I heard on NPR today about the new EU constitution that has yet to be ratified. I got to thinking about the importance of the exact wording in the US constitution - how important legal decisions throughout American history have been based on interpretation of this document, sometimes coming down to the phrasing of a few words. (Fellow dopers, help me here - IANA lawyer.)
My next thought was - what language is the EU constitution written in? Given the diversity of European languages and cultures is there not a great concern for how the nuance of the documents language will be treated among the various countries? Or is this issue perhaps nullified because the constitution only pertains to the interworkings of the various countries who are all subject to a single court that works with this single language?
It seems from the constitutuin itself that each of the twenty or so languages are certified as equal copies of the constitution. This is stated on the last page:
Thanks SmackFu. My second question still stands, however. I have trouble believing that, given the myriad situations to which the constitution will need to apply, and the consequent need for similar interpretation, that the issue of what each phrase means in each language is not of mind-blowing concern.
In other words: it is hard enough for Americans to agree on what our founding fathers meant by words like “equality” and “freedom” without throwing 21 languages into the mix. How will they deal with this?
An overwhelming number of treaties are done in multiple lanugages, each one being equally authentic. Although there does occasionally arise disputes over the terms used in treaties, it is not nearly as often as occurs with the Constitution, primarily for two reasons:
The Constitution is exceedingly short and quite vague in parts. Treaties tend to be longer and more specific.
Treaties are generally signed with parties accepting a their own definition of terms. For example, when the US Senate approves a resolution of ratification for a treaty, it will include provisions called “understandings” that provide the United States’ own definition for any vague terms in the treaty. Other countries do the same thing through their own constitutional processes. For example, an understanding might go something like, “we understand that the term ‘freedom of the seas’ in Article 100 of the Nonesuch Ocean Treaty does not prohibit the United States from defending its territorial waters from invasion.”
Therefore, if a dispute arises over a term, one country can say to the others, "Blow off. We ratified the treaty with an understanding that “x” meant “y,” and you can’t force us to change horses in midstream. Understandings are almost certainly discussed an agreed upon – even if its an agreement to disagree – before ratification.
All of Ravenman’s points hold … except that this isn’t supposed to be a treaty, but a permanently binding framework for government. Treaties are more easily broken.
Am I naive in assuming the EU has a Supreme Court or some other body that issues definitive interpretations of constitutional questions?
The EU constitution is, in fact, a treaty. Look at any news story, or http://european-convention.eu.int. It requires the ratification of all EU members before it comes into force, at which point it supercedes a laundry list of other treaties that have cobbled together the institutions of the EU over the last half century.
The danger for varying interpretations is real, however. I should note that a number of countries – I bellieve it is eight at this point – vow to put the constitution up for a popular referendum, so its ratification will clearly not proceed in the purely academic fashion I described about. And the EU does have institutions dedicated to solving disputes, most notably a legislature, an executive body, and a judiciary.
The issue is that, despite being called “Constitution”, this document is actually rather an update to all the former EU treaties, in particular the founding treaty of Rome. It’s intended to reorganize the European institutions, that would otherwise stop to a halt, following the enlargment to 25 countries.
There will certainly be interpretation issues, but in no way to the same extent a real constitution, which is the basis for all laws and regulations and ultimately regulate all social relationships. The content of the US constitution is always relevant in any court case or trial. The EU “constitution” will rarely be relevant.
As for having a “supreme court”, yes, there’s one. But its rulings are normally related to the functionning of the institutions, or to the interpretation of EU regulations (for instance, a french court unsure about what a relevant EU regulation means, will ask for its opinion).
There’s another european court which is competent for citizen’s rights in last resort, but it’s not an EU court. It’s the European Court for Human Rights, and it hasn’t been founded by the EU but by the Council of Europe, a totally unrelated institution including countries like for instance Russia.
This Court, though playing a more and more important role, has been founded by entirely different treaties. So, the new EU “constitution” will be irrelevant for it, and its content won’t have any influence on its rulings. For instance, the ban of the death penalty is the consequence of a Council of Europe’s treaty, and I assume included in the corresponding Human Rights Charter, not an EU thing. Similarily, a french citizen who thinks his rights to due process of law have not been respected will appeal to the ECHR, not to an EU court.