Federal constitutionalism: European constitutionalism in comparative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a long-standing debate over the question whether the European Community is best understood as an international organisation founded upon a series of international treaties, a supranational organisation that is essentially constitutional in nature, or some kind of sui generis entity that partakes of both sets of characteristics. In connection with this debate, the European Community has often been compared to a variety of established federal-states, such as the United States, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. In these comparisons, while a number of similarities between federations and the institutions of the European Community have been observed, a sharp distinction has almost always been drawn between the supposed foundations of federal constitutions in the will of 'the people' and the establishment of the European Community upon the founding treaties. Further, in many of the comparisons, it has been assumed that it is the nature of the European Community that is in question, whereas the nature of the federal-state is straightforward and uncontroversial. For this reason, it is generally supposed that the established federal-states will shed light on the problematic nature of the European Community, and not vice versa. However, this paper argues that the constitutional foundations of federal-states are far from uncontroversial and in fact display a number of features that are uncomfortably similar to the institutional foundations of the European Community. Given that the problematic and ambiguous relationship between treaty and constitution has been highlighted by the debate over the European Community, it is argued that comparisons between the European Community and the modern federal-state can shed significant light not only upon the former but also upon the latter.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".