The pointed commentary published on Verfassungsblog over the last week—coming from different perspectives and informed from different experiences—shows the potential of such debates. In the case of Greece, they are an important addition to a discourse focusing too much on austerity or debt sustainability.

Von Bogdandy and Ioannidis’ implicit suggestion that the question of legitimacy in institution-builing could be bypassed by making use of the Greek diaspora is not really convincing. Sergio Dellavalles’s response to the proposal made by v.Bogdandy/Ioannidis.

Armin von Bogdandy’s and Michael Ioannidis’ proposals are highly welcome, as are any proposals to strengthen the Greek State as a strong partner in the EU. No doubt, there will be no fourth rescue package, so we better try something else.

Greece has a problem with its institutions, a fact admitted even by the government of that country. The prospect of bankruptcy and collapse of the European order represents a good justification for the proposal made by v. Bogdandy and Ioannidis.

The Greek diaspora as such does not have a superior ethos compared with Greeks at home. Frank Schorkopf responds to the proposal on institution-building in Greece made by Arnim v. Bogdandy and Michael Ioannidis.

There are certain risks that could delegitimise and further weaken the Greek political, bureaucratic and judiciary institutions. Luca De Lucia’s respond to Armin von Bogdandy and Michael Ioannidis' proposal for a new approach to institution-building in Greece.

As populism rises and crises of the rule of law emerge, we have to think out of the box. Pál Sonnevend’s reply to v. Bogdandy and M. Ioannidis focusses on the democratic environment and guarantees of the rule of law in Greece.

For decades, a significant number of Greek public servants owed their position to patronage, nepotism, party support, or fraud. Angelos Chaniotis responds to Armin von Bogdandy and Michael Ioannidis' suggestion to institution-building in Greece.