¹ See Habermas, Jürgen, Der europäische Nationalstaat unter dem Druck der Globalisierung, 48 Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 425 (1999).Google Scholar

² See Zürn, Michael, Facing the 21^st Century: Challenges to the State, in The Role of the State in the 21^ST Century 43, 48 (Hertie School of Governance ed., 2004).Google Scholar

³ See id. Google Scholar

⁴ The network concept is often used in a loose way; it should be specified with respect to “some combination of informality, equality, and commitment.” Paul DiMaggio, Conclusion: The Futures of Business Organization and Paradoxes of Change, in The 21^ST Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective 210, 212 (Paul DiMaggio ed., 2001). I would add its functionality for a mode of generation of knowledge and management of uncertainty, compared to the concept of the disaggregated State. See Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (2004).Google Scholar

⁵ See Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther, Regime-Kollisionen: Zur Fragmentierung des Globalen Rechts 36 (2006).Google Scholar

⁶ See Luhmann, Niklas, Die Weltgesellschaft, in Soziologische Aufklärung 2, 71 (Niklas Luhmann ed., 1975) (for the general principles of differentiation in the “world society”).Google Scholar

⁷ See Rajan, Raghuram G. & Zingales, Luigi, The Firm as a Dedicated Hierarchy: A Theory of the Origin and Growth of Firms (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 7546, 2000).Google Scholar

⁸ See Udo Di Fabio, Das Recht offener Staaten (1998); Udo Di Fabio, Der Verfassungsstaat in der Weltgesellschaft (2001).Google Scholar

⁹ See generally Lobel, Orly, The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 342 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sabel, Charles F. & Zeitlin, Jonathan, Active Welfare, Experimental Governance, Pragmatic Constitutionalism: The New Transformation of Europe, Draft of Presentation for the International Conference of the Hellenic Presidency of the EU, “The Modernisation of the European Social Model and EU Policies and Instruments” 19 (May 21–22, 2003).Google Scholar

¹¹ This is also the approach which prevails in the white book of the EC Commission and can also be compared to the critique by the European University Institute. In this respect the role of the ECJ has changed, too. Whereas in the past some bold decisions (direct effect, etc.) have contributed to the permeability of Member States, in regard to the EC it increasingly tends to overstretch its role by blindly opting for more harmonization of the legal systems without bearing in mind that what was productive yesterday may be destructive today once a certain level of harmonization is established. The deep intervention of ECJ jurisprudence into even the more fundamental principles of Member States' law creates more and more perverse effects because the ECJ cannot manage the complexity of decisions whose effect within the infrastructure, such as civil law or general administrative law, it cannot observe in a meaningful way. See Christoph Schmid, The ECJ as a Constitutional and a Private Law Court: A Methodological Comparison, Zentrum für Europäische Rechtspolitik (ZERP) Discussion Paper 24 (2006), rightly complaining about the ECJ's negligence of the general national legal context into which a European directive is necessarily embedded. The ECJ behaves like a super court which imposes the uniform logic of hierarchy in a legal environment whose complexity asks for a cooperative legal approach. Cf. Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Methodology and European Law – Can Methodology Change so as to Cope with the Multiplicity of the Law? in Epistemology & Methodology of Comp. L. 91 (Mark Van Hoecke ed., 2004).Google Scholar

¹² See Kumm, Mattias, Constitutionalising Subsidiarity in Integrated Markets: The Case of Tobacco Regulation in the European Union, 12 Eur. L.J. 503 (2006).Google Scholar

¹³ See Davies, Gareth, Subsidiarity: The Wrong Idea, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time, 43 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 63, 76 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For the fundamental transformation and flexibilisation of “space,” see Saskia Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights. From Medieval to Global Assemblages (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Ohmae, Kenichi, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (1995).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teubner, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, 25 Mich. J. Int'l L. 999 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Luhmann, Niklas, Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtsstaat (1981); Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Postmoderne Rechtstheorie 159 (2d ed. 1995).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Niklas Luhmann, Erkenntnis als Konstruktion (1988).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a critique, cf. Oliver Lepsius, Steuerungsdiskussion, Systemtheorie und Parlamentarismuskritik (1999).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Der Staat der “Gesellschaft der Netzwerke”: Zur Notwendigkeit der Fortentwicklung des Paradigmas des “Gewährleistungsstaates”, 48 Der Staat 163 (2009).Google Scholar

²¹ See Rosa, Jean-Jacques, Politiques sociales: pour le respect de la diversité et de la concurrence en Europe, 115 Revue d'Economie Politique 727 (2005).Google Scholar

²² The ambivalence of the Swedish welfare state is very underestimated in other European Countries. See Magnus Henrekson, Entrepreneurship: A Weak Link in the Welfare state, 14 Indus. & Corp. Change 437 (2005); The Swedish Model: Admire the best, forget the rest, The Economist, Sep. 9^th, 2006, at 24.Google Scholar

²³ See Sabel, , supra note 10, at 27.Google Scholar

²⁴ For a critique, see Andrew Moravcsik, What Can We Learn from the Collapse of the European Constitutional Project?, 47 Politische Vierteljahresschrift 219, 228–231 (2006).Google Scholar

²⁵ For the Danish welfare system, see Jacob Torfing, Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare Postnational Regime: Path-Shaping and Path-Dependency in Danish Welfare State Reform, 28 Econ. & Soc'y 369 (1999).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Sassen, , supra note 14, at 79.Google Scholar

²⁷ In the Scandinavian countries, the reluctance to claim social assistance eventually also without meeting legal requirements is considerably higher (Denmark 90%) than in other European countries (Germany 60%, France 40%). Yann Algan & Pierre Cahu, Civic Attitudes and the Design of Labor Market Institutions: Which Countries Can Implement the Danish Flexicurity Model? 14 (Ctr. Econ. Policy Research, Discussion Paper 5489, 2005).Google Scholar

²⁸ Both Sweden and Denmark have strong neo-nazi, viz. xenophobic, movements in spite of their rather well-ordered welfare system. The same is true for Norway, which has also the strongest xenophobic party in Europe. Only Finland is different, but it has almost no non-European immigrants.Google Scholar

²⁹ The paradoxical phenomenon of anti-EU parties in the European Parliament is becoming increasingly important. Times Online, September 6, 2009.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Blanke, Thomas & Hoffmann, Jürgen, Auf dem Weg zu einem Europäischen Sozialmodell, 40 Kritische Justiz 134 (2006).Google Scholar

³¹ See EU Debates European Social Model, EurActiv, October 24, 2005, http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/eu-debates-european-social-model/article-146338.Google Scholar

³² See Nickell, Stephen J., A Picture of European Unemployment: Success and Failure (Ctr. for Econ. Performance, Discussion Paper 0577, 2003).Google Scholar

³³ Granovetter, Mark, The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited, 1 Soc. Theory 201, 224 (1983).Google Scholar

³⁴ For the role of the state as a moderator, see Moreau, François, The Role of the State in Evolutionary Economics, 28 Cambridge J. Econ. 847 (2004).Google Scholar

³⁵ This is the case particularly in the practice of the ECJ. See Schmid, , supra note 11.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument 609 (2005).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, ‘We, the European People… ‘—Relâche?, 14 Eur. L.J. 147 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Schmid, , supra note 11.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Weiler, Joseph H. H., The Constitution of Europe 98 (1999).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Breuer, Stefan, Der Staat 289 (1998).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics (Christian Joerges & Ellen Vos eds., 1999).Google Scholar

⁴² See Staat ohne Verantwortung?: Zum Wandel der Aufgaben von Staat und Politik (Ludger Heidbrink & Alfred Hirsch eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁴³ This could also be the role of the open method of coordination. However, to regard it as a mode of “new governance” within post-national constitutionalism which in the long run leads to participation of “social partners,” civil society, etc., is a proposal to reestablish a supranational corporatism at the European level.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Glazer, Nathan, The Limits of Social Policy (1990); Henrekson, , supra note 22, at 442.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Fabio, Di, Das Recht offener Staaten, supra note 8; Di Fabio, Der Verfassungsstaat in der Weltgesellschaft, supra note 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Deakin, Simon, Legal Diversity and Regulatory Competition: Which Model for Europe, 12 Eur L.J. 455 (2006); Zumbansen, Peer, Spaces and Places: A Systems Theory Approach to Regulatory Competition in European Company Law, 12 Eur. L.J. 534 (2006).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Sabel, , supra note 10, at 2. For an analysis of the search for “best practices,” cf. David Zaring, Best Practices, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 294, 298 (2006).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Ladeur, , supra note 11.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Davies, , supra note 13.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Von Hannover v. Germany, 2004-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 294.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Grimm, Dieter, Discussion, 62 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 85 (2003).Google Scholar