We are debating the specter of German Legal Hegemony. It’s a new dimension for most German lawyers. The prevailing view has been that Germany is at the receiving end and losing out. Many consider Germany as making a too small impact on European law because it’s too inflexible for its federalism and too inhibited for many reasons. Quite a few see the 2nd Senate of the BVerfG as the last institution defending law and reason against overbearing European institutions as Berlin politicians have largely given up.
The symposium has provided a different picture. How to deepen learning from it? We propose a discussion which is both analytical and normative. The more analytical part of our discussion will be centered on Antoine Vauchez’ thesis of “Vicarious hegemony”. It does not capture all concerns that were raised, but pointedly articulates many of them. For the normative part, we shall focus on Daniel Halberstam’s Anti-Hegemony thesis and think, how it can be evolved into ideas on the 2nd Senate’s stance on Europe, but also broader on judicial politics, on legal mindsets and academic orientations, not just in Germany.
Four academics form our panel: MARTA CARTABIA, DANIEL HALBERSTAM, ANNA ŚLEDZIŃSKA-SIMON and ANTOINE VAUCHEZ. The panel will be moderated by ARMIN VON BOGDANDY.
Comments, suggestions and questions can be submitted to the discussion in real time via the comment form below.
Cartabia, Marta, Halberstam, Daniel, Śledzińska-Simon, Anna, Vauchez, Antoine; von Bogdandy, Armin: Vicarious Hegemony and the Anti-hegemonic Thrust of European Law: a Conversation, VerfBlog, 2020/10/23, https://verfassungsblog.de/vicarious-hegemony-conversation/.