European Diversity and Autonomy Papers
EDAP 1/ 2004
The Debat e on European Values and t he
Case of Cultural Diversity
Managing edit ors:
Emma Lant schner / Francesco Pal ermo / Gabriel N. Toggenburg
Edit orial Board:
In al phabet i cal or der :
Crauf urd Smit h Rachel (Universit y of Edinburgh, UK) Dani Marco (Universit à di Trent o, I)
De Wit t e Bruno (European Universit y Inst it ut e, I) Gamper Anna (Universit ät Innsbruck, A) Henrard Krist in (Universit y of Groningen, NL)
Kuj ovich Gil (Vermont Law School , US) Kyml icka Wil l (Queens Universit y, CAN)
Marko Joseph (Universit ät Graz, A) Nic Shuibhne Niamh (Universit y of Edinburgh, UK)
Ort ino Sergio (Universit à di Firenze, I) Packer John (Tuf t s Universit y, US) Poggeschi Giovanni (Universit à di Lecce, I) Sasse Gwendol yn (London School of Economics, UK)
Tarr Wil l iam (Rut gers Universit y, US) Teachout Pet er (Vermont Law School , US)
Toniat t i Robert o (Universit à di Trent o, I) Woel k Jens (Universit à di Trent o, I)
Europäische Akademie Bozen Drususal l ee, 1
39100 Bozen - It al ien Tel . +39 0471 055200 Fax +39 0471 055299
edap@eurac. edu www. eurac. edu/ edap
Accademia Europea Bol zano Vial e Druso, 1 39100 Bol zano - It al ia Tel . +39 0471 055200 Fax +39 0471 055299
edap@eurac. edu
www. eurac. edu/ edap
Copyright Informat ion:
Any sort of reproduct ion – incl uding excerpt s - is permit t ed onl y when
indicat ing t he exact EDAP source. Pl ease quot e EDAP as indicat ed in t he
f ol l owing exampl e: Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ The Debat e on European
Val ues and t he Case of Cul t ural Diversit y” , 1 Eur opean Di ver si t y and
Abstract
‘ Val ues’ have become a t opic of discussion at t he European l evel . This art icl e t ries t o brief l y t rack t he reasons f or t his phenomenon as wel l as t o det angl e t he f oggy not ion of ‘ val ues’ in t his cont ext . The aut hor dif f erent iat es bet ween f ounding val ues, European ideas and common l egal principl es. Al l t hese dif f erent f orms of European val ues dif f er in t heir respect ive l egal and pol it ical charact er. Most import ant l y, t hey require a dif f erent l evel of European conf ormit y. Special emphasis is given t o t he val ue of cul t ur al diversit y which can be considered, at most , a ‘ sel f -rest rict ive’ val ue since it can be perceived f rom an incl usive perspect ive (incl uding diversit y wit hin t he st at es) or f rom an excl usive perspect ive (diversit y amongst t he st at es). Pl acing t oo much emphasis on t he incl usive reading endangers t he excl usive reading, and vice versa. In t his cont ext , t he aut hor ref ers t o t he new const it ut ional mot t o of t he European Union as proposed by t he const it ut ional t reat y. Unl ike t he sit uat ion in Indonesia and Sout h Af rica (which bot h use t he same mot t o) it does not seem t o address subnat ional diversit y. Inst ead, “ unit ed in diversit y” aims at prot ect ing nat ional ident it ies against excessive int egrat ion, and t hus seems t he very opposit e of t he US const it ut ional mot t o of “ E pl uribus unum” .
Aut hor
Gabriel N. Toggenburg is a researcher at t he European Academy Bol zano/ Bozen since 1998. His work f ocuses on EU Const it ut ional l aw and rel at ed issues, especial l y t he subj ect of diversit y and it s int eract ions wit h t he Common market . Publ icat ions incl ude The pr ot ect i on of mi nor i t i es i n t he enl ar ged Eur opean Uni on. The way f or war d, LGI Books, Budapest , 2004 (avail abl e al so at
ht t p: / / l gi. osi. hu/ publ icat ions. php). For det ail s see ht t p: / / www. eurac. edu/ about / col l aborat ors/ GToggenburg/ index. ht m.
The aut hor can be reached at : Gabriel . vonToggenburg@eurac. edu.
Keywords
Table of contents
1. The Discussion on ‘ European Values’ : Where does it come from, What does it consist of? . . . 5
2. The Notion of ‘ European Values’ : Founding Values, European Ideas and Common Legal Principles . . . 7
3. Communities of Shared Values: The Quest for Homogeneity . . . 11
The Debate on European Values and the Case of
Cultural Diversity
1Gabriel N. Toggenburg
1.
The Discussion on ‘ European Values’ :
Where does it come from, What does it consist of?
Al ready bef ore t he ‘ But t igl ione crisis’ of Oct ober 2004, it had become obvious t hat ‘ val ues’ are highl y t opical in t he cont ext of European int egrat ion.2
Just f if t een years ago one coul d have specul at ed whet her f i n-de-si ècl e-Europe
woul d no l onger be a vehicl e f or val ues, but a mere end in it sel f which risks l osing any deeper r ai son d’ êt r e.3 However, it is t he end of t he l ast and t he beginning of t he new cent ury which see t he Union submerged in an omnipresent debat e of unprecedent ed int ensit y on it s underl ying val ues, on ways t o cont rol t he observance of t hese val ues and on t he Union’ s const it ut ional ident it y in general .
At l ast f our f act ors can be cit ed f or bringing discussion of val ues t o a head: t he draf t ing of t he Chart er of Fundament al Right s in 2000, t he so-cal l ed Aust rian crisis of t he same year, t he general t urmoil in int ernat ional pol it ics f ol l owing Sept ember 11 and, f inal l y, t he European Convent ion’ s draf t ing of t he European Union’ s new consit ut ional t reat y. This quadr i ga covers t he
ent ire range of ‘ val ues’ , f rom at t empt s t o def ine a specif ic cat al ogue of f undament al ‘ right s’ (wit hin t he Convent ion draf t ing t he Chart er) t o a broader process of sel f -def init ion and ident it y buil ding at EU l evel incl uding al so pol it ical issues such as t he Union’ s pol it ical obj ect ives and it s scope (wit hin t he Convent ion draf t ing t he const it ut i onal t reat y). The quest ion of how t o react if a member st at e al l egedl y inf ringes (supposed) European val ues (which
1
An earl ier version of t his paper has been publ ished in Francesco Pal ermo and Gabriel N. Toggenburg (eds. ), Eur opean Const i t ut i onal Val ues and Cul t ur al Di ver si t y (EURAC Research, Bol zano/ Bozen,
2003, out of print ).
2
Rocco But t igl ione – t he designat ed It al ian member of t he new European Commission – had t o wit hdraw his candidacy due t o pressure f rom t he European Parl iament . The l at t er f ound t he views of But t igl ione wit h regard t o homosexual it y (according t o him a “ sin” ) and t he rol e of women in societ y unaccept abl e and ‘ un-European’ . The event produced a debat e on t he edge bet ween rel igious val ues and pol it ics whose int ensit y was so f ar unknown in recent Europe. In t he Unit ed St at es t his sort of rel igion-driven conf l ict s in pol it ics is rat her usual . Compare in t his cont ext , e. g. , t he posit ion of t he Archbishop of Denver who said t hat vot ing f or Kerry (who support s st em cel l research or abort ion right s) woul d be a sin t hat woul d have t o be conf essed bef ore receiving communion (see Heral d Tribune, 18 Oct ober 2004, at 8).
3
occured in t he Aust rian crisis) oscil l at es bet ween l aw and pol it ics. And, f inal l y, t he val ue debat e provoked at t he gl obal l evel by t errorist at t acks raises pol it ical quest ions, such as how t o design t he t ransat l ant ic part nership and where t o pl ace Europe in t he rel at ionship bet ween t he no l onger monol it hic ‘ West ’ and t he even l ess monol it hic Isl amic worl d.4
Of course, t he val ue debat e in Europe cannot be conf ined t o t hese recent and prominent f ora. Rat her, every pol it i cal syst em generat es ongoing debat e on val ues and t ries t o resol ve conf l ict s which arise.5 These f rict ions and asymmet ries cal l f or repl ies by t he Court s as wel l as t he pol it ical arena. The (so f ar) unique est abl ishment of pol it ical crit eria f or accession t o t he EU in t he recent east ern enl argement demonst rat es how val ues such as e. g. “ respect f or and t he prot ect ion of minorit ies” are voiced at t he pol it ical l evel but subsequent l y l ef t t o t he l egal syst em f or f urt her ‘ digest ion’ .6
In ot her cases, t he quest ion of common val ues arises when new areas of European l egisl at ive compet ence must be f il l ed wit h concret e pol it ical cont ent . This is happening in areas, such as e. g. t he EU immigrat ion pol icy.7 Yet , ot her debat es arise f rom supposed or real l egal f rict ion bet ween cert ain pol icy areas and t he European Union’ s common market ‘ skel et on’ : t he ‘ t rade l inkage probl em’ in t he area of cul t ure8
and t he EU cinema pol icy9
are t wo exampl es.
The f or a and cont ext s host ing t he European val ue debat e are t heref ore
count l ess – some, l ike t he European Convent ion in Brussel s, prominent l y exposed t o t he l ight of publ ic at t ent ion; ot hers, l ike l ocal Court rooms, hidden away in t he sil ent corners of t he European pol it ical syst em.
4
An il l ust rat ive exampl e f or t his new insecurit y served t he art icl e “ Der Gl aube der Ungl äubigen. Wel che Wert e hat der West en?” , 52 Der Spi egel (2001), 50-66.
5
For t he phenomenon of mul t icul t ural ism see e. g. Cinzia Piciocchi, “ Europe Faces Cul t ural Diversit y: Towards a European Mul t icul t ural Model ?” , in Francesco Pal ermo and Gabriel N. Toggenburg (eds. ),
Eur opean Const i t ut i onal Val ues and Cul t ur al Di ver si t y (EURAC Research, Bol zano/ Bozen, 2003, out
of print ), 25-36, who argues t hat t he l at t er provides a f orced aut o-def init ion t o t he singl e st at es.
6
Minorit y prot ect ion is a Copenhagen crit erion but was not incl uded - in cont rast t o al l t he ot her pol it ical crit eria of Copenhagen - in t he l ist of Art . 6 EU as est abl ished by t he Treat y of Amst erdam. See on t his e. g. Bruno de Wit t e, “ Pol it ics Versus Law in t he EU’ s Approach t o Et hnic Minorit ies” , 4 RSC Wor ki ng Paper s (2000); Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ A Rough Orient at ion t hrough a Del icat e
Rel at ionship” , in Eur opean Int egr at i on Onl i ne Paper s (2000), at ht t p: / / eiop. or. at / eiop/ t ext e/ 2000-016a. ht m and, on t he Copenhagen crit eria in general , Christ ophe Hil l ion, “ The Copenhagen crit eria and t heir progeny” , in Christ ophe Hil l ion (ed. ), EU Enl ar gement . A Legal Appr oach (Hart , Port l and,
2004), 1-22.
7
See Maria Teresa Bia, “ Towards an EU Immigrat ion Pol icy: Bet ween Emerging Supranat ional Principl es and Nat ional Concerns” , 2 Eur opean Di ver si t y and Aut onomy Paper s - EDAP (2004), at www. eurac. edu/ edap.
8
See Rost am J. Neuwirt h, “ The ‘ Cul t ural Indust ri es’ : A Cl ash of Basic Val ues? A Comparat ive St udy of t he EU and t he NAFTA in t he Light of t he WTO” , 4 Eur opean Di ver si t y and Aut onomy Paper s - EDAP
(2004), at www. eurac. edu/ edap.
9
2.
The Not ion of ‘ European Values’ :
Founding Values, European Ideas and Common Legal Principles
As t he ‘ val ue debat e’ came t o prominence in publ ic discourse in recent years, t he not ion of ‘ European val ues’ has become epidemic in usage. At risk of oversimpl if icat ion, it is here submit t ed t hat t he discussion circul at ing around t his f oggy not ion is usual l y based on one of t he f ol l owing t hree dif f erent preconcept ions of what const it ut es ‘ European val ues’ : First l y, European val ues are of t en ref erred t o as t he pol it ical movens underl ying t he European
Communit ies (‘ f ounding val ues’ ). Secondl y, t he t erm ‘ European val ues’ arises regul arl y in t he debat e on ‘ European ident it y’ .10
In t his cont ext , one ref ers t o various ideol ogical or ant hroposophic st ances as ‘ European val ues’ (‘ European ideas’ ). These European ideas t ry t o sket ch a hidden ideol ogical agenda or a common cul t ural backbone f or Europe and it s int egrat ion process. Thirdl y, t he t erm ‘ European val ues’ l abel s t he l egal acqui s communaut ai r e surrounding
concept s such as respect f or human right s and f undament al f reedoms, l ibert y, democracy or rul e of l aw. Since Maast richt , t hese common principl es (‘ common l egal principl es’ ) have been enshrined in t he t reat ies, namel y in Art icl e 6 EU11
. The l at t er circl e of val ues is nowadays t he most prominent ref erence t o val ues in t he t reat y. However, in t his int ernal dimension, t he t reat y does not speak of ‘ val ues’ but of ‘ principl es’ . The not ion of ‘ val ues’ has so f ar been reserved t o t he real m of t he Union’ s ext ernal rel at ions.12
It is a commonpl ace t hat t he Communi t y began mainl y as a communit y of economic int erest , and onl y sl owl y devel oped int o a communit y of val ues.13 However, it is al so obvious t hat as earl y as 1957, t he Preambl e and Art icl e 2
10
Just see as a prominent exampl e t he Chart er of European Ident it y adopt ed by t he “ Kongreß der Europa-Union” in 1995 (t he working group el aborat ing t he Chart er has been inspired by t he speech t o t he European Parl iament by Vacl av Havel on 8 March 1994). It says: “ . . . Fundament al European val ues are based on t ol erance, humanit y and f rat ernit y. Buil ding on it s hist orical root s in cl assical ant iquit y and Christ ianit y, Europe f urt her devel oped t hese val ues during t he course of t he Renaissance, t he Humanist movement , and t he Enl ight enment , which l ed in t urn t o t he devel opment of democracy, t he recognit ion of f undament al and human right s, and t he rul e of l aw” See at ht t p: / / www. europa-web. de/ europa/ 02wwswww/ 203chart / chart _gb. ht m. Simil ar f ormul at ions can al so be f ound in of f icial EU document s. For a crit ical comment on t he of f i ci al
promot ion of an ‘ European ident it y’ at EU l evel , see Bruno de Wit t e, “ Buil ding Europe’ s image and ident it y” , in A. Rij ksbaron, W. H. Roobol and M. Weisgl as (eds. ), Eur ope f r om a Cul t ur al Per spect i ve
(Nij gh en Van Dit mar, Amst erdam, 1987), 132-139.
11
Formerl y Art icl e F Treat y of European Union.
12
Art . 11 para. 1 EU est abl ishes as an obj ect ive of it s f oreign pol icy t o “ saf eguard t he common val ues” (see al so Art . 27a para. 1 EU). The current l y proposed const it ut ional t reat y does however make use of t he t erm ‘ val ues’ not onl y in t he preambl e but al so in t he provision on t he common l egal principl es, namel y it s Art . II-2 (“ The Union’ s val ues” ). See t he draf t t reat y est abl ishing a Const it ut ion f or Europe in OJ C 169 (18 Jul y 2003). The most recent version is a provisional consol idat ed version dat ing f rom 6 August 2004 (document CIG 87/ 04). Quot at ions bel ow ref er t o t hat version.
13
of t he t reat y est abl ishing t he European Communit y invoked (at t he very l east ) a t rinit y of val ues. These f ounding val ues consist , f irst l y, in t he creat ion of a pol it ical area of f reedom and int ernat ional peace (as opposed t o t he experience made in t he t wo Worl d Wars); secondl y, in t he est abl ishment of wel f are-producing market economies (as opposed t o t he f ormer command economies which exist ed t hroughout East ern Europe under Communism) and; t hirdl y, maint aining a proj ect which produces an ever higher degree of int egrat ion (as opposed t o t he experienced resul t s of nat ional ism and isol at ionism) and t hereby an “ ever cl oser Union” .14
These f ounding val ues are pol it ical in nat ure, but al so boil down t o concret e t reat y obl igat ions - a f act which is especial l y obvious in t he case of t he EU’ s commit ment t o t he market economy.
The European ideas, on t he cont rary, point t o commit ment s and convict ions which can hardl y be expressed in l egal t erms or ident if ied in t reat y provisions. Their l egal val idit y is weak, and even t heir underl ying pol it ical consensus is shaky. Theref ore t hey can onl y part ial l y f ul f il l t heir supposed aim, namel y t o equip t he int egrat ion process wit h addit ional l egit imacy. It remains dif f icul t t o def ine what is ‘ European’ and what not . This despit e t he f act t hat in hist orical t erms Europe was t he onl y cont inent which was def ined by it s inhabit ant s and not by any (imperial ist ic) ext ernal inf l uence.15 The normat ive doubt s underl ying t he European ideas, however, do not abat e t heir pract ical rel evance, as can be observed in t he pol it ical discussion surrounding t he accession of Turkey.16
An il l ust rat ive exampl e f or t he drawing of a European ident it y t hrough European ideas is t he percept ion of Europe as a communit y buil t on t he t hree mount ains of t he Acr opol i s, t he Capi t ol and Gol got ha,
represent ing, respect ivel y, Greek cul t ur al herit age, t he Roman l egal syst em and Christ ianit y.17
Ot her part ies st ress t hat t he Union buil ds on t he remembrance and rej ect ion of shoa, f ascism and nazism as l i eux de memoi r e
of European int egrat ion.18
St il l ot hers f ocus on t he ideas of t he Enl ight ment . Bot h t he import ance and t he descript ive l imit s of European ideas are
14
Art . 2 TEC reads as f ol l ows: “ The communit y shal l have as it s t ask, by est abl ishing a common market and progressivel y approximat ing t he economic pol icies of member st at es, t o promot e t hroughout t he communit y a harmonious devel opment of economic act ivit ies, a cont inuous and bal anced expansion, an increase in st abil it y, an accel erat ed raising of t he st andard of l iving and cl oser rel at ions bet ween t he st at es bel onging t o it ” . The preambl e of t he Treat y st at es t hat t he f ounding f at hers were commit t ed t o “ st rengt hen peace and l ibert y” by “ pool ing t heir resources” and t hey cal l upon t he ot her peopl es of Europe who share t heir ideal t o j oin in t heir ef f ort s.
15
See Wul f Köpke, “ Was ist Europa, wer Europäer?” , in Das gemei nsame Haus Eur opa (Museum f ür
Völ kerkunde Hamburg, 1999), 18-29, at 18.
16
Or consider f or exampl e t he respect ivel y dif f erent recept ion of sl ogans of pol it ical part ies in Germany or Aust ria as against t o l et s say Bel gium. Here one seems t o be conf ront ed wit h an asymmet ric ef f ect of ant i-Nazism as l i eux de mémoi r e of European int egrat ion.
17
This concise met aphor seems t o st em f rom t he f ormer German president Theodor Heuss. See f or f urt her el aborat ion Hans Graf Huyn, “ Drei Hügel : Das Fundament Europas”, in Ot t o v. Habsburg et
al . (eds. ) Gr undwer t e Eur opas (St ocker Verl ag, Graz, 1994), 9-38, at 21. 18
ref l ect ed in t he rol e of ‘ Christ ian val ues’ , specif ical l y t he word ‘ God’ pl ayed in t he draf t ing of t he Chart er of f undament al right s19 and t he const it ut ional t reat y20
respect ivel y. Once one of t he st rongest unif ying f orces in Europe,21
churches and Christ ianit y t oday encount er severe dif f icul t y in buil ding an al l -embracing ideol ogical mirror of European real it y.22
Even in t hose cases where t here is consensus on t he overal l accept ance of cert ain European ideas, one shoul d be caut ious not t o conf use pol it ical af f init ies wit h l egal obl igat ions. A sort of European ideas were invoked, in t he absence of any viol at ion of cl ear principl es, when t he t hen new Aust rian government was isol at ed f rom t he ot her 14 member st at es in 2000. The resul t was t he creat ion of new pol it ical as wel l as l egal f rict ions.23
Against t his background, it is underst andabl e t hat some maint ain t hat “ a modern st at e is supposed t o be based on l aw, not on a
19
The preambl e of t he Chart er st art s saying t hat “ The peopl es of Europe, in creat ing an ever cl oser union among t hem, are resol ved t o share a peacef ul f ut ure based on common val ues. Conscious of it s spirit ual and moral herit age, t he Union is f ounded on t he indivisibl e, universal val ues of human dignit y, f reedom, equal it y and sol idarit y; it is based on t he principl es of democracy and t he rul e of l aw. It pl aces t he individual at t he heart of it s act ivit ies, by est ablishing t he cit izenship of t he Union and by creat ing an area of f reedom, securit y and j ust ice … ” . See OJ 2000, (No. C 364), 18 December 2000, at 8. Not e t hat (onl y) t he German wording put s more emphasis on t he rel igious dimension by using t he phrasing “ Bewußt sein ihres geist ig-rel igiösen und sit t l ichen Erbes” . St ronger f ormul at ions such as “ rel igious herit age” were obj ect ed by l aical st at es such as France. See Mat t hias Triebel , “ Kirche und Rel igion in der Grundrecht echart a der EU” , NomoK@non-Webdokument , para. 12, at ht t p: / / www. nomokanon. de/ auf saet ze/ 006. ht m.
20
The l at t er does not cont ain now – despit e several ef f ort s in t hat direct ion direct ref erence t o God or t o Christ ianit y. The proposed preambl e ment ions t hough “ t he val ues underl ying humanism: equal it y of persons, f reedom, respect f or reason” and cont inues “ [ d] rawing inspirat ion f rom t he cul t ural , rel igious and humanist inherit ance of Europe, t he val ues of which, st il l present in it s herit age, have embedded wit hin t he l if e of societ y t he cent ral rol e of t he human person and his or her inviol abl e and inal ienabl e right s, and respect f or l aw; Bel ieving t hat reunit ed Europe int ends t o cont inue al ong t he pat h of civil izat ion, progress and prosperit y, f or t he good of al l it s inhabit ant s, incl uding t he weakest and most deprived; t hat it wishes t o remain a cont inent open t o cul t ure, l earning and social progress; and t hat it wishes t o deepen t he democrat ic and t ransparent nat ure of it s publ ic l if e, and t o st rive f or peace, j ust ice and sol idarit y t hroughout t he worl d . . . ” . Moreover t he preambl e invokes t he responsibil it y “ t owards f ut ure generat ions and t he Eart h” .
21
It shoul d be borne in mind t hat t he Christ ian Church not onl y provided medieval Europe wit h a unif orm rel igion, but al so wit h a unif orm l anguage, f orm of writ ing, educat ional syst em, et c. See e. g. Arnol d Angenendt , “ Die rel igiösen Wurzel n Europas” , in Das gemei nsame Haus Eur opa (Museum
f ür Völ kerkunde Hamburg, 1999), 481–488.
22
This however, does not mean t hat Christ ianit y does not have a rol e t o pl ay in t he cont ext of European l egit imacy. See Brent F. Nel sen, James L. Gut h and Cl eve R. Fraser, “ Does Rel igion Mat t er? Christ ianit y and Publ ic Support f or t he European Union” , 2 Eur opean Uni on Pol i t i cs (2001),
191-217. For t he rol e rel igion pl ays in EU-l aw and on t he quest ion, whet her and how one coul d (have) int roduce(d) t he not ion of rel igion and god in t he EU const it ut ion see Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ Der (drit t e) Weg zur (v)erf assbaren Rel igionsidee der EU” , 68 Basl er Schr i f t en zur Eur opäi schen Int egr at i on (2004), 62-65, at ht t p: / / www. europa. unibas. ch/ index. php?id=182&L=2.
23
See e. g. Michael Merl ingen, Cas Mudde and Ul ri ch Sedel meier, “ Const it ut ional Pol it ics and t he Embedded Acquis Communaut aire: The Case of t he EU Fourt een Against t he Aust rian Government ” , 4 Const i t ut i onal i sm Web-Paper s (2000), at ht t p: / / l es1. man. ac. uk/ conweb/. For a l egal perspect ive see Mat t hew Happol d, “ Fourt een Against One: t he EU Member St at es’ s Response t o Freedom Part y Part icipat ion in t he Aust rian Government ” , 49 Int er nat i onal and Compar at i ve Law Quar t er l y (2000),
953-963. A more EU l aw cent red anal ysis t oget her wit h f urt her ref erences can be f ound in Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ La crisi aust riaca: del icat i equil ibrismi sospesi t ra mol t e dimensioni” , 2 Di r i t t o pubbl i co compar at o ed eur opeo (2001), 735-756. Compare in t his cont ext al so t he report of t he so
set of subst ant ive val ue commit ment s … [ and t hat ] it does not demand agreement wit h t he val ues which f orm t he basis of it s l egal syst em” .24
This is, of course, dif f erent if we def ine ‘ val ues’ as common l egal principl es. This not ion is, l egal l y speaking, t he most rel evant , and be f ocused on when t al king about ‘ const it ut ional val ues’ . These val ues not onl y express a common convict ion of t he Union, but al so est abl ish prominent l egal guardrail s f or EU secondary l aw as wel l as f or l egislat ive and administ rat ive act ion of t he member st at es in t he real m of EC l aw. The original Communit y Treat ies cont ained no provisions rel at ing t o basic human right s or ot her l egal val ues which are widel y considered t o be of pract ical and symbol ic import ance in modern, l iberal, and democrat ic pol it ical syst ems.25
This purel y economic and ut il it arian approach, which was t aken due t o t he f ail ure (and perceived unf easibil it y) of est abl ishing a pol it ical European Union at t he earl ier st ages of European int egrat ion, was t hen count erbal anced by t he j urisdict ion of t he European Court of Just ice. Inspired by t he const it ut ional t radit ions common t o t he member st at es, t he Court hel d t hat “ f undament al human right s [ are] enshrined in t he general principl es of Communit y l aw” .26
In t he l at e sevent ies and eight ies, t his set of European val ues was increasingl y invoked, even being ment ioned in decl arat ions issued by t he inst it ut ions of t he European Communit y.27 The Parl iament , especial l y, was act ive in pressing t owards t he incl usion of val ue-orient ed provisions in t he Treat ies. In 1978, even t he European Council conf irmed (in it s Decl arat ion of Copenhagen) t hat human right s and democracy woul d be “ essent ial el ement s of membership of t he European Communit ies” .28 Final l y, when t he young, st il l f ragil e, post -dict at orial democracies of Greece (1981), Port ugal and Spain (1987) acceded t o t he EU, t he Singl e European Act of 1986 int roduced a ref erence t o t he principl es of democracy and human right s as common principl es al l Part ies are at t ached t o.29 In 1992, against t he background of t he end of t he Col d War, t he f al l of t he Berl in wal l and t he decl ared int ent ion of a dozen of f resh post -dict at orial democracies t o accede t o t he Union, t he Maast richt Treat y
24
Robert Spaemann, “ The Di ct at orship of Val ues” , 25 Tr ansi t (2003), at ht t p: / / www. iwm. at / t -25t xt b. ht m.
25
See Paul Craig and Grainne de Burca, EU Law (Oxf ord Universit y Press, Oxf ord, 2nd ed. 1998),
296-298.
26
See e. g. t he case St auder (ECJ, Case 29/ 69 St auder v. Ci t y of Ul m, 1969, E. C. R 419, para. 7 at 425).
See on t his saga Bruno de Wit t e, “ The Past and Fut ure Role of t he European Court of Just ice in t he
Prot ect ion of Human Right s” , in Phil ip Al st on (eds. ), The EU and Human Ri ght s (Oxf ord Universit y
Press, Oxf ord, 1999), 859-897.
27
See Amaryl l is Verhoeven, “ How Democrat ic Need European Union Members Be? Some t hought s af t er Amst erdam” , 23 Eur opean Law Revi ew (1998), 217-234.
28
Bul l . E. C. 3-1978, at 5.
29
est abl ished t he “ principl es of l ibert y, democracy, respect f or human right s and f undament al f reedoms, and t he rul e of l aw” as principl es “ which are common t o t he member st at es” .30
Furt hermore, t he Union it sel f is al so required t o respect f undament al right s as guarant eed by t he ECHR and as t hey resul t f rom t he const it ut ional t radit ions common t o t he member st at es “ as general principl es of Communit y l aw” .31 These l egal principl es are t oday ref erred t o as t he const it ut ional principl es of t he European Union.32
Final l y, t he est abl ishment of a Chart er of Fundament al Right s of t he European Union gave a new dimension t o t he debat e on European val ues and wil l , if enact ed, put f l esh on t he bones of t he idea of a l egal herit age consist ing of common European val ues.33
3. Communities of Shared Values: The Quest for Homogeneity
Communit ies ident if y t hemsel ves t hrough t heir common f eat ures, such as shared val ues. This social cohesion requires t he maint enance of a cert ain (if modest ) degree of homogeneit y which t hese communit ies aim t o preserve. Their success in f ul f il l ing t his aim al so depends on t he l egal means at t heir disposal t o cont rol such homogeneit y. European ideas, f ounding val ues and common l egal principl es dif f er regarding t he mechanisms t hey have avail abl e f or maint aining such ‘ homogeneit y’ .34
Consensus on common European ideas is very much l ef t t o sil ent pol it ical inf l uence rat her t han l egal cont rol . Variat ions in t he concept ion of European ideas are def init ivel y bel ow t he t hreshol d of any l egal mechanism of cont rol ,
and are t o be seen as independent expressions of t he member st at es’ “ Europa-und Wel t anschauung” . The idea t hat t he European Communit y coul d or shoul d guarant ee t he universal accept ance of t hese opaque European ideas
30
Then Art icl e F para. 2 TEU, now Art icl e 6 para. 1 EU.
31
Art icl e 6 para. 2 EU.
32
See e. g. Thorst en Kingreen and Adel heid Put t l er, “ Art ikel 6” , in Christ ian Cal l ies and Mat t hias Ruf f ert (eds. ), Komment ar zum EU-Ver t r ag und EG-Ver t r ag (Lucht erhand, Neuwied, 1999), at
para. 52.
33
Not e t hat t he Chart er f orms part II of t he proposed Const it ut ion and wil l ent er int o f orce onl y wit h t he l at t er.
34
I am speaking in t he course of t his art icl e of ‘ homogeneit y’ in a very wide sense and am t hereby not presupposing t hat t here woul d be somet hing l ike a ‘ principl e’ of homogeneit y in EU const it ut ional l aw – a presupposit ion which has been right l y ref used, see Armin von Bogdandy, Eur opäi sche Pr i nzi pi enl ehr e, Eur opäi sches Ver f assungsr echt (Springer, Berl in, 2003), 149-203, at 190. The not ion
of ‘ homogeneit y’ has devel oped especial l y in t he German l it erat ure on t he mechanism cont ained in Art . 7 EU, see esp. Frank Schorkopf , Homogeni t ät i n der Eur opäi schen Uni on – Ausgest al t ung und Gewähr l ei st ung dur ch Ar t i kel 6 Abs. 1 und Ar t i kel 7 EUV (Duncker and Humbl ot , Berl in, 2000). This
usage has encount ered al so crit icism, see Schmit t von Sydow, “ Libert é, démocrat ie, droit s f ondament aux et Et at de droit : anal yse de manquement aux principes de l ’ Union” , Revue de Dr oi t de l ’ Uni on Eur opéenne (2001), 285-325, at 288 and 289. However, l ooking at t he Art . 7 mechanism
as mean of ‘ homogeneit y cont rol ’ does not necessaril y impl y t o qual if y t he Union as a f ederal st at e. See in t his respect e. g. Manf red Zul eeg, “ Die f öderat iven Grundsät ze der Europäischen Union”,
39 Neue Jur i st i sche Wochenschr i f t (2000), 2846-2851 who speaks of a “ Verf assungsauf sicht “ and
amongst t he EU member st at es and it s ci t izens cont radict s t he very idea of a modern and secul ar ent it y based on f reedom.35
On t he cont rary, homogeneit y-cont rol in t he communit y of val ues based on t he f ounding val ues coul d buil d on cl ear l egal obl igat ions and inst rument s in t he economic f iel d. The “ principl e of an open market economy wit h f ree compet it ion”36 is embedded in count l ess specif ic dut ies and corresponding ‘ f undament al f reedoms’ such as t he right t o f ree movement in t he Treat
y-cor pus. In t his sense, it may be much more ‘ l egal ’ t han t he val ues which we
have l abel ed above as common l egal pr incipl es such as democracy or t he respect f or human right s. The observance of t he rul es est abl ishing a f unct ioning and compet it ive market syst em is severel y cont rol l ed by t he Commission and t he Court . Moreover, t his rigid syst em has al so cont ribut ed t o t he f ul f il ment of ot her f ounding val ues which are not l egal in nat ure (namel y wel f are and peace), t hereby conf irming t he t hesis of f unct ional ism of int egrat ion t hat mobil it y of goods and services al so provides f or t he mobil it y of ideas and ident it ies, t hereby promot ing t ol erance, cl oseness and peace37 as side-ef f ect s. By est abl ishing t he principl es of direct ef f ect and t he supremacy of EC l aw, t he ECJ kept t he int egrat ion process on t rack t oward t he l ast f ounding commit ment : t he est abl ishment of an ‘ ever cl oser Union’ .38
Wit h respect t o t he Common Market , one can concl ude t hat t he f ounding val ues are equipped wit h t he most f ar-reaching means of ‘ homogeneit y cont rol ’ . However, it shoul d not be f orgot t en t hat t he def ense of t his prominent f ounding val ue can easil y conf l ict wit h const it ut ional val ues at t he nat ional l evel , such as t he prot ect ion of minorit ies, consumer prot ect ion or t he preservat ion of cul t ural diversit y. Such val ues may or may not be part of t he common l egal principl es recognised at t he EU l evel . Consequent l y, t he resul t ing val ue conf l ict s may be of eit her a vert ical (EU-val ue versus member st at e val ue) or horizont al nat ure (EU val ue versus EU val ue).39
35
Admit t edl y, al so t he guarant ee of what we have cal l ed common l egal principl es has it s l imit s. First l y because of reasons of compet encies (see bel ow), secondl y (but t his appl ies onl y i n ext r emi s) due t o
t he f amous ‘ Böckenf örde Dil emma’ (“ Der f reiheit l iche, säkul arisiert e St aat l ebt von Vorausset zungen, die er sel bst nicht garant ieren kann“ ). See Ernst -Wol f gang Böckenf örde, St aat , Gesel l schaf t , Fr ei hei t (Suhrkamp, Frankf urt a. M. , 1976).
36
Art . 4 para. 1 EC.
37
“ If goods do not cross borders, sol diers wil l ” is a wel l known saying in t his respect .
38
This t hird f oundat ional val ue has been l abel l ed by Weil er as “ ideal of supranat ional ism” , see Weil er, “ Fin-de-siècl e … ” , 246 or by Toniat t i as “ principio di int egrazione” , see Robert o Toniat t i, “ La cart a e i ‘ val ori superiori’ del l ’ ordinament o comunit ario” , in Robert o Toniat t i (ed. ), Di r i t t o, di r i t t i , gi ur i sdi zi one (Cedam, Padova, 2002), 7-29, at 22.
39
See on t his Bruno de Wit t e, “ Communit y Law and Nat ional Const it ut ional Val ues” , in 2 Legal i ssues of Eur opean i nt egr at i on (1991), 1-22. For anal yses on t he conf l ict s arising bet ween t he Common
Market and, e. g. , t he ‘ right t o l if e of t he unborn’ , t he right of associat ion or minorit y right s see respect ivel y: Diarmud Rossa Phel an, “ Right t o l if e of t he unborn v. promot ion of t rade in service: The European Court of Just ice and t he normat ive shaping of t he European Union” , in 5 The Moder n Law Revi ew (1992), 670-689; Mat ej Avbel j , “ European Court of Just ice and t he Quest ion of Val ue
Turning t o t he common l egal principl es, it must be st ressed t hat it has not onl y been est abl ished by t he Court t hat t he communit y is based on t hese l egal principl es; it was al so t he Court which f irst provided a rough cont rol –(vi s-à-vi s
t he Communit y and t hen, t o a cert ain degree, t he member st at es) of t he respect of t hese val ues. However, when prot ect ing f undament al right s in t he member st at es, t he Court soon f ound it sel f knocking at t he “ f undament al boundaries”40
of t he compet ences of t he Communit ies, t he sovereinit y of t he member st at es, and t hereby al so t he l imit s of such a homogeneit y cont rol it sel f . Theref ore, t his cont rol vi s-à-vi s t he member st at es remained piecemeal
and subsidiary41. In 1992, however, t he t reat y of Maast richt t ook up t he subst ance of t he Court ’ s case l aw on common l egal principl es and enshrined t hem in primary l aw (t hen Art icl e F para. 2 TEU). Then, in 1997, t he Treat y of Amst erdam int roduced, wit h Art icl e 7 EU, a procedure providing f or pol it ical cont rol of t hese f undament al val ues at t he European l evel . Thereby, t he evol ut ion of l egal st andards wit hin t he Court was compl ement ed by a revol ut ion in t he pol it ical cont rol of t hese st andards, and it became possibl e f or t he Council of t he EU t o react on a pol it ical l evel t o t he “ exist ence of a serious and persist ent breach by a member st at e of principl es ment ioned in Art icl e 6 (1)” by suspending cert ain right s deriving f rom EU membership, incl uding vot ing right s in t he Council (Art icl e 7 EU). Af t er t he experience of t he Aust rian crisis, t he Int ergovernment al Conf erence l eading t o t he t reat y of Nice f ine-t uned t his mechanism of European cont rol in 2001, and subj ect s it , if onl y part ial l y, t o l egal review by t he Court .42
The t reat y now provides even a possibil it y f or t he Union t o react when f acing “ a cl ear risk of a serious breach” of t he principl es enshrined in Art icl e 643
by a member st at e.
The exist ence of t his (l argel y symbol ic) pol it ical sanct ioning procedure, however, does not remove t he f act t hat doubt s remain concerning t he ext ent
N. Toggenburg, “ Dirit t o comunit ario e t ut el a del l e minoranze nel l a provincia di Bol zano. Due aspet t i inconcil iabil i di un (unico) sist ema?” , in Joseph Marko, Sergio Ort ino and Francesco Pal ermo (eds. ),
L’ or di nament o speci al e del l a Pr ovi nci a aut onoma di Bol zano (Cedam, Verona, 2001), 139-194, at
164-194.
40
Compare Joseph H. H. Weil er, “ Fundament al Right s and Fundament al Boundaries: on t he Conf l ict of St andards and Val ues in t he Prot ect ion of Human Right s in t he European Legal Space” , in Weil er,
The Const i t ut i on of Eur ope …, 102-129. 41
Not e t hat t he cont ent of f undament al val ues st andard used in t he f ramework of ‘ pol it ical condit ional it y’ of east ern enl argement covered al so areas out side t he scope of t he EU’ s int ernal compet ence such as minorit y right s, chil dren right s or prison condit ions est abl ishing t hereby a ‘ doubl e st andard’ . The aim shoul d be t o st rike a middl e way bet ween t he t wo ext remes: t he det ail ed and overal l monit oring vi s-à-vi s candidat e st at es and t he piecemeal and very subsidiary
cont rol vi s-à-vi s t he member st at es. See Bruno de Wit t e and Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ Human Right s
and EU-Membership” , in St even Peers and Angel a Ward (eds. ), The EU Char t er of Fundament al Ri ght s (Hart , Oxf ord, 2004), 59-82.
42
Compare 46 l it . e EU. For more det ail s on t he new procedure see e. g. de Wit t e and Toggenburg, “ Human Right s and EU-Membership” …, at 79-81.
43
Art icl e 7 para. 1 EU. See in det ail on Art . 7 Schorkopf , Homogeni t ät i n der Eur opäi schen Uni on …, or
of t hese shared val ues underl ying t he member st at es’ syst ems.44
Moreover, t he l egal cont rol of t he common principl es in t he f ramework of t he Court ’ s j urisdict ion is highl y ecl ect ic, and t he access of individual s t o t he Court of Just ice is very l imit ed in general . Al l t his makes it dif f icul t t o induce a col l ect ive f eel ing of bel onging t o a val ue communit y of 450 mil l ion peopl e. Nevert hel ess, recent devel opment s in t he f iel d of human right s show t hat t here may be ways t o give l if e t o a sit uat ion which is approaching such a scenario. Whereas t he Chart er of Fundament al right s wil l make t he European ‘ bil l of right s’ more visibl e t o t he EU-cit izens, t heref ore rendering it a pot ent ial part of t he European consciousness, new ways of monit oring human right s may render t he idea of common European val ues a more cl ear-cut and pract ical not ion.45 The prospect ive of a proper EU agency on human right s46 or, even more import ant , a proper EU pol icy in t he area of human right s, can add a new dimension t o t he f oggy not ion of a ‘ Communit y of val ues’ .
4. The Case of (Cultural) Diversity
Based on t he above, it woul d f ol l ow t hat t he Union is inf l uenced and charact erised by various circl es of val ues such as f ounding val ues, European ideas and common l egal principl es. The degree of consensus wit hin various European societ ies regarding t hese val ues dif f ers, as does t he means t o cont rol t heir observance. Even in t he more sol id area of common l egal principl es, t he respect ive homogeneit y remains piecemeal . In l ight of t he debat e on val ues, t he St aat enver bund European Union is best described as a
Union which, pol it ical l y speaking, l acks an overal l consensus on val ues and, l egal l y speaking, is charact erised by a pl ural it y of const it ut ional pl ayers, l ayers and val ues. The val ue debat e is t hereby charact erised by a great diversit y (of opinion).
44
Taking Berl usconi’ s It al y as an exampl e one might e. g. raise t he quest ion whet her an open, independent and diverse syst em of publ ic media is a basic f eat ure al l member st at es shoul d be equipped wit h or whet her t his import ant el ement of a f unct ioning democracy is somet hing l ef t ent irel y t o t he st at es discret ion. Compare Christ oph Pal me, “ Das Berl usconi-Regime im Licht e des EU-Recht s” , 4 Bl ät t er f ür deut sche und i nt er nat i onal e Pol i t i k (2003), 456-464, at 456. See al so t he
Parl iament report “ on t he risks of viol at ion, in t he EU and especial l y in It al y, of f reedom of expression and inf ormat ion (Art icl e 11(2) of t he Chart er of Fundament al Right s” , A5- 0230/ 2004, at
ht t p: / / www. europarl . eu. int / act ivit ies/ archive/ report s/ search/ go. do.
45
In Sept ember 2002, short l y bef ore it s East ern enl argement t he Union has creat ed a new model of monit oring human right s perf ormance wit hin t he Union, namel y t he EU Net work of Independent Expert s on Fundament al Right s. See ht t p: / / europa. eu. int / comm/ j ust ice_home/ cf r_cdf / index_ en. ht m. Not e t hat t he net work f irst l y has a mere monit oring f unct ion (al so t he Parl iament and t he Council are issuing human right s report s on an annual basis) and is not ent rust ed wit h any sort of j udicial or pol it ical review. Secondl y, t he net work is a phenomenon of ‘ out sourcing’ . Expert s have been ent rust ed by one singl e EU-inst it ut ion, namel y t he Commission t o report on t he sit uat ion in t he member st at es. The l at t er are not obl iged t o cooperat e and t he mandat e coul d be revoked at any moment .
46
Recent l y it has been proposed t o engage an EU inst it ut ion, namel y t he EU Monit oring Cent re on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in order t o buil d up a proper EU human right s agency. See Paragraph 3 of Concl usions of t he Represent at ives of Member St at es, 13 December 2003, at
Whil e ‘ diversit y’ can hence be used t o describe t he nat ure of t he debat e on European val ues, it is somet imes al so incl uded it sel f among t hese val ues. Those el ement s of EU const it ut ional l aw which aim t o preserve nat ional ident it ies (and t heref ore nat ional cul t ures) and which f ost er t he pol ycent ric and horizont al charact erist ics of t he Union have been perceived as an expression of an overal l principl e of diversit y. Such ‘ diversit y-f riendl y’ el ement s incl ude t he principl e of subsidiarit y,47
t he principl e of enumerat ed powers, t he t reat y revision procedure in Art icl e 48 EU (which buil ds on t he consensus of t he member st at es), aspect s of t he inst it ut ional asset of t he Union (l ike t he st rong rol e of t he Council ) t o ment ion a f ew. But as is apparent f rom t hese exampl es, diversit y is seen here as a st ruct ural mechanism rat her t han as a subst ant ial val ue. Moreover, diversit y in t his cont ext is perceived as diversit y bet ween t he member st at es onl y, t hus
ignoring t he quest ion of where t o l ocat e diversit y wi t hi n t he member st at es in
t he European debat e on val ues. It is assumed here t hat such an approach t o ‘ diversit y’ does not need recourse t o any compel l ing original EU principl e or val ue of diversit y.48
However, it can be hardl y ignored t hat t he t reat y of Maast richt int roduced a general , t ransversal sort of ‘ cul t ural diversit y impact cl ause’ in Art icl e 151 para. 4 EC. It est abl ishes t he obl igat ion of t he Communit y t o “ t ake cul t ural aspect s int o account in it s act ion under ot her provisions of t his Treat y, in part icul ar in order t o respect and t o promot e t he diversit y of it s cul t ures” . This commit ment t o diversit y has been conf irmed by t he Chart er of Fundament al Right s, which st at es in it s Art icl e 22 t hat “ [ t ] he Union shal l respect cul t ural , rel igious and l inguist ic diversit y” . 49
There are t wo ways how
47
There is f or exampl e an obvious int eract ion bet ween diversit y and t he principl e of subsidiarit y. One can t heref ore hope t hat respect ing t he principl e of subsidiarit y (which t he draf t const it ut ional t reat y st rengt hens bot h in it s subst ant ial and procedural aspect s) wil l al so f avour t he maint ainance of European diversit y. A recent exampl e shows how t he l egisl at or t akes bot h diversit y and t he principl e of subsidiarit y int o account . According t o t he Commission decision of 5 Sept ember 2003 on t he use of col our phot ographs or ot her il l ust rat ions as heal t h warnings on t obacco packages (see OJ L 226, 10 Sept ember 2003, 24-26) it is up t o t he member st at es t o decide whet her or not t o have warning (i. e. shocking) col our phot ograf ies on t obacco product s. Moreover, t hose member St at es which decide t o adhere t o t he pict ure-opt ion have – “ given t he cul t ural diversit y exist ing across t he European Union” - a choice amongst several col our phot ographs or ot her il l ust rat ions.
48
See in t his respect al so von Bogdandy, Eur opäi sche Pr i nzi pi enl ehr e . . . , 197. 49
t o int erpret t he wording of t his diversit y commit ment . Eit her al l t his is meant onl y t o prot ect (and, if necessary promot e) t he diversit y bet ween t he member
st at es and t heref ore t o reinf orce Art . 6 para. 1 EU (al so originat ed in t he Maast richt t reat y) which obl iges t he Union t o “ respect t he nat ional ident it ies of it s member st at es” . Such an excl usive (or def ensive) reading buil ds on a st at e-cent red view, and equat es ‘ diversit y’ wit h t he possibil it y of t he st at es t o resist any t endency of European harmonizat ion which might al t er t heir ident it ies, and t heir aut onomy t o def ine whet her, how and t o what ext ent t hey want t o be int ernal l y ‘ diverse’ .
A second, al t ernat ive percept ion woul d l ook at European diversit y as pl ural it y wi t hi n t he member st at es. Diversit y woul d t hen incl ude t he quest ion
of whet her, where and how t o accommodat e i nt r a-st at e diversit y. This
incl usive (or of f ensive) view of diversit y goes beyond t he ident it y-based percept ions, needs and concerns of t he member st at es t hemsel ves. Pol it ical l y speaking, t his reading of diversit y might be perceived as t he opening of a Pandora’ s box, as t he diversit y/ unif ormit y ‘ sl uice’ , t radit ional l y l ef t up t o t he member st at es, woul d become, t o cert ain degree, a condomi ni um of t he
Union and t he member st at es. Indeed, prominent aut hors have al ready equat ed t he obl igat ion t o respect Art . 22 of t he Chart er t o t he obl igat ion of prot ect ing minorit ies wit hin t he singl e EU member st at es.50 It remains doubt f ul , however, t hat t he EU’ s comit ment t o ‘ diversit y’ wil l t ransl at e so easil y int o a f ounding norm f or minorit y prot ect ion appl icabl e across t he Union.51
These t wo f aces of t he j anus-headed not ion of ‘ diversit y’ show t hat at t he l evel of t he EU, cul t ural diversit y can be cl assif ied as a ‘ sel f -rest rict ive val ue’ . Pl acing t oo much emphasis on t he incl usive reading of diversit y creat es a t ension wit h t he diverging nat ional ident it ies of t he member st at es, and t heref ore wit h (an excl usive reading of ) diversit y it sel f . Whoever argues, f or exampl e, f or an EU invol vement in t he def init ion and t he percept ion of minorit ies cal l s f or a Union which provides ‘ one f it s al l ’ sol ut ions, and t heref ore risks reducing t he very diversit y amongst t he member st at es’
50
The EU net work of independent expert s in f undament al right s has st at ed in it s report in 2002 t hat t he st at e of rat if icat ion of t he t wo main inst rument s of t he Council of Europe in t he f iel d of minorit y prot ect ion by t he EU member st at e “ gives a f irst indicat ion of t he wil l igness of t he Member St at es t o respect t he right enshrined in Art icl e 22 of t he Chart er” . See t he “ Report on t he sit uat ion of f undament al right s in t he European Union and it s member st at es in 2002” , 174, at
ht t p: / / europa. eu. int / comm/ j ust ice_home/ cf r_cdf / index_en. ht m. Crit ical in t his respect Bruno de Wit t e, “ The Const it ut ional Resources f or an EU Minorit y Prot ect ion Pol icy” , in Gabriel N. Toggenburg (ed. ), Mi nor i t y pr ot ect i on and t he enl ar ged Eur opean Uni on, The way f or war d (LGI
Books, Budapest , 2004), 109-124, at 115, al so avail abl e at ht t p: / / l gi. osi. hu/ publ icat ions. php.
51
respect ive approaches in t his pol icy f iel d.52
On t he ot her hand, pl acing t oo much emphasis on t he excl usive reading of diversit y woul d ignore various f orms of et hnic, l inguist ic and cul t ural diversit y wit hin t he singl e member st at es and creat e a t ension wit h (an incl usive reading of ) diversit y it sel f .53 Those who argue, f or t he excl usion of minorit y l anguages or cul t ures in cert ain EC f unding schemes, f or exampl e, might very wel l prot ect cert ain nat ional pref erences, but f ail t o f ost er t he sort of diversit y wit hin t he member st at es which cont ribut es t o European diversit y in general .
Looking at t he newl y proposed European Const it ut ion, t he not ion of ‘ diversit y’ does not become much cl earer . The const it ut ion does not f ormal l y l ist “ diversit y” as a val ue t he Union is f ounded on (Art . I-8 para. 3) but as an EU obj ect ive (Art . I-3 para. 3).54 The wording remains vague. Whereas t he ot her obj ect ives cl earl y point t o act ive EU engagement in t he f iel d at st ake (“ promot e, ” “ of f er, ” “ work f or, ” “ combat , ” “ cont ribut e and uphol d” ) “ cul t ural and l inguist ic diversit y” is t he odd one out , since t he Union’ s “ obj ect ive” is merel y t hat it “ shal l respect ” such diversit y.55 Moreover, where t he Const it ut ion uses t he t erm ‘ diversit y’ , it seems primaril y t o address t he pecul arit ies or circumst ances of member st at es which shoul d be t aken int o account .56
Nevert hel ess, t he l evel of ref erence is not necessaril y t he nat ional l evel , but can very wel l be t he regional or l ocal l evel .57 The Const it ut ion al so makes cl ear t hat nat ional ident it ies are co-composed by regional , i. e. subnat ional ident it ies.58 So, at best , t he signal s are ambival ent . Neit her does t he most prominent ref erence t o diversit y wit hin t he new const it ut ion provide a cl ear repl y: t he int roduct ion of t he cat chphrase “ Unit y in diversit y” not onl y as part of t he preambl e,59
but al so as t he sol e of f icial mot t o of t he Union, is of
52
See more in det ail Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ Minorit y Prot ect ion in a Supranat ional Cont ext : Limit at ions and Opport unit ies” , in Gabriel N. Toggenburg (ed. ), Mi nor i t y Pr ot ect i on …, 1-36, at
9-16. 53
See more in det ail on t his Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ Unit y in Diversit y: Searching f or t he Regional Dimension in t he Cont ext of a Someway Foggy Const it ut ional Credo” , in Robert o Toniat t i, Marco Dani and Francesco Pal ermo, An Ever Mor e Compl ex Uni on - t he Regi onal Var i abl e as Mi ssi ng Li nk i n t he Eur opean Const i t ut i on (Nomos, Baden Baden, 2004), 27-56.
54
The Union “ shal l respect it s rich cul t ural and l inguist ic diversit y, and shal l ensure t hat Europe’ s cul t ural herit age is saf eguarded and enhanced” (Art . I-3).
55
See more in det ail Bruno de Wit t e, “ The Val ue of Cul t ural Diversit y” , in Miriam Aziz and Susan Mil l ns, Val ues i n t he Const i t ut i on of Eur ope (Al dershot , Dart mout h, f ort hcoming).
56
See e. g. Art I-48 on t he social part ners which says t hat “ t he Union recognises and promot es t he rol e of t he social part ners at it s l evel , t aking int o account t he diversit y of nat ional syst ems” . Compare al so Art . III-282 par. 1 on educat ional pol icy which provides t hat t he Union “ shal l f ul l y respect t he responsibil it y of t he Member St at es f or t he cont ent of t eaching and t he organisat ion of educat ion syst ems and t heir cul t ural and l inguist ic diversit y” .
57
See e. g. Art . III-233 (on environment ) or Art . III-280 (on cul t ure). See more in det ail on t his Toggenburg, “ Unit y in Diversit y: Searching f or t he Regional Dimension …” , 27-56.
58
See e. g. Art . I-5 para. 1 which f oresees t hat t he Union shal l “ respect nat ional ident it ies, inherent in t heir f undament al st ruct ures, pol i t ical and const it ut ional , incl usive of regional and l ocal sel f -government ” (compare al so para. 3 of t he preambl e of t he Chart er in part II of t he Const it ut ion). 59
no subst ant ial hel p.60
It seems, rat her, t hat what has been sol emnl y put on a pedest al is not much more t han a cosmet ic combinat ion of t wo al ready exist ing and int eract ing const it ut ional principl es, namel y t he ‘ Wesensgehal t sgarant ie’ (as cont ained in Art icl e 6 para. 3 EU) and t he principl e of l oyal co-operat ion (as cont ained in Art icl e 10 EC). Nevert hel ess, t he pairing of t hese t wo principl es in a f ormal ized, i. e. const it ut ional l y verbal ized ‘ symbol ’ is usef ul and import ant insof ar as it underl ines t he ongoing and symbiot ic t ight rope wal k bet ween int egrat ion and aut onomy, t hereby seeking t o l eave room f or bot h European dedicat ion as wel l as nat ional (p)reservat ion. In any case, one can concl ude t hat t he pr i mar y scope
of t he European const it ut ional mot t o dif f ers f rom t he const it ut ional mot t o of Sout h Af rica or Indonesia, which is al so “ unit y in diversit y” . Whereas t hese t wo st at es ref er wit h t his mot t o t o t heir subnat i onal diversit y (due t o t he
count l ess et hnic and l inguist ic groups l iving wit hin t hese st at es), t he European Union seems rat her t o express a concern about nat ional cul t ures. Every f urt her st ep of int egrat ion has t o t ake int o account t he ‘ caveat ’ of not endangering diversit y amongst t he member st at es. In t his rat her caut ious at t it ude vi s-à-vi s int egrat ion, t he EU-mot t o f orms an ant ipode t o t he
const it ut ional mot t o of anot her st at e, namel y t he US, whose mot t o is “ E pl uribus unum” .
Now, t his may sound l ike const it ut ional est het icism t o some, and I suppose, t hey are right . Whet her or not diversit y of cul t ures becomes a sel f -st anding val ue in Europe beyond t he sel f -def ense of it s various ‘ st at e-cul t ures’ is up t o t he concret e in- and out put at t he l evel of EU pol it ics. It remains t o be seen whet her ‘ European dedicat ion’ wil l conf ront t he st at es wit h percept ions of diversit y which no l onger l ie sol el y in t heir hands. Modest t endencies in t his direct ion can al ready be ident if ied. The Chart er cl earl y ref ers t o t he prot ect ion of diversit y wit hin member st at es when prohibit ing discriminat ion based on l anguage or t he membership of a nat ional minorit y group. A recent set of direct ives specif ical l y provides ‘ t he Union’ s’61 t hird count ry nat ional s wit h cert ain right s enabl ing t hem t o bet t er int egrat e wit h t heir host societ ies (t he member st at es).62 Various “ EU-const it ut ional resources” such as Art icl e
of pursuing, wit h due regard f or t he right s of each individual and in awareness of t heir responsibil it ies t owards f ut ure generat ions and t he Eart h, t he great vent ure which makes of it a special area of human hope” .
60
See Art I-8 of t he const it ut ional t reat y which l ist s under “ [ t ] he symbol s of t he Union” t he European f l ag, t he ant hem of van Beet hoven and says in para. 3 - short l y bef ore ment ioning t he common currency and t he Europe day - t hat “ [ t ] he mot t o of t he Union shal l be: ‘ Unit ed in diversit y’ ” . Onl y in t he l ast hours of t he European Convent ion t he mot t o f ound it s way int o t his prominent provision.
61
Are t he TCN a ‘ Communit y minorit y’ ? Or – even more f ar reaching – are al l subnat ional et hnic groups l iving on EU t errit ory minorit ies ‘ of ’ (inst ead of merel y ‘ in’ ) t he Union? For ref l ect ion on t hese quest ions: Gabriel N. Toggenburg, “ Minorit ies ‘ …’ t he European Union: is t he missing l ink an ‘ of ’ or a ‘ wit hin’ ?” , 25 (3) Jour nal of Eur opean Int egr at i on (2003), 273-284.
62
151 EC al l ow f or t he prot ect ion and (t o a cert ain degree) promot ion of diversit y wit hin member st at es, f or exampl e, f ost ering minorit ies or regional cul t ures.63
Count l ess st at ement s in pol it ical decl arat ions (l ike t he Laeken decl arat ion)64 and in l egal document s (such as t he adapt ed val ue provision in t he const it ut ional t reat y)65
paint t he pict ure of a Union cal l ing f or t ol erant , diverse and pl ural ist ic societ ies in t he member st at es. Legal l y speaking, none of t his merit s al ready speaking of a const it ut ional val ue which coul d prescribe t he subst ance of ‘ diversit y-t o-be’ wit hin EU member st at es.
It remains t o be seen how t he EU react s t o t he phenomenon of immigrat ion66, and whet her, more general l y speaking, myt hs such as t he invocat ion of t rade-of f s bet ween cul t ural diversit y and promot ing devel opment wil l have a dominant inf l uence amongst Europe’ s pol it ical el it e.67
Onl y t he f ut ure can show whet her t he st at es wil l remain t he dominant mast ers of t he nat ional diversit y/ unit y ‘ sl uice’ in t he EU const it ut ional f ramework. One shoul d not f orget t hat t he ‘ val ue-prescript ion’ is a t wo-way process wit hin t he Union.68Art icl e 6 est abl ishes t hose val ues as const it ut ional val ues of t he Union which are ‘ common t o t he member st at es’ and which t heref ore originat e at st at e l evel . But wit h t he EU, f or t he f irst t ime in t he hist ory of int ernat ional rel at ions, it seems as if an int ernat ional organisat ion is devel oping and impl ement ing it s own views on val ues independent l y f rom it s ‘ f ounding f at hers’ . It remains t o be seen what t his sort of ‘ invert ed prescript ion’ wil l mean f or diversit y at t he member st at e l evel .
63
See in det ail de Wit t e, “ The Const it ut ional Resources …” , at 108.
64
“ … Europe as t he cont inent of human val ues, t he Magna Cart a, t he Bil l of Right s, t he French Revol ut ion and t he f al l of t he Berl in Wal l ; t he cont inent of l ibert y, sol idarit y and above al l diversit y, meaning respect f or ot hers’ l anguages, cul t ures and t radit ions. The European Union’ s one boundary is democracy and human right s. The Union is open onl y t o count ries which uphol d basic val ues such as f ree el ect ions, respect f or minorit ies and respect f or t he rul e of l aw …” : f rom t he Laeken decl arat ion “ on t he f ut ure of t he European Union” , European Council , December 2001.
65
The new EU const it ut ion compl ement s t he current wording of Art . 6 para. 1 EU wit h t he f ol l owing passus: “ in a societ y of pl ural ism, t ol erance, j ust ice, sol idarit y and non-discriminat ion” .
66
Compare e. g. Cat herine Wiht ol de Went en, “ Europe: The New Mel t ing Pot ?” , in Janina W. Dacyl and Charl es West in, Gover nance of Cul t ur al Di ver si t y (CEIFO publ icat ions, Edsbruk, 2000), 37-61. 67
UNDP, The Human Devel opment Report 2004, Cul t ural l ibert y in t oday’ s diverse worl d (UNDP, New York, 2004), 4, at ht t p: / / hdr. undp. org/.
68
Bibliography
Angenendt Arnol d, “ Die rel igiösen Wurzel n Europas” , in Das gemei nsame Haus Eur opa (Museum f ür Völ kerkunde Hamburg, 1999).
Bia Maria Teresa, “ Towards an EU Immigrat ion Pol icy: Bet ween Emerging Supranat ional Principl es and Nat ional Concerns” , 2 Eur opean Di ver si t y and
Aut onomy Paper s - EDAP (2004), at www. eurac. edu/ edap.
Böckenf örde Ernst -Wol f gang, St aat , Gesel l schaf t , Fr ei hei t (Suhrkamp,
Frankf urt a. M. , 1976).
Bogdandy Armin von, Eur opäi sche Pr i nzi pi enl ehr e, Eur opäi sches Ver f assungsr echt (Springer, Berl in, 2003).
Craig Paul and De Burca Grainne, EU Law (Oxf ord Universit y Press, Oxf ord,
2nd ed. 1998).
De Wit t e Bruno, “ Buil ding Europe’ s Image and Ident it y” , in Rij ksbaron A. , Roobol W. H and Weisgl as M. (eds. ), Eur ope f r om a Cul t ur al Per spect i ve (Nij gh
en Van Dit mar, Amst erdam, 1987), 132-139.
De Wit t e Bruno, “ Communit y Law and Nat ional Const it ut ional Val ues” , in
2 Legal Issues of Eur opean i nt egr at i on (1991), 1-22.
De Wit t e Bruno, “ The Past and Fut ure Rol e of t he European Court of Just ice in t he Prot ect ion of Human Right s” , in Al st on Phil ip (ed. ), The EU and Human Ri ght s (Oxf ord Universit y Press, Oxf ord, 1999), 859-897.
De Wit t e Bruno, “ Pol it ics Versus Law in t he EU’ s Approach t o Et hnic Minorit ies” , 4 RSC Wor ki ng Paper s (2000).
De Wit t e Bruno and Toggenburg Gabr iel N. , “ Human Right s and EU-Membership” , in Peers St even and Ward Angel a (eds. ), The EU Char t er of Fundament al Ri ght s (Hart , Oxf ord, 2004), 59-82.
De Wit t e Bruno, “ The Const it ut ional Resources f or an EU Minorit y Prot ect ion Pol icy” , in Gabriel N. Toggenburg (ed. ), Mi nor i t y Pr ot ect i on and t he Enl ar ged Eur opean Uni on, The Way For war d (LGI Books, Budapest , 2004), 109-124, al so
avaibl e at ht t p: / / l gi. osi. hu/ publ icat ions. php.
De Wit t e Bruno, “ The Val ue of Cul t ural Diversit y” , in Aziz Miriam and Mil l ns Susan (eds. ), Val ues i n t he Const i t ut i on of Eur ope (Al dershot , Dart mout h,
Frowein Jochen A. , The Eur opean Communi t y and t he Requi r ement of a Republ i can For m of a Gover nment (Michigan Law Associat ion, Nomos,
Baden-Baden, 1987).
Happol d Mat t hew, “ Fourt een against One: The EU Member St at es’ s Response t o Freedom Part y Part icipat ion in t he Aust rian Government ” , 49 Int er nat i onal and Compar at i ve Law Quar t er l y (2000), 953-963.
Henrard Krist in, “ The European Convent ion of Human Right s and t he Prot ect ion of t he Roma as a Cont roversial Case of Cul t ural Diversit y” ,
5 Eur opean Di ver si t y and Aut onomy Paper s - EDAP (2004), at
www. eurac. edu/ edap.
Herol d Anna, “ EU Fil m Pol icy: bet ween Art and Commerce” , 3 Eur opean
Di ver si t y and Aut onomy Paper s - EDAP (2004), at www. eurac. edu/ edap.
Hil l ion Christ ophe, “ The Copenhagen Crit eria and Their Progeny” , in Christ ophe Hil l ion (ed. ), EU Enl ar gement . A l egal Appr oach (Hart , Port l and,
2004), 1-22.
Huyn Hans Graf , “ Drei Hügel : Das Fundament Europas” , in Ot t o v. Habsburg et
al . (eds. ), Gr undwer t e Eur opas (St ocker Verl ag, Graz, 1994), 9-38.
Kingreen Thorst en and Put t l er Adel heid, „ Art ikel 6“ in Cal l ies Christ ian and Ruf f ert Mat t hias (eds. ), Komment ar zum EU-Ver t r ag und EG Ver t r ag
(Lucht erhand, Neuwied, 1999).
Köpke Wul f , “ Was ist Europa, wer Europäer?” , in Das gemei nsame Haus Eur opa
(Museum f ür Völ kerkunde Hamburg, 1999), 18-29.
Merl ingen Michael , Mudde Cas and Sedel mei er Ul rich, “ Const it ut ional Pol it ics and t he ‘ Embedded Aquis Communaut aire’ : The Case of t he EU Fourt een Against t he Aust rian Government ” , in 4 Const i t ut i onal i sm Web-Paper s [Con WEB] (2000), at ht t p: / / l es1. man. ac. uk/ conweb/.
Nel sen Brent F. , Gut h James L. and Fr aser Cl eve R. , “ Does Rel igion Mat t er? Christ ianit y and Publ ic Support f or t he European Union” , 2 Eur opean Uni on Pol i t i cs (2001), 191-217.
Neuwirt h Rost am J. , “ The ‘ Cul t ural Indust ries’ : A Cl ash of Basic Val ues? A Comparat ive St udy of t he EU and t he NAFTA in t he Light of t he WTO” ,
4 Eur opean Di ver si t y and Aut onomy Paper s - EDAP (2004), at
Pal me Christ oph, “ Das Berl usconi-Regime im Licht e des EU-Recht s” , 4 Bl ät t er f ür deut sche und i nt er nat i onal e Pol i t i k (2003), 456-464.
Peers St eve, “ ‘ New’ minorit ies: What St at us f or Third-Count ry Nat ional s in t he EU Syst em?” , in Toggenburg Gabriel N. (ed. ), Mi nor i t y Pr ot ect i on and t he Enl ar ged Eur opean Uni on, The Way For war d (LGI Books, Budapest , 2004),
149-162, al so avaibl e at ht t p: / / l gi. osi. hu/ publ icat ions. php.
Phel an Diarmud Rossa, “ Right t o l if e of t he unborn v. promot ion of t rade in service: The European Court of Just ice and t he normat ive shaping of t he European Union” , in 5 The Moder n Law Revi ew (1992), 670-689.
Piciocchi Cinzia, “ Europe Faces Cul t ur al Diversit y: Towards a European Mul t icul t ural Model ?” , in Pal ermo Francesco and Toggenburg Gabriel N. (eds. ),
Eur opean Const i t ut i onal Val ues and Cul t ur al Di ver si t y (EURAC Research,
Bol zano/ Bozen, 2003, out of print ), 25-36.
Schmal e Wol f gang, Geschi cht e Eur opas (Böhl au Verl ag, Wien, 2000).
Schneider Heinrich, „ Die Europäische Union al s Wert egemeinschaf t auf der Suche nach sich sel bst “ , 1 Di e Uni on (2000), 11-47.
Schorkopf Frank, Homogeni t ät i n der Eur opäi schen Uni on – Ausgest al t ung und Gewähr l ei st ung dur ch Ar t i kel 6 Abs. 1 und Ar t i kel 7 EUV (Duncker and
Humbl ot , Berl in, 2000).
Spaemann Robert , “ The Dict at orship of Val ues” , 25 Tr ansi t (2003), at
ht t p: / / www. iwm. at / t -25t xt b. ht m.
Sydow Schmit t von, “ Libert é, démocrat ie, droit s f ondament aux et Et at de droit : anal yse de manquement aux principes de l ’ Union” , Revue de Dr oi t de l ’ Uni on Eur opéenne (2001), 285-325.
Toggenburg Gabriel N. , “ La crisi aust riaca: del icat i equil ibrismi sospesi t ra mol t e dimensioni” , 2 Di r i t t o pubbl i co compar at o ed eur opeo (2001), 735-756.
Toggenburg Gabriel N. , “ A Rough Orient at ion t hrough a Del icat e Rel at ionship” , in Eur opean Int egr at i on Onl i ne Paper s (2000), at
ht t p: / / eiop. or. at / eiop/ t ext e/ 2000-016a. ht m.
