Making Abbé Sieyès and Jürgen Habermas Meet: Constitution-Making in the Supranational Setting. EIPA Working Paper 2005/W/03
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Introduction]. This presentation will proceed by presenting a virtual meeting of two unlikely companions. Both of them have influenced the European constitutional tradition and discourse to a great extent. In some respects they represent extremes. In others they might agree. This paper will try to highlight some of the important points of discussion and try to see how we can conceptualize the Convention process in the light of these. It will try to build some common ground between the concepts of these writers. The underlying trouble of European constitutional discourse is that it still lacks a common language. Its points of reference are different. Abbé Sieyès and Jürgen Habermas shall for the purpose of this presentation represent two important strands of discussion. It will begin with an exposé of the argument of Abbé Sieyès, still the most important reference point for member states’ constitutional doctrine. It will try to separate his ideas of a pouvoir constituant from the nation as the only possible subject of this power. It will then contrast this doctrine as being voluntarist with the Kantian approach of universalism as a foundation of the constitution and describe the developments Habermas has added to that. With an excursus to Canadian constitutional development it will demonstrate why deliberative constitution-making is necessary on normative ground for the situation of the EU. Then it will discuss how the constitutionmaking group shall be determined. It will argue for the conception of the demos as a function of a deliberative procedure itself. In the light of this it will try to explain the representation of EU citizens in the Convention on the Future of Europe. Some comments on the question of a constitutional moment will follow and it will argue for a visible political process. Eventually, Sieyès and Habermas will meet in the composite constitution proposed by Pernice. In response to the topic of this conference I would like to add some remarks on the future development of the Convention method
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".