Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum Volume I by Armin Von Bogdandy, Pedro Cruz Villalón, Peter M. Huber (eds) and Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum Volume II by Armin Von Bogdandy, Pedro Cruz Villalón, Peter M. Huber (eds)
| Author | Jo Eric Khushal Murkens |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00763_4.x |
| Date | 01 July 2009 |
| Published date | 01 July 2009 |
example of a shared view cannot often be counteracted by its opposite. How can
we be sure that anyepiphenomenon of convergence, necessarily engenders more
convergence? The opposite outcome is equal ly plausible.
Third, supposing that Collins’s argument, founded on the premise that we
share perfectionist aims, is (partially) accurate, it remains subject to a further
obstacle: that of the optimallevel of speci¢city (197¡). Howdo we arrive at a posi-
tion to formulate these rules and principles, sothat they are not so general as to be
impracticable? Even if the Code is symbolic, is that all it is to be: a symbol? In the
¢nal analysis, Collins is a little vague on what will go into the Way Forward
Code. For example, having rejected other academic codi¢cation proposals, he
ends up approvingan article of PECL (198) as an illustration of a general principle
to be included. I am leftpuzzled: will this Code lookdi¡erent fromother Codes ^
and, if so, how?
Furthermore, the initial ideawas to use a code to unite the peoples of Europe
and promote solidarity. But at the end, the Code becomes more than one code,
‘one for business to consumer relations,the other for business tobusiness relations’
and so on (243), so that the symbolic impact would be considerably diminished.
Practical di⁄culties with this particular suggestion are somewhati nevitable, since
it is highly probable that European jurists will disagree about which parts should
go where. However, Collins’s common sense may give us an answer to this pro-
blem as oneof his insights is to highlighttemporality. TheCode will not be insti-
tuted instantaneously. On the contrary, making a Way Forward Code will be a
gradual, evolutionary process so it may not matter if there is ultimatelymore than
one code.
This thought-provoking,amb itious and potent ially visionar y approach should
not be rejected simply because it risks being unrealistic. A message of hope for
Europe is de¢nitely a good start and awelcome message at that.
Ruth Sefton-Green
n
Armin Von Bogdandy, Pedro Cruz Villalo
¤n, Pe t er M. Hu b er (ed s ), Handbuch Ius
Publicum Europaeum Volume I
,Heidelberg: C.F. Mˇller, 2007, viii þ856 pp,
hb h168.0 0.
Armin Von Bogdandy, Pedro Cruz Villalo
¤n, Pe t er M. Hu b er (ed s ), Handbuch Ius
Publicum Europaeum Volume II
,Heidelberg: C.F. Mˇller, 2008, x þ970 pp,
hb h198. 0 0.
Ten years ago, Armin von Bogdandy claimed that unless the further solidi¢cation
and concretisation of the European Unionwas accompanied by the simultaneous
advancement of established constitutional law terms, the ‘sui generis’ formula
would conceal a failure to adopt and transmit nationally de¢ned terms and insti-
tutions for the bene¢t of the European Union (‘A Bird’s EyeView on the Science
n
Universite
ŁParis1 (Panthe
Łon-Sorbonne)
Reviews
686 r2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation r2009 The Modern LawReview Limited.
(2009) 72(4) 669^692
To continue reading
Request your trial