Do Lawyers Knead the Dough? – How Law, Chaos, and Uncertainty Interact

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-381
Author(s):  
Thomas Burri

This article deals with complex systems. It takes the reader on a journey to the origins of the paradigm shift which has taken place in the sciences since the path breaking works of Edward N. Lorenz, Benoît B. Mandelbrot, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, and others. Gradually, linear “twodimensional” thinking has been replaced by non-linear “multi-dimensional” reasoning and multi-factorial genesis, risk, and uncertainty have come into focus. The article looks at the beginnings of the conception of complex systems — chaos theory — and reveals the implications for the law and legal science. Having explained the premises of chaos theory by means of a metaphor (the kneading of dough) the article proposes to look at the law through the lens of chaos: the law, especially case law, is perceived as a system which is itself subject to the phenomenon of chaos. The power of the image of chaos is illustrated by means of a study of the case law of the European Court of Justice on family reunification of moving persons and its projection to Switzerland in an attempt to create parallel regimes. The article also takes advantage of chaos theory to portray the broader implications for society and the law, tentatively illustrating them by thoughts on the Lisbon judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 30 June 2009 and on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 (on Kosovo).

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1499-1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peer Zumbansen

On 14 October 2004, theBundesverfassungsgericht(BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) voided a decision by theOberlandesgericht(Higher Regional Court) Naumburg, finding a violation of the complainant's rights guaranteed by theGrundgesetz(German Basic Law). The Decision directly addresses both the observation and application of case law from the European Court of Human Rights under the Basic Law's “rule of law provision” in Art. 20.III. While there is a myriad of important aspects with regard to this decision, we may limit ourselves at this point to the introductoryaperçucontained in the holdings of the case. One of them reads as follows:Zur Bindung an Gesetz und Recht (Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG) gehört die Berücksichtigung der Gewährleistungen der Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und der Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im Rahmen methodisch vertretbarer Gesetzesauslegung. Sowohl die fehlende Auseinandersetzung mit einer Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs als auch deren gegen vorrangiges Recht verstoßende schematische “Vollstreckung” können gegen Grundrechte in Verbindung mit dem Rechtsstaatsprinzip verstoßen


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davina Theresa Stisser

The German Federal Constitutional Court put an end to the constant expansion of the rules for preventive detention on 04.05.2011 by declaring all legal provisions in this respect to be unconstitutional. The court justified its reasons for this ruling using decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights. It filled the term ‘Abstandsgebot’ (interval rule), which had already been introduced in its previous case law, with content and thus provided the basis for the new legal provisions. It also adopted the term ‘of unsound mind’, which had previously been introduced by Germany’s legislators. This dissertation contains a critical examination of the aforementioned court decision and asks, among other things, whether the narrow interpretation of the term ‘of unsound mind’ offered can be achieved at all. Using the example of Schleswig-Holstein, the author presents both the subsequent federal and state laws and, due to the lack of a valid prognosis, a proposal for reform.


IG ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-226
Author(s):  
Achim-Rüdiger Börner

In its judgment of 5 May 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has held that the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB), which started in 2015, and the relevant decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 11 December 2018, holding that the programme is compatible with European Union (EU) law, are ultra vires acts. Indeed, this decision is based on a French understanding of discretion which has previously been adopted in the European Treaties and according to which discretion is controlled only for undue, illegal influence. Today, the Treaties have adopted a review of discretion under the aspects of suitability, necessity, and appropriateness. Moreover, criticism at the decision of the FCC neglects that the accession to and the membership in the EU have to observe the thresholds of the respective national constitution, as its violation is not and may not be expected by the Union or any other Member State. Ultra vires acts of the Union, which remain uncorrected by the Union itself, are subject to disapproval and rejection by the constitutional court of any Member State.


2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 869-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Hartwig

On October 14, 2004 the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a judgment which gave rise to vivid reactions in the mass media and to a dispute between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In interviews, members of the Strasbourg court spoke about their disappointment in the German Court's unwillingness to implement decisions of the ECtHR while members of the German court referred to the necessity to respect national particularities. Whereas, normally, the ECtHR and the constitutional courts of the Member States of the Council of Europe are fighting side by side for human rights and, therefore, consider themselves as natural allies, this time their decisions, which seem to be incompatible, led to a dispute which attracted as much public interest as a film or theatre premiere.


Author(s):  
Vanessa McGlynn

CESAA 18TH ANNUAL EUROPE ESSAY COMPETITION 2010 - Postgraduate winner: Vanessa McGlynn, University of New South WalesAlmost 50 years after the European Court of Justice clearly established the supremacy of Community law, the question regarding the primacy of law within the European context remains unresolved. By exploring the perspectives of the ECJ and the German Federal Constitutional Court, this article seeks to outline the controversies relating to constitutional supremacy and analyses the theoretical underpinnings of this difference. It will be suggested that by focussing only on select liberal democratic principles, each court not only constructs their respective claims to supremacy, but they do so in opposition to each other. Thus rather than creating constitutional integration throughout the European Union, the supremacy discourse has created fault lines along which further tension may arise. By drawing on Kumm’s theory this paper will conclude by suggesting an alternative lens through which such conflicts may be resolved.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-205
Author(s):  
Sven Simon

This article aims to provide insight into the relationship between constitutional identity and ultra vires review in Germany. First, a brief introduction is provided on the issue of the relationship between EU law and national law, then the diverging grounds for validity are presented concerning the interpretation of the CJEU and of the German Federal Constitutional Court. After the detailed analysis of the German case law, limits of a national reservation are scrutinised. In the end, a conclusion is drawn up.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asteris Pliakos ◽  
Georgios Anagnostaras

The German Federal Constitutional Court has issued its long-awaited judgment in theGauweiler Case.The Court ruled that the policy decision on the Outright Monetary Transactions programme (OMT programme) does not manifestly exceed the competences attributed to the European Central Bank (ECB) and does not manifestly violate the prohibition of monetary financing of the budget, if interpreted in accordance with the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice (Court). This article surveys the Court's decision and offers a critical commentary on this important case.


Author(s):  
Andreas Vosskuhle

Muchos actores están involucrados en la implementación de la idea de comunidad jurídica, entre ellos, los parlamentos nacionales, administraciones y tribunales internos que son responsables de la puesta en práctica del Derecho de la Unión Europea. En este estudio se aborda la labor del Tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán en el desarrollo de la integración europea considerando diez impulsos centrales. Además, para finalizar, se aportarán algunas reflexiones realistas sobre las limitaciones del derecho en la solución de vicisitudes en el marco de la Unión Europea.Many stakeholders are involved in implementing the idea of legal community, including national parliaments, administrations and courts, which for their part are responsible for the implementation of European law. This study addresses the work of the German Federal Constitutional Court in the development of European integration by considering ten central impulses. In addition, to conclude, some realistic reflections on the limitations of the law in the solution of vicissitudes in the framework of the European Union will be provided.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document