The European Model of Agriculture

AuthorKeith Vincent
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2005.00572_4.x
Publication Date01 Nov 2005
this book. Moreover, heavy reliance on the questionable distinction between
positive and negative rights undercuts Hirschl’s analysis and weakens his critique
of individualism. He is right that a simplistic understanding of autonomy
explains, at least partly, indi¡erence towards grievous social inequalities in our
world, but pointing to positive and negative rights surely does not trace back the
origin orcause of perpetuationof this inequality to anydeep feature ofl iberalism.
By focusing on the constitutional experiences of a number of constitutional
democracies, this book is a contribution to the emerging ¢eld of comparative
constitutionalism. Hirschl decries, appropriately, the provincialism that has char-
acterised constitutional thought, especially in its American versions, until quite
recently. But the choice of jurisdictions discussed in the book, namely Israel,
New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, should give us pause.They are all, with
the exception of South Africa, partof a category thatHirschl labels ‘the no appar-
ent transitionscenario’. In all cases thatbelong to this category, a questionarises as
to why the constitutionalisation happened when it did and not at some other
point in time. For instance, it is apparent why the constitutionalisation processes
in Ghana, Germany, Brazil or Romania happenedwhen they did. Not sowith the
group ofcountries that is scrutinised in thisbook. My concern is that this narrow
focus may detract from how relevant Hirschl’s conclusions ultimately are when
understood against the background of the global architecture of constitutional-
ism. Future works in this ¢eld would do well to make their ambitions truly glo-
bal, especially since so much of the emerging ¢eld of comparative constitutional
studies in North-American legal scholarship su¡ers from a decidedly less than
global focus.
Vlad Perju
n
Michael Cardwell,The European Model of Agriculture,Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004, liv þ447pp,hb d60.00.
In the political fallout from the failure to secure successful ‘yes’votes in referenda
on the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands, the purpose and
directionof the EU has returnedto the core of Europeanpolitical debate.The ¢rst
major manifestation of this came at the Brussels European Council in June 2005,
with the acrimonious failure to secure anyform of agreement on the draft Frame-
work Financial Perspective 2007^2013. The key arguments within the Brussels
European Council related to the sustainability of the UK ‘Budget Rebate’ in an
EU of 25 Member States, including the new members from Central and Eastern
Europe, and the continuedprivileged position of the CommonAgricultural Pol-
icy within the budgetary allocations for the EU. The latter argument reopened
one of the most enduring and bitterdebates within the EU: what is the point of
the Common Agricultu ral Policy and what proportion of the resources o f the EU
should it consume? By addressing the development of the issues involved in this
n
Harvard LawSchool.
Reviews
1041The Modern LawReview Limited 2005

To continue reading

Request your trial