“European sovereignty” is sometimes described by some authors as an oxymoron, or at least by others as an “unlikely encounter”[1] as  it questions “the need for a renewal of the fundamental concepts that structure the apprehension and organization of public power”[2].

Indeed, the export of the notion of “sovereignty” to the European Union necessarily tests the theory of the state. Sticking to the specificity of Jean Bodin’s country, it is clear that it questions a historical conception of state sovereignty presented as one and indivisible, and of which the link that unites the state and its law constitutes the main “mark” (according to Jean Bodin’s terminology). In this sense, the notion of “European sovereignty” invites us to rethink the existential relationship between the sovereign state and its law — as a means of expression of the sovereign and his political power.

But this is not the only construction or community that she comes to question. Reference is made here to the European Union and, more precisely, to its raison d’être and to the common project that characterises it. Indeed, the notion of “European sovereignty” also questions the nature of the Union, all the more acutely because it has become firmly established in political discourse.

This is evidenced by the now famous speech at the Sorbonne on 26 September 2017, by the President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, in which he detailed the six keys to European sovereignty. Let us then consider the peremptory formula pronounced a year later by the President of the European Commission at the time, Jean-Claude Juncker: “the hour of European sovereignty has definitively come”. Finally, let us consider the latest State of the Union speech by the current President of the Commission, Mrs Von Der Leyen, in which she linked the “sovereignty of Europe” to technological progress on the one hand and, on the other hand, established a correlation between solidarity and “sovereignty” in migration.

Although not exhaustive, these few illustrations all have in common that security (in its broad sense) and the protection of the external borders of the area of free movement are vectors for the deepening and even development of European policies.

Perhaps these should be seen as “marks” of a European sovereignty which, if only by its evocative scope, is placed at the service of a powerful Europe that protects? What is more certain, however, is that it necessarily sheds light on the evolution of European integration and the process of integration that characterises it.

However, this observation can only arouse the interest of the jurist who, beyond the political discourse, is called upon to take this “object” seriously in order to propose a legal and critical analysis of it, considering both the hypothesis of a deconstruction of the sovereignty of the Member States and that of the construction of a common sovereignty.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that ‘European sovereignty’ as an idea, or object of study, has already aroused the interest of eminent scholars, some of whom do us the honour of being with us today. Important work has made it possible to initiate an analysis of the empirical, theoretical, but also constitutional dimensions of “European sovereignty”.

However, this “open path” has not exhausted all the legal questions raised by the mobilization of this notion, including: Should sovereignty as we understand it historically be thought of differently ? Should it go ? Or has it disappeared ? In this hypothesis, has it been supplanted by European sovereignty ? What does “European sovereignty” mean ? What impact does it have on the status of Member States ? What does it mean and what does it mean for European citizens ? What is the role of European sovereignty in the context of the polycrisis facing the European Union ? What is the place of the rule of law in this Europe that protects ? To what extent are democratic Member States sovereign ? How sovereign are we as individuals ? What is the political embodiment of European Union law ?

These are all questions to which the various and rich contributions have made it possible to provide answers on the occasion of this beautiful colloquium.

Thus, in a first round table, devoted to the notion of sovereignty, we questioned the existence of this concept, its possible legal meaning(s) and, if so, the definition(s) it covers.

In a second round table, we focused on the political dimension of sovereignty in the European Union and, in particular, on the tensions that the study of this dimension reveals between the political and the legal.

Finally, in a third and final round table, the external dimension of sovereignty occupied the debates, focusing on the figure of the European Union as a sovereign actor in a geopolitical context marked by new tensions.

At the end of this brief presentation, let me point out that to the question of whether we should be nostalgic, Michel Serres answered it before us, not without irony: “it was better before”.[3] That was what was at stake in our debates.