Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:44:36.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Democratic Concerns and Legal Traditions: The Dutch 1953 and 1956 Constitutional Reforms ‘Towards’ Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2012

KARIN VAN LEEUWEN
KARIN VAN LEEUWEN*
Affiliation:
Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands, PO Box 90754, 2509 LT The Hague, The Netherlands; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyses the 1953 and 1956 Dutch constitutional reforms ‘towards’ Europe, revealing the complexity and mutuality between national constitutional reform and the development of European integration in the 1950s. It demonstrates that long-standing Dutch traditions of adherence to international law played a formative role in constitutional reform, which itself ultimately facilitated the transformation of European law. Thus, it challenges the understanding of this development of European law as merely a constitutional or administrative process, arguing for the inclusion of national constitutional legal traditions in the writing of the history of European law.

Soucis démocratiques et traditions juridiques: les réformes constitutionnelles des pays bas en 1953 et 1956 ‘orientées vers’ l'europe

L'article analyse les réformes constitutionnelles des années 1953 et 1956 orientées vers l'Europe, et révèle la complexité et la relation mutuelle entre la réforme constitutionnelle et le développement de l'intégration européenne pendant les années 1950. Il démontre que la longue tradition aux Pays Bas de respect envers la loi internationale contribua décisivement à l'élaboration des réformes constitutionnelles, qui elles à leur tour facilitèrent la transformation de la loi européenne. L'article met donc en question la supposition que l'évolution du droit européen soit simplement une question de procédé constitutionnel ou administratif, et il propose que les traditions juridiques nationales soient prises en compte lorsque l'histoire du droit européen est écrit.

Über demokratische belange und rechtstraditionen: die niederländischen verfassungsreformen von 1953 und 1956 ‘gen’ europa

Diese Studie analysiert die niederländischen Verfassungsreformen von 1953 und 1956 gen ‘Europa und enthüllt die Komplexität und die Wechselbeziehung zwischen einer nationalen Verfassungsreform und der Entwicklung der europäischen Integration in den 1950er Jahren. Sie zeigt, dass weit zurückreichende niederländische Traditionen des Festhaltens am internationalen Recht bei einer Verfassungsreform eine prägende Rolle spielten, was schließlich wiederum den Wandel des europäischen Rechts begünstigte. Somit wird von der Studie das Verständnis dieser Entwicklung des europäischen Rechts als reiner Verfassungs- oder Verwaltungsprozess in Frage gestellt, und sie argumentiert für die Aufnahme nationaler verfassungsrechtlicher Traditionen in den Schriften zur Geschichte des europäischen Rechts.

Type
Articles
Information
Contemporary European History , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Towards a New History of European Law , August 2012 , pp. 357 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Netherlands revised its constitution in 1953 and 1956, Luxembourg in 1956; Belgian reform was attempted in 1953 but only took place in 1970. France (1946), Italy (1947) and Germany (1949) all had new constitutions which already provided for the possible transfer of competences (see below).

2 See, for example, the most recent legal analysis of the role of national courts in European law: Claes, Monica, The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006), 45–57Google Scholar.

3 Lindseth, Peter L., Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-state (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transporten en Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend en Loos vs. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, European Court Report (1963) 1.

5 voor het Regeringsbeleid, Wetenschappelijke Raad, Europa in Nederland (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007)Google Scholar. This history is further explored in the PhD thesis of Jieskje Hollander (working title ‘The Incoming Tide: Dutch Reactions to the Constitutionalisation of Europe’), to be defended in 2012 at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

6 This section very much relies on Hoetink, Carla and van Leeuwen, Karin, ‘Dilemmas of Democracy: National and Supranational Concerns for a Democratic Europe in Early Post-war Netherlands’, in Gijsenbergh, Joris et al. , eds., Creative Crises of Democracy (Brussels: Peter Lang, 2011) 189–222Google Scholar.

7 Drees’ inauguration speech in Eindrapport van de Commissie nopens de samenwerking tussen regering en Staten-Generaal inzake het buitenlands beleid (The Hague, 1951) 43. More information on the Van Eysinga, Van Schaik and Kranenburg committees and their archives as well as scanned duplicates of the committee minutes and reports are available via www.historici.nl/Onderzoek/Projecten/Grondwetscommisies1883–1983/onderzoeksgids (last visited 10 Oct. 2011). Unless stated otherwise, committee minutes and reports are derived from this online research guide.

8 The treaty between the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg was concluded on 16 Dec. 1948 and was to enter into force on 1 April 1949. Brouwer, J. W. L., ‘Buitenlandse Zaken: de strijd om meer parlementaire invloed, 1948–1951’ in Maas, P. F. and Clerx, J. M. M. J., eds., Het kabinet-Drees-Van Schaik (1948–1951), vol. C (Nijmegen: Centrum voor Parlementaire Geschiedenis, 1996), 171Google Scholar. On the consequences of this debacle, see Minister of Foreign Affairs to Parliament May 1949 and Aug. 1949, inv. no. 27292, 2.05.117, Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: Code-Archief 1945–1954, National Archives, The Hague (NA, BuZa Code-Archief 45-54).

9 Speech, Van Eysinga, 19 May 1950, inv. no. 27297, NA, BuZa Code-Archief 45–54 2.05.117.

10 W. J. M. van Eysinga, Proeve eener inleiding tot het Nederlandsch tractatenrecht (Den Haag: Mouton, 1906).

11 Memorandum Van Eysinga ‘Base de discussion’ 22 May 1950, inv. no. 27297, NA, BuZa Code-Archief 45–54 2.05.117.

12 Interim report, Van Eysinga Committee, 16 Sept. 1950.

13 Minutes, Van Eysinga Committee, Subcommittee I, 24 May 1950.

14 Handelingen van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (the Dutch parliamentary proceedings: HTK) 1951–2 Bijlage 2374 no. 2.

15 HTK 1951–2, 1953–7. Amendments in HTK 1951–2 Bijlage 2374 no. 16 and no. 30.

16 Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy, 62–81.

17 Eindrapport, 34–5.

18 van der Pot, C. W. and Donner, A. M., Handboek van het Nederlandse staatsrecht, 7th edn (Zwolle: W. E. J. Tjeenk Willink, 1962), 318–35Google Scholar.

19 Hoetink and Van Leeuwen, ‘Dilemmas of Democracy’; Hollander, Jieskje, ‘The Dutch Intellectual Debate on European Integration (1948–present). On Teachings and Life’, Journal of European Integration History, 17, 2 (2011), 197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Eindrapport, 35–42. Thus, the committee repeated the main arguments of the 1949 parliamentary discussions on the COE Treaty: HTK 1948–9, Bijlage 1247 no. 3 (28 May 1949), 14 and HTK 1948–9 (5 July 1949) 1616–18 and 1627–9.

21 Eindrapport, 38–39. On Klompé, see Kersten, A. E., ‘A Welcome Surprise? The Netherlands and the Schuman Plan Negotiations’, in Schwabe, Klaus, ed., Die Anfänge des Schuman-Plans 1950/51 (Baden Baden: Nomos, 1988), 285–304Google Scholar, here 301–2.

22 Eindrapport, 38; Minutes, Van Eysinga Committee Plenary committee 11–12 Nov. 1950.

23 Stikker, D. U., ‘The Functional Approach to European Integration’, Foreign Affairs, 29, 1 (1950)Google Scholar; De Bruin, Robin, ‘The “Elastic” European Ideal in the Netherlands, 1948–1958: Images of a Future Integrated Europe and the Transformation of Dutch Politics’, in Beers, Marloes and Raflik, Jenny, eds, Cultures Nationales et Identite' Communautaire: Un défi pour l'Europe? (Brussels: Peter Lang, 2010)Google Scholar.

24 Minutes, Van Eysinga Committee Plenary committee 29 March 1951; Eindrapport, 38–9. The Van Eysinga Committee borrowed this idea from earlier parliamentary recommendations on the ECSC: Kersten, ‘A Welcome Surprise?’, 290.

25 Deutsches Grundgesetz (1949), Artikel 24.1; Constitution de IVe République (France 1946) preambule; Costituzione della Repubblica italiana (1947) art. 11. Luxembourg revised its constitution in 1956, Belgian reform only took place in 1970. de Witte, Bruno, ‘Sovereignty and European Integration: The Weight of Legal Tradition’, in Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Sweet, Alec Stone and Weiler, J. H. H., eds., The European Court and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence. Legal Change in its Social Context (Oxford: Hart Publishing 1998), 277–304Google Scholar.

26 Artikel 67: Aan volkenrechtelijke organisaties kunnen bij of krachtens een overeenkomst bevoegdheden tot wetgeving, bestuur en rechtspraak worden opgedragen. Ten aanzien van besluiten van volkenrechtelijke organisaties zijn de artikelen 65 en 66 van overeenkomstige toepassing. [By or in virtue of an agreement certain powers with respect to legislation, administration and jurisdiction may be conferred on organisations based on international law. With regard to decisions made by organisations based on international law articles 65 and 66 shall similarly apply.] Translation from van Panhuys, H. F., ‘The Netherlands Constitution and International Law’, American Journal of International Law, 47 (1953), 537–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 540.

27 Artikel 63: Indien de ontwikkeling van de internationale rechtsorde zulks vordert kan in een overeenkomst worden afgeweken van de bepalingen van de Grondwet. In zodanig geval geschiedt de goedkeuring der overeenkomst niet dan door een uitspraak van de Staten-Generaal met twee derden der uitgebrachte stemmen in elk der Kamers. [If the development of the international legal order requires this, the contents of an agreement may deviate from certain provisions of the Constitution. In such cases the approval of the agreement shall not be given by the States-General except by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast in each of the two Chambers.] Translation from Van Panhuys, ‘The Netherlands Constitution’ (1953), 540.

28 Geert Ruygers, ‘Wijziging der Grondwet noodzakelijk’, Paraat, 9 June 1950; Minutes, Van Schaik Committee Subcommittee III, 21 Sept. 1950.

29 Annemarie van Heerikhuizen, Pioniers van een Verenigd Europa: Bovennationaal denken in het Nederlandse parlement (1946–1951) (Amsterdam, 1998), 148–9. Traces of the discussions, especially between catholics and social democrats, also have been found in inv. no. 118, 2.21.183.44, Collectie 358 M. A. M. Klompé, National Archives, The Hague.

30 Kersten, ‘A Welcome Surprise?’

31 Minutes Van Schaik Committee Subcommittee III, 21 Sept. 1950.

32 Memorandum, W. J. M. van Eysinga 20 May 1951, inv. no. 27297, NA, BuZa Code-Archief 45–54 2.05.117; also memorandum, A. J. M. van Nispen tot Pannerden, 4 July 1950, inv. no. 1124, 2.03.01, Ministerie AOK en AZ, Kabinet van de Minister-President 1942–1979, National Archives, The Hague.

33 Inspired by the Th. Heemskerk constitutional committee, a reform bill had been filed in 1912, but was withdrawn when its proponents left office. HTK 1912–13, Bijlage 250, no. 3, 4.

34 Krabbe, H., Die Lehre der Rechtssouveränität: Beitrag zur Staatslehre (Groningen: Wolters, 1906)Google Scholar; Monica Claes and Bruno de Witte, ‘Report on the Netherlands’, in Slaughter, Stone Sweet and Weiler, The European Court and National Courts, 181; Fleuren, J. W. A., Een ieder verbindende bepalingen van verdragen (Den Haag: Boom, 2004), 98–109Google Scholar.

35 Hoge Raad (HR) 25 May 1906, Weekblad van het Recht (1906), 8383; Verzijl, J. H. W., ‘Preadvies’, Handelingen NJV, 67 (1937), 1–58Google Scholar, 47. Cf. van der Pot, C. W. and Telders, B. M. in ‘Verslag eerste zitting’, Handelingen NJV, 67 (1937), 1–97Google Scholar, 56; and 72 and Erades, L., ‘De verhouding tussen volkenrecht en nationaal recht in Nederland’, Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB) 11 (1950), 217–22Google Scholar, who deny that the 1906 Hoge Raad ruling addressed monism.

36 Anema, A., van der Grinten, J., Krabbe, H., Kranenburg, R., van der Pot, C. W. and de Vries, C. W., ‘Het Nederlandsch-Belgisch verdrag en onze Grondwet’, De Volkenbond, 2, 5 (1927)Google Scholar. More generally, see also Franois, J. P. A., Handboek van het volkenrecht, 2 vols. (Zwolle: W. E. J. Tjeenk Willink, 1931), 1, 335–6Google Scholar; van der Pot, C. W., ‘Wet en tractaat’, NJB 12 (1937), 596–605Google Scholar.

37 Interim-rapport van de Staatscommissie tot Herziening van de Grondwet (The Hague: Staatsdrukkerij- en uitgeverijbedrijf, 1951), 19; Eindrapport, 24; First report, Van Eysinga Committee Plenary Committee, 16 Sept. 1950, 15–16.

38 A. van Kleffens to H. F. van Panhuys, 16 May 1951, inv. no. 27297, NA, BuZa Code-Archief 45–54 2.05.117.

39 Karin van Leeuwen, ‘In het spoor van Thorbecke: Grondwetsherziening en staatsvernieuwing in naoorlogs Nederland (1945–1983)’, Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Department of History, forthcoming 2012.

40 Eindrapport, 24.

41 HTK 1951–2, Bijlage 2228, no. 7, 59.

42 Minutes, Van Schaik Committee Plenary Committee, 3 Dec. 1951, 10 Dec. 1951 and 21 Dec. 1951. An additional report on this question was presented on 15 Jan 1952 and is published in Eindrapport van de Staatscommissie tot herziening van de Grondwet (The Hague: Staatsdrukkerij- en uitgeverijbedrijf, 1954) 187–8.

43 The provision won the vote by 76–10. HTK 1951–2, 19 March 1952, 1957; Jieskje Hollander, ‘Tussen nationale waarden en Europese eenwording. Het parlementaire debat over de Nederlandse Grondwetswijziging van 1953’, paper presented at the KNHG conference, The Hague, June 2010.

44 HTK 1951–2, 13–19 March 1952, 1877–1962; Besselink, L. F. M., ‘The Constitutional Duty to promote the Development of the International Legal Order’, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 34 (2003), 89–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critical reassessment of these Dutch ‘traditions’, see E. H. Kossmann, ‘De deugden van een kleine staat’, NRC Handelsblad, 12 Jan. 1980.

45 ‘Leading the way’, New York Times, 4 Dec.1952.

46 Artikel 65: Binnen het Koninkrijk geldende wettelijke voorschriften vinden geen toepassing, wanneer deze niet verenigbaar zou zijn met overeenkomsten, die hetzij vóór, hetzij na de totstandkoming der voorschriften zijn bekend gemaakt overeenkomstig artikel 66. [Legal provisions in force within the Kingdom shall not apply if the application should be incompatible with agreements which have been published in accordance with article 66 either before or after the enactment of the provisions.] Translation from Van Panhuys, ‘The Netherlands Constitution’ (1953), 540.

47 Artikel 66: De wet geeft regels omtrent de bekendmaking van overeenkomsten. De overeenkomsten verbinden een ieder, voorzover zij zijn bekend gemaakt. [Rules with regard to the publication of agreements shall be laid down in the law. Agreements shall be binding on anyone insofar as they will have been published.] Translation from Van Panhuys, ‘The Netherlands Constitution’ (1953), 540.

48 HR, 25 May 1906, Weekblad van het Recht (1906), 8383. At the same time, it was acknowledged in parliament: Fleuren, Een ieder verbindende bepalingen, 107–111. On Belgium: Hervé Bribosia, ‘Report on Belgium’, in Slaughter, Stone Sweet and Weiler, The European Court and National Courts, 3–39.

49 ‘Verslag eerste zitting’, 96.

50 It did so especially in two rulings on the Rhine Navigation Treaty on 17 Dec. 1934: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (1935), 5 and 11; Fleuren, Een ieder verbindende bepalingen, 126–7. One author argued that the Hoge Raad in 1942 ruled against supremacy: Polak, M. V., ‘Rechter, wet en tractaat’, NJB 21 (1946), 574–5Google Scholar.

51 Bijzondere Raad van Cassatie 12 Jan. 1949, NJ (1949), 87. Probably this ruling was encouraged by the Special Court's vice-chairman J. H. W. Verzijl, who in the 1937 meeting had argued for primacy.

52 In 1952, the Hoge Raad still avoided a clear ruling: HR, 25 Jan. 1952, NJ (1952), 125.

53 ‘Verslag eerste zitting’, 43, 57, 91; Erades, L., Waar volkenrecht en Nederlands staatsrecht elkaar raken (Haarlem: Bohn, 1949), 156Google Scholar.

54 First report, Van Eysinga Committee Plenary committee, 16 Sept. 1950, 14–16, and minutes, Van Eysinga Committee Plenary committee, 21, 28 and 29 Aug. 1950; Memorandum on articles 58–60 and 97.2 29 Aug. 1950, inv. no. 27297, NA, BuZa Code-Archief 45–54 2.05.117.

55 French doctrine however made an exception to national laws subsequent to treaties. Jens Plötner, ‘Report on France’, in Slaughter, Stone Sweet and Weiler, The European Court and National Courts, 41–75.

56 Minutes, Van Schaik Committee Subcommittee III, 8 Nov. 1950; Draft W. C. L. van der Grinten 2 Nov. 1950, and Memorandum, Van Schaik Committee Subcommittee III ‘Samenvatting van de bezwaren’, 23 Jan. 1951 (this memorandum came instead of the minutes of the joint meeting of 17 Jan. 1951). The latter both are found at inv. no. 1124 NA, AZ/AOK/KMP 2.03.01.

57 Memorandum ‘Nota aan het Plenum’ G. van den Bergh, n.d. (April 1951) inv. no. 116b, 2.04.62, 2.05.117, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken: afdeling Wetgeving en Juridische Zaken 1946–1954, National Archives, The Hague; Minutes, Van Schaik Committee Plenary Committee, 2 May 1951; also van den Bergh, G., ‘Beschouwingen over het toetsingsrecht’, NJB 26, 21 (1951), 417–25Google Scholar, here 420–1.

58 Telders, B. M., ‘Preadvies’, Handelingen NJV, 67 (1937), 1–45Google Scholar; Bribosia, ‘Report’, 11.

59 Minority report in Interim-rapport, 43. Claes and Witte, ‘Report’, 181, deduce from a handbook edited by Donner that Donner himself supported the primacy of international law over later statutes. They however seem to have taken the words of Van der Pot, the deceased author of the Handboek, for Donner's, since the words were present already in a previous, Van der Pot authored version: van der Pot, C. W., Handboek van het Nederlandse staatsrecht, 6th edn (Zwolle: W. E. J. Tjeenk Willink, 1957), 193Google Scholar; Van der Pot and Donner, Handboek, 194–5.

60 Minutes, Council of Ministers, 1 Oct. 1951 (inv. no. 395), 2.02.05.02, Ministerraad 1823–1988, National Archives, The Hague.

61 For an overview of the scholarly debate, see J. W. van der Zanden, ‘Verdrag gaat voor wet’, Rechtsgeleerd magazijn Themis (1952), 1–74.

62 HTK 1951–2 Bijlage 2374 no. 17.

63 HTK 1951–2, 1889–91.

64 HTK 1951–2, 1887–8.

65 HTK 1951–2, 1946 and 1958. Fear of a partisan government had already in 1937 led to a general vote of Dutch lawyers against the possibility that courts used government interpretations of treaties in court cases: ‘Verslag eerste zitting’, 96.

66 HTK 1951–2 Bijlage 2374 no. 9, 19; HTK 1951–2, 1936. While adversaries on this point, Oud and Romme agreed with each other on what they considered the best option: an international court supervising the correct execution of international law: HTK 1951–2, 1888 and 1908.

67 HTK 1951–2, 1959.

68 Handelingen Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal (Proceedings Senate, henceforth HEK) 1951–2 Bijlage 2374, no. 113a. Beel had to save his face as four other bills for constitutional amendment already had been voted down by the Chamber of Representatives or were about to be rejected by the Senate.

69 van Raalte, E., ‘Preadvies’, in De regeling der buitenlandse betrekkingen in de Nederlandse Grondwet (Amsterdam: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, 1955), 1–27Google Scholar.

70 Duynstee, F. J. F. M., Grondwetsherziening 1953: De nieuwe bepalingen omtrent de buitenlandse betrekkingen in de Grondwet (Deventer: Kluwer, 1954)Google Scholar; H. F. van Panhuys, ‘Preadvies’, in De regeling der buitenlandse betrekkingen, 28–50.

71 Thus, Beel provided courts with an interpretation of the new provision not foreseen in the Chamber of Representatives discussions: HEK 1951–2 Bijlage 2374, no. 113a.

72 Fleuren, Een ieder verbindende bepalingen, 131.

73 HEK 1951–2 Bijlage 2374, no. 113a, 8.

74 C. W. van der Pot, ‘De grondwetsherziening 1952 II’, NJB (1952), 29–39; also Donner, A. M., ‘Het beleid van de rechter ten aanzien van grond- en mensenrechten’, in Koekkoek, A. K., Konijnenbelt, W. and Crijns, F.C.L.M., eds., Grondrechten: Commentaar op hoofdstuk I van de herziene Grondwet (Nijmegen: Ars Aequi, 1982) 40–8Google Scholar. According to Fleuren, Een ieder verbindende bepalingen, 215, the Hoge Raad confirmed this reticence in its Nyugat II ruling (HR, 6 March 1959, NJ, 1962, 2). In the documents exchanged at the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, it was made clear that courts were only allowed marginal interpretation of the Convention: HTK 1953–4, 806–32.

75 W. J. M. van Eysinga, ‘Eenige kantteekeningen op het rapport der Commissie-Kranenburg’, NJB (1955) 615–20; Fleuren, Een ieder verbindende bepalingen, 141; Rasmussen, Morten, ‘Constructing and Deconstructing “Constitutional” European Law: Some Reflections on How to Study the History of European Law’, in Koch, Henning, Hagel-Sorensen, Karsten, Haltern, Ulrich and Weiler, Joseph H. H., eds, Europe: The New Legal Realism (Copenhagen: Djof Publishing, 2010) 639–60Google Scholar, here 647.

76 When the Dutch government proceeded against a decision of High Authority, it lost: Case 6/54, The Netherlands vs. the ECSC High Authority, ECR (March 1955).

77 HTK 1955–6, 802.

78 The new article 65 (in 1956 renumbered 66) stated: Binnen het Koninkrijk geldende wettelijke voorschriften vinden geen toepassing, wanneer deze toepassing niet verenigbaar zou zijn met een ieder verbindende bepalingen van overeenkomsten, die hetzij vóór, hetzij na de totstandkoming der voorschriften zijn aangegaan. [Legislation in force within the Kingdom shall not apply if this application would be incompatible with provisions of agreements which are binding upon anyone and which have been entered into either before or after the enactment of such legislation.] Translation from van Panhuys, H. F., ‘The Netherlands Constitution and international law. A decade of experience’, American Journal of International Law, 58 (1964), 88–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 107.

79 HR, 18 May 1962, NJ (1965), 115. Shortly before this Hoge Raad ruling, the method of explaining treaty law through the intentions that the community of states expressed when concluding the treaty it introduced had been confirmed in a government memorandum: HTK 1959–60, Bijlage 5784, no. 3.

80 Rasmussen, ‘Constructing and deconstructing’, 648; Vauchez, Antoine, ‘The transnational politics of judicialisation: Van Gend en Loos and the making of EU polity’, European Law Journal, 16 (2010), 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Case 26/62, European Court Report (1963), 1.

82 See Besselink, L. F. M., ‘De zaak-Metten: De Grondwet voorbij’, NJB, 71 (1996), 165–172Google Scholar; L. F. M. Besselink, De constitutionele bepalingen over verdragen die van de Grondwet afwijken en de opdracht van bevoegdheid aan internationale organisaties (Utrecht: Report Universiteit Utrecht, 2003).

83 Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy, 89.

84 Claes and Witte, ‘Report’.