Abstract:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2026, the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC), along with the European Institute, organised a panel event to celebrate the launch of The History of European Union Law: Constitutional Practice, 1950 to 1993 (Cambridge University Press), edited by Dr Bill Davies (American University, Washington DC) and Dr Morten Rasmussen (University of Copenhagen). Following introductory remarks by the event chair, Dr Megan Donaldson (UCL Laws, GCDC), Dr Rasmussen provided an overview of the book. He explained that the book – the first of its kind – is grounded in extensive archival research and traces the historical development of EU law, with a focus on constitutional practice. The book’s rich empirical basis enables the identification of key actors and provides insight into the inner workings of EU institutions, allowing the authors to trace the complex and multifaceted processes that contributed to the development of EU law. According to Dr Rasmussen, the picture presented decentres the position of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), as the Court was surrounded by a wide range of institutions and actors – including European and national institutions, lawyers, and academics – all of whom shaped the trajectory of EU law. Dr Rasmussen further described the book as offering a revisionist account that complicates the core narratives of the discipline of EU law. It argues that an uneasy standoff was negotiated between a rejection of European constitutionalism and an acceptance of the legal order developed by the CJEU. This implies that European constitutionalism has not yet become the foundational legitimating principle of the EU. The historical analysis also shows that while constitutional practice has led to a relatively effectual and coherent legal order, it rests on a politically fragile basis.
Panel:
Professor Erin Delaney (UCL Laws, GCDC) then remarked that one of the book’s great strengths is in its methodology, as its extensive and impressive use of archival material advances a thick account of the historical development of European law. She highlighted the value of this historical approach, but wondered whether a wider interdisciplinary lens might further enrich the analysis. Additionally, she contended that the book’s method invites further inquiry as to what the historical account tells us about (i) the range and depth of constitutional practices and their relationship to federalism, and (ii) what constitutes a process of constitutionalisation. Broader questions, she suggested, include whether the EU represents a failed process of federalisation or constitutionalisation, how these two processes interact, and what to expect about an ongoing dialectic of constructed constitutionalism through a document/convention-based process. Professor Piet Eeckhout (UCL Laws, European Institute) commented that the book’s chapters on the role of the CJEU and other institutions were particularly interesting and prompt reflection on the pivotal moments of Van Gend en Loos and Costa – two cases that provided the tools needed to facilitate European integration. Professor Eeckhout suggested that the key point for EU lawyers is the divergence between two paradigms. One group of scholars seeks to frame EU law in constitutional terms, while another views the EU as transcending the nation state (including constitutions) and creating a ‘new legal order’, as reflected in the language used in Van Gend en Loos and Costa. Professor Nicola Countouris (UCL Laws) emphasised the importance of historical research to understand European integration. He found Chapter 9 of the book to be particularly useful to understand the growing Euroscepticism of Scandinavian countries with regard to social integration. In particular, Professor Countouris highlighted the uniqueness of the Scandinavian social democratic model and the role of state administration in preserving this model against some of the challenges posed by EU integration. This was illustrated through two examples from Denmark: the introduction of the AMBI levy and equal pay legislation, with the Danish civil service playing a crucial role in managing and accompanying their implementation. In this light, Professor Countouris suggested that resistance to labour law directives may be rooted just as much in the Scandinavian model that allows bureaucracy to perform certain types of economic tasks as in a deeper ideological adversity towards European integration. Responding to the comments, Dr Rasmussen made some reflections. First, he clarified that the concept of constitutional practice used in the book is not intended to contribute to legal scholarship on constitutional theory. Rather, it is simply a descriptive concept of the practice and opinions of a broad range of actors. Second, on the relationship between federalisation and constitutionalisation, he posited that while the CJEU may have pursued a form of judicial constitutionalism, other actors such as the European Commission and a majority of the European Parliament were seeking to advance a gradual federalisation through the Treaty of Rome, which would lay the groundwork for a federal European union. Finally, he observed that the Danish case exemplified broader trends across Member States, where governments often found ways to adapt or circumvent EU law before 1986. After the Single European Act that launched the Single European Market, Member States had to come to terms with the legal order the CJEU had built.
