¹ See Methods, Tools, and Institutions, in 1 Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience 1–3 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1985–88) (1986); Eckard Rehbinder & Richard Stewart, Environmental Protection Policy, in 2 Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1985–88) (1985); Thierry, Bourgoignie & David Trubek, Consumer Law, Common Markets and Federalism in Europe and The United States in 3 Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1985–88) (1987); Buxbaum, Richard M. & Hopt, Klaus J., Legal Harmonisation and The Business Enterprise, in 4 Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1985–88) (1988), Terence Daintith & Williams, Stephen F., The Legal Integration of Energy Markets, in 5 Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1985–88) (1987).Google Scholar

² See, e.g., Daniel Augenstein & Mark Dawson, Introduction: What Law for What Polity? ‘Integration through Law’ in the European Union Revisited, in 3 ‘Integration Through Law‘ Revisited: The Making of the European Polity (Daniel Augenstein ed., 2012).Google Scholar

³ The historiography of European integration has ignored the role of law, but recently a network of historians has begun researching European law. In the auspices of the University of Copenhagen, the collective research towards a new public history of European law directed by Associate Professor Morten Rasmussen has provided new historical insights on the jurisprudence of the ECJ, the role of EC institutions, the reception of European law in the Member States, and European law academia. The present author is a part of this network of historians and has been a part of the collective research project, which was formally concluded in 2016.Google Scholar

⁴ See Davies, Bill, Why EU Legal History Matters-A Historian's Response, 28 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1355 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵ The archive has recently been transferred to the Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU), where files up until 1983 will be made accessible. I would like to thank Dieter Schlenker, director of the HAEU, for cooperation regarding the archive.Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., Hallstein, Walter, La Communauté européenne, nouvel ordre juridique, in Les Documents de la Communauté européenne 27, 5 (1964).Google Scholar

⁷ See Avbelj, Matej, The Legal Viability of European Integration, in ‘Integration Through Law‘ Revisited: The Making of the European Polity 29–33, 38 (Daniel Augenstein ed., 2012).Google Scholar

⁸ See Vauchez, Antoine, Brokering Europe: Euro-Lawyers and the Making of a Transnational Polity 201–04 (2015).Google Scholar

⁹ See generally Rasmussen, Morten & Boerger, Anne, Transforming European Law: The Establishment of the Constitutional Discourse, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. (2014). Vauchez has furthermore emphasized Robert Lecourt, Hallstein, and Pescatore as the original promoters of the idea of the primary role of law in the integration process, an aspect which is missing in the account of Rasmussen and Boerger. See Vauchez, supra note 8; Antoine Vauchez, ‘Integration-Through-Law.‘ Contribution to a Socio-History of EU Political Commonsense (EUI Working Paper 2008/10, 2008).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Rasmussen and Boerger, supra note 9, at 220.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Weiler, Joseph, Epilogue to Antoine Vauchez, ‘Integration Through Law‘ Revisited: The Making of The European Polity 29–33, 38, 123, 175–79 (Daniel Augenstein ed., 2012).Google Scholar

¹² See Weiler, Joseph, A Self-interview: Remembering Mauro Cappelletti – 10 Years to His Death, European University Institute, http://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/Law/Conferences/HeritageCappelletti/WeilerASelfInterview.pdf; Interview with Monica Seccombe (May 11, 2013).Google Scholar

¹³ See Calabresi, Guido, Introductory Remarks to Mauro Cappelletti, Repudiating Montesquieu? The Expansion and Legitimacy of “Constitutional Justice,” 35 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1, 1–2 (1985); Elisabetta Grande, Development of Comparative Law in Italy, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 112 (Reimann & Zimmermann eds., 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See EUI Activities Report, Second Academic Year 1977–78, Historical Archives of the European Union, Mauro Cappelletti (HAEU, MC) 13.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, e.g., Economides, Kim, Remembering Mauro Cappelletti, European University Institute, http://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/Law/Conferences/HeritageCappelletti/Cappelletti-EUIRev-KE.pdf; see Grande, supra note 13, at 112.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Curriculum Vitae (including a list of principal publications; on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See EUI Activities Report, supra note 14, at 13.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Grande, supra note 13, at 117.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Nicolò Trocker, Mauro Cappelletti, in In Honorem Mauro Cappelletti (1927–2004): Tribute to an International Procedural Lawyer 14 (Marcel Storme ed., 2005).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Cappelletti, Mauro, In Honor of John Henry Merryman, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 1079 (1987).Google Scholar

²¹ See id. at 1080.Google Scholar

²² See generally Arnull, Anthony, The Americanization of EU Law Scholarship, in Continuity and Change in EU Law: Essays in the Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs (Anthony Arnull et al. eds., 2008) (providing a description of the turn in American legal scholarship).Google Scholar

²³ See Vitae, Curriculum, supra note 16.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Interview with Monica Seccombe, supra note 12.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cappelletti also had institutional affiliations with Harvard—visiting professorship in 1969—and Berkeley—visiting professorship in 1970.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Trocker, supra note 19.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective (Mauro Cappelletti & Bryan Garth eds., 1978).Google Scholar

²⁸ Cappelletti's life's work can be summarized as a quest for justice and a mission to improve society in three dimensions: the constitutional dimension; the social dimension; and the transnational dimension. These dimensions corresponded to three enduring projects of Cappelletti's; Judicial Review in the Contemporary World, Access to Justice, and the ITL project. In Weiler's word, these projects were all about furthering the cause of justice in an unjust world, as law in some ways was a religion to Cappelletti since he believed in its redeeming power. See Weiler, supra note 12.Google Scholar

²⁹ In 1948, the idea of a European University was put forth at the Congress of Europe in The Hague. For the next 22 years, a number of negotiations on establishing such a university took place, but questions on the seat, the opposition between a supranational Europe and “Europe des patries,” and the accession of third countries, among other questions, blocked an agreement. In 1972, a convention for the establishment of a European University Institute in Florence was finally signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Germany. In institutional terms, it was an intergovernmental cooperation outside but in orbit around the Communities, and it was far more modest than some of the visions for a European university imagined as a part of the Communities. The main object was to “contribute, by its activities in the fields of higher education and research, to the development of the cultural and scientific heritage of Europe … pursued through teaching and research at the highest university level.” The organs to make this come true were the High Council with representatives from the Member States and the Academic Council consisting of professors and researcher representatives. See generally Jean-Marie Palayret, A University for Europe: Prehistory of the European University Institute of Florence (1948–76) (1996) (providing a detailed review of the long and winding prehistory of the European University Institute).Google Scholar

³⁰ See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Max Kohnstamm (Nov. 20, 1973) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

³¹ Cappelletti kept his chairs at the University of Florence and Stanford University.Google Scholar

³² As of today, the EUI consisted of four departments: History and Civilization, Economics, Law, and Political and Social Sciences.Google Scholar

³³ See Interview with Monica Seccombe, supra note 12.Google Scholar

³⁴ The project turned into the first opening volume of the EUI Publications Series. In the foreword, Max Kohnstamm stated that a search for the common basis on which to find legal provisions applicable to the European nations was clearly a part of the tasks entrusted to the Institute. See Kohnstamm, Max, Foreword to New Perspectives of a Common Law for Europe, at v (Mauro Cappelletti ed. 1978).Google Scholar

³⁵ To Cappelletti, Community law was only “the tip of the iceberg” of European common law. At this time, he granted the European Court of Human Rights a profound importance as the Council of Europe united all but one of the twenty-one Western European nations (the exception was Finland), and as the philosophy of human rights was the most valuable heritage of Europe's political thoughts. See Cappelletti, Mauro, Introduction to New Perspectives of a Common Law for Europe 2–3 (Mauro Cappelletti ed., 1978).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Letter from Pierre Pescatore to Mauro Cappelletti (Aug. 9, 1976) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Cappelletti, supra note 35, at 19–20; Thijmen Koopmans, Legislature and Judiciary – Present Trends, in New Perspectives of a Common Law for Europe 234–35 (Mauro Cappelletti ed., 1978). Koopmans and Cappelletti stayed in touch after the colloquium. Upon taking office in Luxembourg, Koopmans, for instance, wrote to Cappelletti that he was more and more convinced of the importance of comparative public law for the evolution of European law, and that he remained devoted to what he saw as Cappelletti's cause. See Letter from Thijmen Koopmans to Mauro Cappelletti (May 29, 1976) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 1.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Case C-6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Vauchez, supra note 8, at 129.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Lecourt, Robert, ‘Le rôle du droit dans l'unification européenne’, Bulletin de l'Association des juristes européens (Vauchez trans., 1964); Vauchez, supra note 8, at 142.Google Scholar

⁴² See Vauchez, supra note 8, at 142.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Vauchez, Antoine, ‘Integration-Through-Law.‘ Contribution to a Socio-History of EU Political Commonsense (EUI Working Paper No. 2008/10, 2008).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Vauchez, supra note 8, at 138.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, e.g., Donner, Andreas, The Constitutional Powers of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 11 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 127, 139 (1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Sanford Jaffe, Ford Foundation (Sept. 8, 1977) (on file with Eric Stein Papers, Bentley Historical Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Box 30). The Ford Foundation funded numerous academic projects on the EC, and there were many ties between prominent officials, the EC institutions, and the foundation. An empirical study of the role of the Ford Foundation in European integration is, however, still missing.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Lando, Ole, Eight Principles of European Contract Law, in Making Commercial Law: Essays in Honour of Roy Goode 103–04 (R. Cranston ed., 1997).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Letter from Ole Lando to Mauro Cappelletti (Aug. 10, 1977) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ In February 1978, Cappelletti described to Fernand Braun from the Commission how Hauschild had been “most instrumental in the preparation stages of the project.” See Letter from Cappelletti to Braun (Feb. 22, 1978) (HAEU, MC).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Cappelletti, The Emergence of a New Common Law of Europe: Some Basic Developments and Instruments for Integration, Considered in the Light of the US Federal Experience (Dec. 1, 1977) (HAEU, MC).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See id. Google Scholar

⁵² See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Ole Lando (Feb. 24, 1978) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC). Eventually, Lando's project would evolve into The European Principles of Contract Law, known as the Lando Principles. See The Principles of European Contract Law (Ole Lando, Ugh Beale, & Comm'n. of Eur. Contract Law eds., 1995).Google Scholar

⁵³ Furthermore, Lando ended up co-authoring a chapter, Conflict of Laws as a Technique for Legal Integration, in the ITL publication series with Peter Hay and Ronald Rotunda in Volume 1, Book 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Letter from Joseph Weiler to Mauro Cappelletti (Mar. 5, 1978) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Note from Geoffrey Hand to René David, Hans Daalder & Mauro Cappelletti (undated) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Weiler, Joseph, Supranational Law and The Supranational System: Legal Structure and Political Process in the European Community (1982).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Weiler, Joseph, The Community System: The Dual Character of Supranationalism, in 1 Yearbook of European Law 267 (1981).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Letter from Claus-Dieter Ehlermann to Mauro Cappelletti (July 13, 1981) (on file with the Historical Archives of European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Telex from Pierre Pescatore to Terence Daintith (May 26, 1982) (on file at the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Weiler, supra note, at 12.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Common Market I—VII (Fall 1982) (HAEU, MC).Google Scholar

⁶² See Rasmussen & Boerger, supra note 9, at 203.Google Scholar

⁶³ See id. at 206.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See id. at 223.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See, e.g., Eric Stein & Peter Hay, New Legal Remedies of Enterprises in the European Economic Community, 9 Am. J. Comp. L. (1960).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Interview with Peter Hay (Mar. 17, 2014).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Rasmussen & Boerger, supra note 9, at 216–17.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Interview with Peter Hay, supra note 66.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See id. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ While the comparison was generally well conceived among those who Cappelletti sought advice from, a few scholars found this path to be a mistake. Henry Schermers noted that the American experience would be of little use to the emergence of a European higher law, because the European supreme courts considered themselves sovereign, as could be seen in the Cohn Bendit case. Although other supreme courts accepted the principle of EC law supremacy, Schermers was not at all sure that these courts would grant priority to community law in case of real conflict. See Letter from Henry Schermers to Mauro Cappelletti (May 7, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC). Ivo Samkalden also warned Cappelletti that the title might indicate that Europe was aiming towards a federation, and this would be a dangerous and unrealistic impression for political reasons. See Summary of Main Points, Planning Meeting (Oct. 19, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See generally Courts and Free Markets: Perspectives from the United States and Europe (Terence Sandalow & Eric Stein eds., 1982).Google Scholar

⁷² See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Eric Stein (Sept. 19, 1977) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁷³ See Letter from Cappelletti to Martin Shapiro (Apr. 11, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Memorandum from Mauro Cappelletti to Max Kohnstamm (Jul. 16, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Letter from Ole Lando to Claus-Dieter Ehlermann (Nov. 22, 1977) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Interview with Claus-Dieter Ehlermann (June 29, 2016).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Vauchez, supra note 8, at 218.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See, e.g., Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Legal Status, Functioning and Probable Evolution of the Institutions of the European Communities, 10 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 198 (1973).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Notes from Telephone Conversation with Michael Carpentier (Feb. 7, 1978) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Max Kohnstamm (May 19, 1978) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸¹ See Letter from Claus-Dieter Ehlermann to Mauro Cappelletti (July 12, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸² See Letter from Michael Carpentier to Mauro Cappelletti (June 26, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸³ Jean Amphoux from the Legal Service worked with Bryan Garth on writing a chapter about migrant workers. See Cappelletti to Amphoux (Mar. 12, 1981) (HAEU, MC). David Lawrence from Carpentier's service collaborated with Eckard Rehbinder and Richard Stewart from Berkeley University on volume two on environmental protection policy. Ludwig Krämer from the same service collaborated with David Trubek and Thierry Bourgoignie on producing volume three on Consumer Law, Common Markets. See Letter from Carpentier to Mauro Cappelletti (July 22, 1980) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC). In fact, Krämer had been the one to suggest Thierry Bourgoignie. See Telephone Conversation with Krämer (Nov. 12, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Letter from Michael Carpentier to Mauro Cappelletti, supra note 83.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ He considered, for instance, Jochen Frowein, the German member of the European Commission of Human Rights, for a chapter on human rights. See Pro Memoria Telephone Conversation Between Mauro Cappelletti and Claus-Dieter Ehlermann (Nov. 12, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC). Frowein ended up writing the chapter on human rights with Stephen Schulhofer and Shapiro, as well as a chapter on the federal experience in Germany and Switzerland.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Pro Memoria Telephone Conversation Cetween Mauro Cappelletti and Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, supra note 85.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Letter from Martin Shapiro to Samuel Krislov (Aug. 22, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Claus-Dieter Ehlermann (undated) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ehlermann visited in relation to meetings about the project, but he was also officially a visiting professor at the EUI in February of 1982, giving a seminar on the tension between the Commission and other community organs. See id. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Pierre Pescatore (Apr. 11, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archive of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Letter from Mertens de Wilmars to Mauro Cappelletti (Aug. 11, 1981) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC). Mertens de Wilmars visited the EUI in February of 1982 and gave lectures on the jurisprudence of the ECJ and the relationship between community law and national law. See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Mertens de Wilmars (Feb. 11, 1982) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹² See Letter from Andreas Donner to Mauro Cappelletti (Feb. 6, 1980) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC). In the correspondence between Cappelletti and Donner, an enlightening exchange of views on the role of the judge took place. Cappelletti had sent Donner a draft of his article “Interpreter or Law-Maker.” Donner did not think that the law-profession as a whole had an interest in stressing the law-making consequences of their activities. The result of political interference was a decided lowering of the quality of the people nominated as judges. This was a tendency, which Donner for instance saw in the German Constitutional Court. See Letter from André Donner to Mauro Cappelletti (Mar. 4, 1980) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹³ See, e.g., Letter from Hans Glaesner to Geoffrey Hand (June 26, 1979) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC); see Letter from Bieber to Cappelletti (Dec. 12, 1981). Bieber was at the EUI as a visiting professor in 1982.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Mertens de Wilmars (July 2, 1981) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Interview with Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, supra note 76.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Letter from Mauro Cappelletti to Terence Daintith (Aug. 6, 1980) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See Memorandum from Mauro Cappelletti to Max Kohnstamm and Marcello Buzzonetti (June 2, 1980) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Seventh Report of Activities (1982–83) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Professor Terence Daintith, Professor Klaus Hopt, Professor Yves Mény, and Professor Jacques Pelkmans were all involved in the project. See Memorandum from Mauro Cappelletti to Max Kohnstamm and Buzzonetti, supra note 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Note from Cappelletti and Weiler to Maihofer (June 21, 1982) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Exercise, Brainstorming, Meeting 21–22 (Oct. 1982) (on file with the Historical Archives of the European Union, MC).Google Scholar

¹⁰² The Draft Treaty was described as representing “a structural innovation” in the final pages of Cappelletti, Seccombe and Weiler's general introduction in the ITL publication seri es, however without mentioning of the involvement of Weiler. See Cappelletti, Mauro, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler, General Introduction to Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 1, at 67 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ In this Section, I analyze the main objectives and assumptions of the project, especially regarding the way the nature of European law and the role of law in the integration process were conceived. A detailed analysis of the different parts lies outside the scope of this Article.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Cappelletti, Mauro, Foreword to Integration Through Law. Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 1, at 67 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Monica Seccombe was Cappelletti's research assistant and an editor of the ITL publication series.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See Cappelletti, Seccombe, & Weiler, supra note 102, at 10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See id. at 15.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See id. at 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Hay, Peter, Ronald Rotunda & Ole Lando, The Protection of Fundamental Human Rights as a Vehicle of Integration, in Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 2 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Frowein, Jochen, Stephen Schulhofer & Martin Shapiro, The Protection of Fundamental Human Rights as a Vehicle of Integration, in Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 3 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Rehbinder & Stewart, supra note 1.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Cappelletti, Seccombe, & Weiler, supra note 102, at 12, 30.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See id. at 29.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See Kommers, Donald, Federalism and European Integration: A Conclusion, in Integration Through Law. Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 1, at 67 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See id. at 616.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ See Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Joseph Weiler & Samuel Krislov, The Political Organs and the Decision Making Process in the United States and The European Community, in Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 2, at 3 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See Gaja, Giorgio, Peter Hay & Ronald Rotunda, Instruments for Legal Integration in the European Communities, in Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, 1 Methods, Tools and Institutions, bk. 2, at 113 (Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe, & Joseph Weiler eds., 1986).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ It is unclear in the archive of Cappelletti exactly when the notion of “integration through law” was created and who created it, but most likely, it was not coined until the general introduction by Cappelletti, Weiler, and Seccombe was written. Thus, it was late in the project process.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ This Section is a first attempt at writing an impact history of the ITL project. Thus, it provides initial reflections.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ See Shapiro, Martin, Comparative Law and Comparative Politics, 53 S. Cal. L. 537, 538 (1980).Google Scholar

¹²¹ See Bermann, George A., Book Review of Volume I of ITL, 11 Fordham Int'l L. J. 232, 253 (1987).Google Scholar

¹²² Koen has also been the President of the ECJ since October of 2015.Google Scholar

¹²³ See Lenaerts, Koen, Book Review of Volumes 1–2 of ITL, 24 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 310 (1987). Lenarts did also find a general lack of coherence in the ITL publication series—a critique which was also brought forth in a review by Edward McWhinney, Professor of international law at the Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. See Edward McWhinney, Book Review of Volumes 1–2 of ITL, 81 Am. J. Int'l L. (1987).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ There are countless examples, but see, for instance, these illuminating sentences by the Dutch legal scholar and former jurist at the ECJ Kamiel Mortelmanns: “The European community is for a large part the creation of law. It was with good cause that a large international research project on European integration was given the title Integration Through Law.” See Mortelmanns, Kamiel, Community Law: More Than a Functional Area of Law, Less Than a Legal System, 23 Legal. Issues. Eur. Integration 23, 26 (1996).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ The notion “Integration through law” is seldom defined by the authors, who subscribe to the theory and use the notion in their work. See, e.g., Alter, Karen, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe (2001).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Vauchez, supra note 8, at 204–06.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ See Weiler, supra note 11, at 175.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ After the millenium, Weiler's interpretation the European legal order changed significantly with the promotion of his theory of “constitutional tolerance,” where he contrasted European constitutionalism with American or other federal forms of constitutionalism. See, e.g., Weiler, Joseph, Federalism without Constitutionalism: Europe's Sonderweg, in The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union (Kalypso Nicolaidis & Robert Howse eds., 2001).Google Scholar