Abstract
ABSTRACT. Contemporary discussions about sovereignty and European law illustrate the general problem of accounting for the purposiveness of a legal order in a way that avoids the pitfall of foudationalism. This paper contends that the focal point of this problem is the concept of representation. First contrasting Neil MacCormick's critique of sovereignty with its defense in the Maastricht judgment rendered by the German Federal Constitutional Court, it will be argued that neither view adequately grasps the representational logic of power. Drawing on Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms, the paper subsequently develops a relational or functional concept of representation that recognizes the correlation between legitimate power and sovereignty, while avoiding the Court's substantialism. Finally, it discusses how the Euripean Union repeats and innovates on the representation of sovereignty.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
