Streinz, Thomas Author aut Text xx# 2015 Verfassungsblog 2015-03-15 eng

electronic resource

remote

Computermedien

Online-Ressource

Daniel Halberstam’s “constitutional defense” of Opinion 2/13 is certainly thought-provoking, but it ultimately fails to convince. By taking on the seemingly impossible task of defending the indefensible, Daniel allows us to see more clearly what’s really wrong with the Court’s view. However, he mischaracterizes the Court’s many critics by alleging that “they rushed to embrace Strasbourg while forgetting about the constitutional dimension of EU governance along the way”. Criticism of Opinion 2/13 is grounded in more than amnesia about the distinctive character of EU constitutionalism. Rather, the true problem is precisely the Court’s interpretation of the EU’s constitutional order: it ignores the fact that accession is a constitutional requirement and engages in cherry-picking when it comes to the relationship between EU law and international law. To move accession forward, we need to unpack what I call the “autonomy paradox.” CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Streinz, Thomas 342 https://verfassungsblog.de/the-autonomy-paradox-2/ 2366-7044 Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH 10.17176/20181005-145935-0 150315 10.17176/20181005-145935-0 Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl (Revision 1.140 20200717)