1. NYU School of Law. This article has had a long gestation period and profited from contributions of a great number of people. A very rough first draft profited a great deal from the scrutiny it received by the participants of the Colloquium of Legal, Political and Social Philosophy at NYU School of Law in 2001, and from Ronald Dworkin and Tom Nagel specifically. I also thank Robert Alexy, Samantha Besson, Victor Ferrerez-Comella, Eleanor Fox, David Golove, Dieter Grimm, Barry Friedman, Daniel Halberstam, Benedict Kingsbury, Larry Kramer, Miguel Maduro, Frank Michelman, Liam Murphy, Fred Schauer, Alexander Somek, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Walen, Neil Walker, and Joseph Weiler for helpful comments on earlier drafts and/or helpful conversations on the questions raised.
2. The leading cases are Case 6/64,Costa v ENEL[1964] ECR 585; Case 45/76,Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen[1976] ECR 2043; Case 106/77,Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal[1978] ECR 629.
3. For general overviews of note on the issue, see A. M. Slaughter, A. Stone Sweet and J. H. H. Weiler (eds),The European Court National CourtsDoctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in its Social Context(Hart, 1998); C. Grewe and H. Ruiz Fabri,Droits Constitutionnels Europens(Presses Universitaire de France, 1995); F. Mayer,Kompetenzberschreitung und Letztbegrndung(C. H. Beck, 2000). For a collection of the leading cases across jurisdictions, see A. Oppenheimer (ed.),The Relationship between European Community Law and National Law: The Cases(Cambridge University Press, 1994 [Vol.1] 2003 [Vol.2]).
4. For a general overview of the situation in The Netherlands and Belgium, see B. De Witte, 'Do Not Mention the Word: Sovereignty in Two Europhile Countries: Belgium and the Netherlands', in N. Walker (ed.),Sovereignty in Transition(Hart, 2003), at 351.
5. See the national reports by J. Kokott (Germany) and M. Cartabia (Italy) in Slaughteret al.,op. cit.note 2supra, at 77 and 133 respectively.