Tobias Auberger and Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes - Mzes

7
openness and reversibility. Thus, constitutionalisation can only be regarded as being legitimate
if it is able to meet these normative standards. Processes of justification inevitably
rely on a specific structure embodying these principles, and ensuring the normative quality,
or better: the “rational acceptability” of the outcomes.
The accession of the new Member States, resp. the enlargement of the European Union, has
often been viewed as a mere extension of the constitutionalising process we have so far observed,
that means, not touching the status quo of the polity itself. Part of this view forms
the idea that the new Member states fit in smoothly without “really” making a difference.
The problem is that this view is not able to acknowledge the new Member States’ status as
equally being able to induce change and to influence the very process of constitutionalisation
– bluntly speaking, this view represents much more a perspective of colonialisation.
Another idea is related to the expectation, that the new Member States incorporate the body
of existing European law (i.e. the “acquis communautaire”) of the “European Constitution”
without dissent and derogation. Furthermore, they are not expected to shift the margins of
interpretation and dispose of contested meanings and concepts. We have already remarked
that this perception is in normative terms dissatisfying because it neglects the requirement
of procedural openness of processes of European constitutionalisation in order for them to
be acceptable and legitimate. Apart from that, we suggest to regard accession as a “foundational”
situation that should be considered as being in normative terms an opportunity or
chance. To our mind, it is useful to interpret enlargement as a kind of structurally determined
point of constitutional reflexivity. In this perspective, accession should be seen as a
“Sollbruchstelle” of European Constitutionalisation. Insofar as the new Member states are
of equal stance for European Integration, their participation includes the possibility of contestation
and potential reversibility – which are, in our point of view, exactly the normativeprocedural
requirements of constitutionalisation. So, within this framework, integration is
to be conceptualised as processes of mutual recognition and understanding. In particular, it
highlights the role of reciprocal dialogues which, apart from ensuring the acceptability of
the outcomes, foster mutual learning-processes. At this point of the argumentation, we
would like to take the idea that mutual learning processes form the baseline of (in normative
terms successful) accession-processes as a point of departure for a closer look at different
(institutional, structural or practical) problems associated with an enlarged Union. This