The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision
Abstract
Abstract: Through a close reading of the Maastricht Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court Weiler examines critically the so‐called No‐Demos Thesis according to which the absence of a European Demos precludes democratisation of the Union at the European level and requires the mediation of Member State institutions. He traces the roots of this thesis to Carl Schmitt and argues that it represents a failure of the Court to understand the Union in terms different from the Schmittian strand in German constitutional theory. He claims, inter alia, that the No Demos thesis is premised on an organic understanding of peoplehood deriving from the European Nation‐State tradition which conflates nationality and citizenship and can, as a result, conceive of Demos only in statal terms. Weiler first presents an alternative view of the Union and of supranationalism and then offers a non organic view of Demos and argues for a ‘European’ notion of membership in which each individual would belong to multiple demoi defined in different ways.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique
Valentini, L. (2014) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592714002138 · Cited by 178
Metadata
- Authors
- Weiler, J. H. H.
- Venue
- European Law Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 219-258
- ISSN
- 1351-5993 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0386
- OpenAlex
- W2097834786
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 43.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.