The aim of this Article is to re-conceptualize the debate about the (theoretical) relationship\r\nbetween international and national law, which has been debated for centuries. Generally,\r\nthe floor is divided between dualism as developed by Heinrich Triepel and monism\r\ndeveloped mainly by Hans Kelsen. In the light of new developments since their inception, I\r\nargue that these theories can no longer comprehensively explain the relationship between\r\ninternational or European Union (EU) and national law. Yet, the Article is based on the\r\nconviction that a common denominator of international and national law is elementary (i.e.\r\nhere “the law creators’ circle,” in German, “Die Theorie des Rechtserzeugerkreises,” in short\r\n“TREK”) in order to solve possible norm conflicts between different but overlapping legal\r\norders. Therefore, pluralism is also limited in my eyes because it does not offer a satisfying prescriptive account. This common legal framework, however, must not be understood as\r\nthe “constitutionalization” of international (or EU law) either, as this easily implies too\r\nmany substantial values, which are not (yet) a common reality.     «

The aim of this Article is to re-conceptualize the debate about the (theoretical) relationship\r\nbetween international and national law, which has been debated for centuries. Generally,\r\nthe floor is divided between dualism as developed by Heinrich Triepel and monism\r\ndeveloped mainly by Hans Kelsen. In the light of new developments since their inception, I\r\nargue that these theories can no longer comprehensively explain the relationship between\r\ninternational or European Union (EU) and...     »