118
Catherine Barnard
Deuxième séance de travail — Les retombées
alienated from the EU. This is due, in part, to the EU’s response to the crisis,
especially the demands of the troika in the bail-out countries. And this is not
to mention the dislike of the EU shown by certain national governments. It is
hard to think that the golden anniversary of
Van Gend en Loos
is being cel-
ebrated on the streets of Preston, Prague and Piraeus.
Of course, rarely are laws and courts celebrated by citizens. Except in the
US. There, pride in the Constitution, as a key component of national identity
and loyalty, is deeply felt. The complex and often contradictory reasons for
this have long been explored (
1
), but the US Constitution contains an exposi-
tion of values to which US citizens subscribe, and it is a focal point of those
values. And the US Supreme Court is considered so important because it is
the guardian of that constitution, interpreting it while also upholding those
values. Every action of the US Supreme Court is closely watched and analysed,
not just by the legal community but by society as a whole: many US citizens
can name at least one judgment of the Supreme Court (
2
).
The same cannot be said for the EU. Despite the prominence of anthems
and flags, there is a lack of a central focus around which to develop the identity
of the EU citizen. And, as a result, there is considerably less reverence for the
Court of Justice: large numbers of EU citizens have never heard of the ECJ,
fewer still could locate it in Luxembourg or name a judgment.
The implications of this absence of a common EU identity are serious.
While the US is managing its response to the crisis in a coordinated – even
solidaristic – way through the use of federal transfers, QE and the TARRP, the
EU’s response has been much more uneven and fragmented. This variable ge-
ometry, necessitated by the absence of a strong sense of solidarity between the
states and downright lack of cooperation by some, has led to the adoption of
(
1
) See e.g. L. Tribe,
American Constitutional Law
(New York, Foundation Press, 2000), 24; B.
Ackerman,
We the People
(Cambridge, Harvard, 1991).
(
2
) This is derived from the following observation: ‘Decades after the Supreme Court rendered
its decision, on Jan. 22, 1973, most Americans (62%) know that
Roe v. Wade
dealt with
abortion rather than school desegregation or some other issue. But the rest either guess
incorrectly (17%) or do not know what the case was about (20%). And there are substantial
age differences in awareness: Among those ages 50 to 64, 74% know that
Roe v. Wade
dealt
with abortion, the highest percentage of any age group. Among those younger than 30, just
44% know this.’
. More than a
third can name a Supreme Court Justice.
-
thirds-of-americans-cant-name-any-us-supreme-court-justices-says-new-findlawcom-
survey-95298909.html.
