Abstract
This short article responds to Daniel Halberstam’s “constitutional defense” of Opinion 2/13 of the European Court Justice on the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While Daniel believes that the Court was right to declare the accession agreement incompatible with the EU Treaties, I contend that the Court’s interpretation of the EU’s constitutional order is misguided: 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.”
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
