National Identity and the Protection of Fundamental Rights

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2021024
M. Claes
{"title":"National Identity and the Protection of Fundamental Rights","authors":"M. Claes","doi":"10.54648/euro2021024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article asks whether the European Union (EU)’s duty to protect national identities is a useful way to address diverging conceptions of fundamental rights, and it argues that it is not. On the basis of an examination of the text of Article 4(2) TEU, its history and the practice of the Court of Justice, it is argued that the concept of ‘national identities’ under Article 4(2) TEU does not cover particular national conceptions of fundamental rights, but admits that it may be difficult to make a clear separation between the more organizational or structural elements of national identity and their impact on the fundamental rights of individuals. The article then proceeds to look at national approaches, where fundamental rights tend to be included in the concept of constitutional identities to be protected by national courts. It is argued, however, that arguments based on constitutional identity under national law are not conducive for deciding cases on EU fundamental rights. Such identity claims operate as trump cards. Yet, there are other ways to accommodate diversity among the Member States in the area of fundamental rights. If these are used and respected also by the Court of Justice, unilateral recourse to constitutional identity is not needed.\nConstitutional identity – national diversity – protection of fundamental rights – identity review – divergence – harmonization of fundamental rights protection – national choices","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article asks whether the European Union (EU)’s duty to protect national identities is a useful way to address diverging conceptions of fundamental rights, and it argues that it is not. On the basis of an examination of the text of Article 4(2) TEU, its history and the practice of the Court of Justice, it is argued that the concept of ‘national identities’ under Article 4(2) TEU does not cover particular national conceptions of fundamental rights, but admits that it may be difficult to make a clear separation between the more organizational or structural elements of national identity and their impact on the fundamental rights of individuals. The article then proceeds to look at national approaches, where fundamental rights tend to be included in the concept of constitutional identities to be protected by national courts. It is argued, however, that arguments based on constitutional identity under national law are not conducive for deciding cases on EU fundamental rights. Such identity claims operate as trump cards. Yet, there are other ways to accommodate diversity among the Member States in the area of fundamental rights. If these are used and respected also by the Court of Justice, unilateral recourse to constitutional identity is not needed. Constitutional identity – national diversity – protection of fundamental rights – identity review – divergence – harmonization of fundamental rights protection – national choices
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民族认同与基本权利保护
文章质疑欧盟(EU)保护国家身份的义务是否是解决基本权利概念分歧的有效方法,文章认为并非如此。在对第4(2)条TEU的文本、其历史和法院的实践进行审查的基础上,有人认为,第4(2)条TEU下的“国家认同”概念并不包括关于基本权利的特定国家概念,但承认可能很难明确区分国家认同的更多组织或结构因素及其对个人基本权利的影响。文章接着探讨了国家途径,其中基本权利往往包括在宪法身份的概念中,由国家法院保护。然而,有人认为,基于国内法下的宪法认同的论点不利于裁决有关欧盟基本权利的案件。这样的身份声明就像王牌一样。然而,在基本权利领域,还有其他办法来适应会员国之间的多样性。如果法院也使用和尊重这些规定,则不需要单方面诉诸宪法身份。宪法认同-民族多样性-基本权利保护-认同检讨-分歧-基本权利保护协调-民族选择
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1