-302.

  • • Ankersmit Laurens 2014 ‘The Scope of Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon: The Daiichi Sankyo and Conditional Access Services Grand Chamber Judgments’ Legal Issues of Economic Integration XLI(2): 193-209.

  • • Avbelj Matej Fontanelli Filippo and Martinico Giuseppe (eds) 2014 Kadi on Trial. A Multifaceted Analysis of the Kadi Trial Routledge Abingdon.

  • • Balkin Jack M. and Levinson Sanford 2001 ‘Understanding the Constitutional Revolution’ Virginia Law Review LXXXVII(6): 1045-1104.

  • • Baquero Cruz Julio 2006 ‘The Changing Constitutional Role of the European Court of Justice’ International Journal of Legal Information XXXIV(2): 223-245.

  • • Bourgeois Jacques H.J. 1995 ‘The EC in the WTO and Advisory Opinion 1/94: an Echternach Procession’ Common Market Law Review XXXII(3): 763-787.

  • • da Conceição-Heldt Eugénia and Meunier Sophie 2014 ‘Speaking with a single voice: internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance’ Journal of European Public Policy XXI(7): 961-979.

  • • Craig Paul 2013 ‘Pringle and Use of EU Institutions outside the EU Legal Framework: Foundations Procedure and Substance’ European Constitutional Law Review IX(2): 263-284.

  • • de Burca Gráinne 2010 ‘The EU the European court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ Harvard International Law Journal LI(1): 1-50.

  • • de Burca Gráinne 2013 ‘EU External Relations: The Governance Mode of Foreign Policy’ in Van Vooren Bart Blockmans Steven and Wouters Jan (eds) The EU’s Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension OUP Oxford 39-58.

  • • Eeckhout Piet 2011 EU External Relations Law OUP Oxford.

  • • Eeckhout Piet 2012 ‘The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy after Lisbon: From Pillar Talk to Constitutionalism’ in Eeckhout Piet and Biondi Andrea (eds) EU Law After Lisbon OUP Oxford 265-291.

  • • Fabbrini Federico 2014 ‘The Euro-Crisis and the Courts: Judicial Review and the Political Process in Comparative Perspective’ Berkeley Journal of International Law XXXII(1): 64-123.

  • • Fabbrini Sergio 2014 After the Euro Crisis. A New Paradigm on the Integration of Europe ARENA Working Paper 5/2014 1-27.

  • • Fahey Elaine 2012 Reviewing High Politics A Methodology for the Justiciability of EU-US Legal Relations Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2012-60.

  • • Fahey Elaine and Bardutzky Samo 2013 ‘Judicial Review of Eurozone Law-The Adjudication of Postnational Norms in the EU Courts Plural. A Casestudy of the European Stability Mechanism’ Michigan Journal of International Law Online XXXIV: 101-111.

  • • Halberstam Daniel 2015 ‘“It’s the Autonomy Stupid!” A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and the Way Forward’ German Law Journal XVI(1): 105-146.

  • • Hillion Christophe 2009 Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: The significance of the ‘duty of cooperation’ CLEER Working Papers 2009/2 1-37.

  • • Koutrakos Panos 2006 EU International Relations Law Hart Publishing Oxford.

  • • Lavranos Nikolaos 2005 Concurrence of Jurisdiction between the ECJ and other international courts and tribunals EUSA Ninth Biennial International Conference.

  • • Lavranos Nikolaos 2010 ‘Protecting European Law from International Law’ European Foreign Affairs Review XV(2): 265-282.

  • • Lenaerts Koen 2013 ‘How the ECJ Thinks: A Study on Judicial Legitimacy’ Fordham International Law Journal XXXVI(5): 1302-1371.

  • • Lock Tobias 2011 ‘Taking national courts more seriously? Comment on Opinion 1/09’ European Law Review XXXVI(4): 576-588.

  • • Müller Jan-Werner 2016 ‘The EU’s Democratic Deficit and the Public Sphere’ Current History CXV(779): 83-88.

  • • Nogueira de Brito Miguel 2014 ‘Putting Social Rights in Brackets? The Portuguese Experience with Welfare Challenges in Times of Crisis’ in Kilpatrick Claire and De Witte Bruno (eds) Social Rights in Times of Crisis in the Eurozone: The Role of Fundamental Rights’ Challenges EUI Working Paper LAW 2014/05 67-77.

  • • Patberg Markus 2017 ‘Introduction: The EU's Pouvoir Constituant Mixte – Exploring the Systematic Potential of an Innovative Category’ Journal of Common Market Studies LV(2): 165–170.

  • • Perisin Tamara 2013 ‘EU Identity from the Perspective of WTO – The Spillover Effects of the Union’s Internal Market in the International Trading Area’ in De Waele Henri and Kuipers Jan-Jaap (eds) The European Union’s Emerging International Identity Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Leiden 73-100.

  • • Schmidt Vivien A. 2012 ‘Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input Output and “Throughput”’ Political Studies LXI(1): 2-22.

  • • Schmidt Vivien A. 2015 ‘Forgotten Democratic Legitimacy: “Governing by the Rules” and “Ruling by the Numbers”’ in Matthijs Matthias and Blyth Mark (eds) The Future of the Euro OUP Oxford 90-114.

  • • Seidman Louis Michael 2004 ‘The Secret Life of the Political Question Doctrine’ The John Marshall Law School Law Review XXXVII: 441-480.

  • • Shapiro Martin 2005 ‘“Deliberative” “Independent” Technocracy v. Democratic Politics: Will the Globe Echo the E.U.?’ Law and Contemporary Problems LXVIII(3-4): 341-356.

  • • Thomas Daniel C. 2012 ‘Still Punching below Its Weight? Coherence and Effectiveness in European Union Foreign Policy’ Journal of Common Market Studies L(3): 457-474.

  • • Transparency International Report Benjamin Braun 2017 Two sides of the same coin? Independence and Accountability of the European Central Bank 1-77.

  • • Van Vooren Bart and Wessel Ramses A. 2014 EU External Relations Law. Text Cases and Materials CUP Cambridge.

  • • Waelde Charlotte Laurie Graeme and Brown Abbe 2010 Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy OUP Oxford.

  • • Wendel Matthias Angelov Miroslav and Belov Martin 2009 ‘The Constitutional Paradigm Revisited. Looking at the Lisbon-Treaty Through the Eyes of Magritte’ in Pernice Ingolf and Tanchev Evegeni (eds) Ceci n’est pas une constitution. Constitutionalisation without a constitution? Nomos-Verlag Baden-Baden 226-242.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.04

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.105
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.03

Target audience: researchers, academics, practitioners interested in the field of political, economic and legal issues in federal states, regional organizations, and international organizations at global level
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 297 154 2
PDF Downloads 195 111 5