Tratado de Derecho y Políticas de la Unión Europea, Tomo I + II – Edited by José María Beneyto Pérez

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00599_3.x
• Author: Susana de la Sierra
• Date: 01 March 2012
• Published date: 01 March 2012

eulj_599323..332

Book Reviews

Europe’s Constitutional Mosaic. Edited by Neil Walker, Jo Shaw and Stephen Tierney.

Oxford: Hart, 2011. 404 pp. Hb. £60/€78.

This collected volume sets out ‘to explore the complex constitutional arrangements of

the European legal space, considered as an interconnected mosaic’ (13). The explora-

tion is multidisciplinary, bringing together lawyers from international, EU, criminal

and labour law with political scientists and philosophers. Without a visual of the book’s

cover, one might assume that the titular mosaic metaphor suggests Europe forms, or

should form, a classic mosaic displaying a symmetrical pattern or image composed of

tesserae (tiles). In fact, the cover picture depicts tesserae of irregular shapes, different

colours and patterns, held together by grout in the interstices. Either the mosaic does

not form a coherent visual image or the picture is taken too close to be seen. While the

metaphor is powerful, indeed compelling, by nature, it lacks precision: should a Euro-

pean mosaic form a coherent image, or did it once? The volume is packed with

interpretations of mosaic, with Mac Amhlaigh alone interpreting grout as sovereignty,

keeping the constitutional mosaic in place (22), while the editors ask what lies under-

neath the mosaic, the level (sub-)surface supporting its existence (18).

The volume offers several general taxonomies of existing theories on legal or con-

stitutional pluralism in the EU context alone. Moreover, Baquero Cruz suggests a

new intermediate position between state-centric and pluralistic positions, as to the rela-

tionship between the EU and Member States called ‘institutional disobedience’ (65–

70)—an apt illustration of Douglas-Scott’s reference to EU constitutional narratives as

a ‘growth industry’ (106). Institutional disobedience, more restrained than ‘soft plural-

ism,’ allows express disagreement as a last resort in exceptional cases: a political act

of well-reasoned dissent justif‌ied by f‌idelity to law. This, and the chapters written by

Lindahl and Requejo, complement each other at a suitably abstract level, each of the

latter critically addressing the ability of liberal democracies to accommodate difference

in substate and interstate plurinational contexts.

Under the general guise of ‘constitutionalism,’ two primarily EU lawyers ‘invade’ the

European f‌ield of human rights law. Williams challenges the sense of achievement

attached to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system which ‘fail[s]

to do justice to human rights both in theory and practice’ because it is ‘a partial

instrument with partial application’ (89, 93), and both Williams and Douglas-Scott

question whether emphasis should move from individual to more constitutional justice

(86, 92, 108, 112–114). Williams even contemplates merging the two European systems

(ECHR and EU, 94), whereas Dukes cautions against placing too much hope on EU

accession to the ECHR because both systems fail to prioritise collective interests, eg

social rights (362). Compared with more positive analyses of the same system from an

international law or political science perspective (Sasse, Peters), the above f‌indings are

rather sceptical. The private/public interest balance relates to allowing private actors

access to international courts—creating an overwhelming workload—and to the

methods of interpretation courts adopt: constitutional, or not (Peters 276). Klabbers,

European Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, March 2012, pp. 323–332.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA