-
Foreword
- Leuven University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
– 9 – Foreword Whereas many young researchers publish their doctoral dissertation as their first monograph, I am pleased to introduce this monograph, written by a junior researcher whose dissertation is yet to come. In some respects, this book has characteristics which one could expect from a junior researcher: it tries to be innovative, explores issues from a (whole array of) different angle(s), and could be read as provocative. At the same time, the work radiates academic maturity in some other respects: the depth and width of the considerations taken into account are impressive, and even if some points might come across as provocative on a first reading, they seem well reflected and balanced on the whole. Finally – and I believe this to be the book’s most important virtue – it not only identifies some of the most ardent methodological problems in constitutional and interpretative thinking, but also seeks to offer a (beginning of a) remedy. This remedy may not be worked out in complete detail – as the author moreover fully acknowledges – and one should not infer from my appreciation for the work that I agree entirely with its elaboration and with the amalgam of points it seeks to make; even so, I am convinced that the author – in an important area of constitutional thinking, ie the area of federalism – makes a significant contribution to how we can or should understand the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. In that sense, he can be seen as riding a new wave of constitutional scholars with an interest in approaching Belgian problems pertaining to federalism from a new point of view. However, Feyen’s work differs from the approaches of other scholars in at least two (related) ways. First, he seems to rely more on interdisciplinary insights, with an important focus on (legal) philosophy and theoretical/methodological issues. This creates a new perspective. Even if this angle might make Feyen’s texts somewhat less accessible for legal scholars unacquainted with the philosophical jargon and the more reflexive and reflective way of thinking, it must be said that Feyen has done his utter best to make the texts readable, and vagueness seems to have been reduced to a minimum. Second, and maybe because of what preceded, the contentions Feyen makes and the theoretical framework of understanding of constitutional court jurisprudence in terms of a toolbox might allow for expansion beyond the limits of federalism case law. Admittedly, Feyen recognizes that the federalism focus might strengthen the theoretical point he tries to make, and he did not explicitly elaborate the theoretical point for other areas of jurisprudence. Nevertheless, it would surely be research-worthy to inquire whether his general point or Beyond Federal Dogmatics – 10 – approach – steeped in a rich philosophical anti-dogmatic tradition – can work in other areas of jurisprudence. Surely, Feyen’s doctoral dissertation promises to have a lot more to say on this issue, at least in the area of freedom of expression. Finally, I would like to emphasize that Feyen has wisely chosen the substantive angle through which he makes his (theoretical) point(s), ie the question about the influence of European law. This is a topic of research that continually requires further elaboration because of its ever-growing importance. Although in Belgian scholarship, some have spawned some kaleidoscopic considerations and thoughts about how European law influences Belgian constitutional case law, Feyen succeeds in offering a coherent view, axed upon his theoretical insights, which can be read autonomously. As such, the author adds another layer to the ongoing theoretical debate about constitutional pluralism and the problems associated with the multi-layered legal order(s), this time geared towards problems of federalism. On the whole, this book is not a very easy read, but the richness of the insights offered in the volume and the clarity and ubiquity of the basic idea underlying the book – ie conceptualizing constitutional court jurisprudence in terms of the relationship between a toolbox used and rule of law values playing – make it a significant contribution to Belgian constitutional scholarship. They also make it a worthwhile read as a whole, or at the very least an important tool for reflexive criticism of those who engage in the practice of constitutional scholarship without a sufficient sense of pragmatism. André Alen Professor of Constitutional Law, KU Leuven Judge in the Belgian Constitutional Court Leuven, 21 January 2013 ...