Law and Identity in the European Integration

The successful continuation of the European integration process depends, to a large extent, on the restoring the equilibrium among the various dimensions, such as the economic, the political and the cultural dimension of the process. This rebalancing should primarily focus upon the upgrading of the relatively neglected cultural area of the European construction. The qualitative upgrading of the cultural dimension must be based upon the strengthening of the European identity, which itself is an indispensable precondition of the development of a stronger Europe. Law is not only the main instrument of the economic, political and institutional integration but also a core element of European identity based upon Roman law and on the legacy of European history. Rule of law is universal and it has to be respected on all levels, international, European and national. The traditional strict, ‘kelsenian’ hierarchy of legal norms has been substantially loosened but not exclusively due to the emergence of European law. The geometric order of legal norms has become heterarchic and the neat ranking of the different levels as well as the absolute primacy based upon that ranking has been questioned. This refers equally to the relationship between international law and European law and between European law and the national laws of the Member States. Both the principle of the autonomy of European law and the constitutional identity of the Member States aim at protecting the core principles of the European, respectively, the laws of the Member States. The rule of law does not presuppose a neat hierarchy of legal norms. However, it requires an orderly structure, where the precise area covered by the core principles taking precedence over the rules of international or of European law are defined in a clear and foreseeable manner. While a perfect order can never be established, legal certainty and ultimately rule of law, a core element of European identity, could be substantially strengthened by mutual empathy and understanding as well as by continuous and effective dialogue, consultation and concertation between the various levels of rule making and, in particular, of judiciaries.