| Summary: | Constitutional pluralism is a novel branch within constitutional thought and has its origin in the scholarship about the new Europe and its constitutionalisation. It differs from the traditional hierarchical understanding of constitutionalism, according to which there is always a single ultimate constitutional authority over each state territory (monism), and argues that we should instead conceive of constitutionalism in pluralist terms. We should understand that there are several heterarchically coexistent constitutional authorities over a shared territory, of which none is ultimately superior over the other. It will be argued that this is the normatively superior path, even a historic opportunity, for Europe to take. The dissertation begins by examining in detail the various existing theories comprising the branch, and maps them out in an analysis that goes beyond mere restatement. Contrary to common belief, it is argued that these versions of pluralism are strikingly different and often even represent distinct as well as conflicting. discourses. It is nonetheless concluded - contrary to one recent criticism - that the theories can be seen as constituting a unique novel branch with a common core, provided that the latter is understood in a particular way. This thereby clarifies this branch of study. The focus then turns to assessment. There is appraisal of the internal coherence of each version of pluralism, and this is followed by an assessment that confronts the different values underlying the distinct theories. This provides the foundation for the elaboration of a superior conception of constitutional pluralism, which is the most promising further development for the branch as a whole. This leads to an elaboration of some building blocks of Europe's meta-constitution.
|
|---|
