'We want you! But . . .' Recruiting Migrants and Encouraging Transnational Migration Through Progressive Inclusion

The article submits a proposal for outlining the present body of legal norms in the field of European migration and immigration law. To this end, it suggests understanding European migration and integration law as shaped by two principles: the principle of congruence between a state's territory, authority and citizenry and the principle of progressive inclusion. According to the established principle of congruence, the granting of rights to third‐country nationals (TCNs) is always geared to the ideal image that the persons permanently living on a territory are—in reality—part of the citizenry of that state and subject to the state's authority. According to the more recent principle of progressive inclusion, TCNs are to be gradually included into the host country's society by approximating their rights progressively to the rights of citizens. There are potential tensions between the two principles, which can be explained by the diverging philosophical and political concerns that they follow and the conceptions of migration that each uses. The article then goes on to explore the influence of both principles in current European migration and integration law. It brings forward the argument that current European migration and integration law is structured as much by the ‘older’ principle of congruence as by the principle of progressive inclusion. This assumption will be illustrated by the examples of the Long‐term Residents Directive (LTR Directive). Important provisions of the proposal for a framework directive intended to guarantee TCNs' equal treatment with EU citizens in social matters (Draft Framework Directive) and the directive on the highly skilled migrant workers (Blue Card Directive) will also be taken into account. Against the background of the highly contested legal field of migration and integration law, using the language of principles provides a useful tool not only for better grasping the current shape of this legal field, but even more for the legal discourse on the future development of European migration and integration law.     

A Duty‐Free Europe? What's Wrong with Kochenov's Account of EU Citizenship Rights

This article disputes the recent argument of Dimitry Kochenov advocating an ‘EU Citizenship without Duties’. His thesis rests on an untenable form of philosophical anarchism that overlooks the role played by our political obligations to state structures in securing rights. At best, his argument suggests a ‘thin’ form of EU citizenship that allows European citizens to choose which of the Member States they wish to become morally obliged to. A ‘thicker’ form of EU level citizenship could only arise by creating civic obligations at the EU level, the position he rejects. To the extent certain Court of Justice judgments in this area reflect parallel reasoning to Kochenov's, they too suffer from a similar failure to appreciate the role of civic duties to particular Member States (or, eventually, the EU) in creating and securing the status of citizens as equal rights bearers.     

The reasonable citizen: A model for bridging ethics and politics in the EU

The ethical-political model of the EU needs normative rethinking after the pandemic. Using Dworkin's ‘thesis of continuity’ between ethics and politics, I argue that a strong model of the citizen, called on to exercise duties and civic virtues, is badly needed by the EU. The legitimacy of EU political institutions is not enough, if we want to promote the participation of citizens to their functioning. The basic point is that of arguing in favour of the model of ‘the reasonable citizen’, aimed to overcome the dominant liberal model of ‘citizenship as rights’. This is shown by the ‘European Social Model’, but its weaknesses need to be supplemented by a republican conception. In order for the reasonable citizen not to be just an abstract ideal, some measure of operationalisation is proposed through ‘progressively increasing constellations of common identities’; these rely on and respect the multiple demoi of the EU.     

EU Citizenship and Political Identity: The Demos and Telos Problems

Citizenship is the cornerstone of a democratic polity. It has three dimensions: legal, civic and affiliative. Citizens constitute the polity's demos, which often coincides with a nation. European Union (EU) citizenship was introduced to enhance ‘European identity’ (Europeans’ sense of belonging to their political community). Yet such citizenship faces at least two problems. First: Is there a European demos? If so, what is the status of peoples (nations, demoi) in the Member States? The original European project aimed at ‘an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.’ Second: Citizens are members of a political community; to what kind of polity do EU citizens belong? Does the EU substitute Member States, assume them or coexist alongside them? After an analytical exposition of the demos and telos problems, I will argue for a normative self‐understanding of the EU polity and citizenship, neither in national nor in federal but in analogical terms.     

‘Citizens’ and ‘Foreigners’ in EU Law. Migration Law and its Cosmopolitan Outlook

Migration has become a controversial subject across Europe and beyond. At the same time, the EU has built up an impressive set of rules for third‐country nationals over the past two decades, which—unlike the mobility of EU citizens—received comparatively little attention apart from immigration and asylum specialists. This contribution presents the constitutional framework for ‘migration law’ towards third‐country nationals and shows in how far they depart from the paradigm of intra‐European mobility. It will be argued that differences can be rationalised by divergent objectives and do, nonetheless, not present a move towards ‘fortress Europe’. EU migration law maintains the distinction between citizens and foreigners at the same time as it protects migrants, including refugees. By accommodating migrants' rights and self‐government, EU migration law can be construed as an endeavour to replace traditional notions of alienage with constitutional rules with a cosmopolitan outlook.     

A two‐tier conception of European Union peoplehood: A realist study of European citizens’ bonds of collectivity

The European Union (EU) struggles to legitimate its rule. This realist study develops a conception of peoplehood in the EU polity, because, in contemporary Europe, ‘the people’ remains the sole source of political legitimacy. From a realist perspective, a conception of peoplehood should yield a coherent story why EU citizens should accept, or at least acquiesce, to EU rule. This study explores the possibility of a pluralistic conception being either multi‐layered, multi‐faceted or both. Taking a practice‐dependent approach, I first analyse the institutional systems that structure relationships between EU citizens. I secondly propose conceptions of EU citizens’ bonds of collectivity. Thirdly, I develop a novel two‐tier conception of EU peoplehood in which individuals remain bound together as national peoples, while these peoples are in turn united by commercial and liberal bonds. I submit that this conception can lay the foundation for a convincing story to legitimate EU rule.     

European Economic Governance and Parliamentary Representation. What Place for the European Parliament?

This article aims to analyse the European Parliament's (EP) position in the reform of the European economic governance, in particular after the adoption of the ‘six‐pack,’ the ‘two‐pack’ and the ‘fiscal compact.’ References are made to the involvement of the EP in the decision‐making process that led to the adoption of the new measures as well as to the substantive role assigned to this institution in the new regulatory framework. The article argues that the new provisions, which undermine the budgetary authority of national parliaments while, at the same time, designing a limited role for the EP—though strengthened compared to the previous version of the Stability and Growth Pact—can jeopardise the effectiveness of the landmark principle of ‘no taxation without parliamentary representation’ in the EU.     

Constitutional Balance in the EU after the Euro‐Crisis

This article analyses how the European Union's response to the euro‐crisis has altered the constitutional balance upon which its stability is based. It argues that the stability and legitimacy of any political system requires the structural incorporation of individual and political self‐determination. In the context of the EU, this requirement is met through the idea of constitutional balance, with ‘substantive’, ‘institutional’ and ‘spatial’ dimensions. Analysing reforms to EU law and institutional structure in the wake of the crisis – such as the establishment of the ESM, the growing influence of the European Council and the creation of a stand‐alone Fiscal Compact – it is argued that recent reforms are likely to have a lasting impact on the ability of the EU to mediate conflicting interests in all three areas. By undermining its constitutional balance, the response to the crisis is likely to dampen the long‐term stability and legitimacy of the EU project.     

Free Movement of Third Country Nationals in the European Union? Main Features,Deficiencies and Challenges of the new Mobility Rights in the Area of Freedom,Security and Justice

The adoption of European Community (EC) Directives in the field of legal migration has been accompanied by the introduction of intra-community mobility rights. This new kind of right is characterised by specific features with regard to free movement rights enjoyed by European Union (EU) citizens. Besides, existing mobility rights for third country nationals (TCNs) raise some important problems with regard to their legal configuration and to their relationship with other fields of Community law. After having addressed these issues, it will be argued that the current regulation of mobility rights for TCNs does not fulfil the requirements of systematic coherence, and does no meet the need to grant a level of free movement that encompasses the evolution of harmonisation in the field of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.     

The Perils of ‘As If’ European Constitutionalism

This review article offers thoughts on Kaarlo Tuori's recent book, European Constitutionalism, and more particularly on what he calls the ‘disciplinary contest over the legal characterisation of the EU and its law’. As the book's title suggests, Tuori privileges the constitutional perspective in that contest, so much so—he freely admits—that his analysis ‘predetermine[s] how the EU and its law will be portrayed’. And therein also lies the book's main weakness. Tuori's predetermined ‘constitutional’ interpretation, like so much of the dominant legal discourse in the EU today, ultimately obscures the core contradiction in EU public law. National institutions are increasingly constrained in the exercise of their own constitutional authority but supranational institutions are unable to fill the void because Europeans refuse to endow them with the sine qua non of genuine constitutionalism: the autonomous capacity to mobilise fiscal and human resources in a compulsory fashion. The EU's lack of constitutional power in this robust sense derives from the absence of the necessary socio‐political underpinnings for genuine constitutional legitimacy—what we can call the power‐legitimacy nexus in EU public law. To borrow Tuori's own evocative phrase, the EU possesses at best a ‘parasitic legitimacy’ derived from the more robust constitutionalism of the Member States as well as from the positive connotations that using ‘constitutional’ terminology evokes regardless of its ultimate aptness. The result is an ‘as if’ constitutionalism, the core feature of which is an increasingly untenable principal‐agent inversion between the EU and the Member States, one with profound consequences for the democratic life of Europeans. The sustainability of integration over the long term depends on confronting these adverse features of ‘European constitutionalism’ directly, something that legal elites—whether EU judges, lawyers, or legal scholars—ignore at their peril.     

EU citizenship and (fundamental) rights: Empirical,normative, and conceptual problems

There is a close connection between EU citizenship and rights, both in the law and literature. This article claims that EU lawyers' understanding of EU citizenship and rights suffers from empirical, normative, and conceptual shortcomings. I will point out that there has been insufficient awareness for the boundedness of EU citizenship, the political structure of the EU and the constraints this (realistically) imposes on the ‘meaningfulness’ of EU citizenship. EU citizenship must not be understood as requiring an elaborate set of equal rights for all Union citizens throuzghout the EU, but valued for its ability to allow its status holders to enjoy (almost) full membership in the Member States of which they do not possess nationality.     

‘Connecting Europe’: The Use of ‘New’ Information and Communication Technologies within European Parliament Standing Committees

The EP as the only directly elected EU institution, portrays itself as the forum that is open not only to input by lobby groups but to that of ‘average’ citizens. This paper probes the contribution of the Internet in this quest to connect Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) with citizens and here specifically we examine the role of the EP's Standing Committees. The analysis is rooted within the larger debate of the possible contribution of the Internet to encouraging the development of a European public space. The discussion focuses on the use of new technologies, including interactive and non-interactive communication methods such as email and discussion fora. It attempts to generate a series of topics for further investigation by outlining some initial results from interviews, carried out at the European level.     

Towards ‘Accountable Independence’? Parliamentary Controls of the European Central Bank and the Rise of a New Democratic Model

The independence of the European Central Bank is legally defined in very clear and strict terms. Although most scholars in economics describe this status as a crucial condition of the Bank's efficiency, it is frequently criticised by politicians and political scientists as a contradiction to democratic theory. This paper will examine the emerging practice of parliamentary control of the ECB, from its installation until September 1999, in order to understand which kind of ‘accountability’ is elaborated in this unprecedented relationship between ‘politicians’ and lsquo;technocrats’. It will first show that MEPs have rejected all forms of parliamentary control based on a logic of constraint. It will then describe the numerous institutional links created between the Bank and the EU political organs to favour their cooperation. Finally it will analyse the recent initiatives taken by MEPs to influence central bankers and to convince them to submit their decisions to public debates. The hypothesis developed from these empirical analyses is that a new kind of ‘accountability’ is emerging in the EU. From a horizontal point of view (inter‐institutional controls), it is based on influence rather than traditional parliamentary constraint. From a vertical point of view (accountability to citizens), it focuses on responsiveness rather than on classic responsibility.     

Beyond the European void? Reflections on Peter Mair's legacy

Peter Mair was one of the world's leading scholars of party politics. Though he wrote at some length about the European Union, there has been no systematic exploration of the implications of his comparative work on political parties for European integration. His writings on the EU have generally been studied in isolation from his wider oeuvre, with the result that we have missed the important analytical and logical connections between Mair's work on parties and his writings on the EU. This article argues that Mair's path‐breaking middle‐range theoretical and empirical work on the decline of party democracy can form the basis of a radical reappraisal of the project of ‘ever closer union’. The article studies Mair's arguments against the backdrop of more recent empirical evidence and evaluates the normative implications of his work for the future of the European project.     

A Mediator on the World Stage?—How the EU's Commitment in Foreign Affairs is Portrayed by New Zealand and Australian Media

Abstract: ‘European identity’ is as much a contested concept as is the role of the European Union in foreign affairs. This article combines the two concepts and introduces a third variable, ‘the Other’, in order to address the following questions: How do non‐Europeans perceive the EU on the world stage? Is a tentative identity as a mediator in foreign affairs conveyed in the EU's conduct of foreign policy? Analysing 10 newspapers, 4 television bulletins, and 830 public surveys from Australia and New Zealand in the first half of 2004, this article argues that the EU's efforts to further democracy and peace are often marginalised in Australian and New Zealand perceptions. Nevertheless, subtle traces of perceptions of the EU as a potent global actor promoting human rights and environmental sustainability and challenging unilateral US policy courses were detected.     

From Balance to Conflict: A New Constitution for the EU

As the crisis (and the Union's response to it) further develops, one thing appears clear: the European Union post‐crisis will be a very different animal from the pre‐crisis EU. This article offers an alternative model for the EU's constitutional future. Its objective is to invert the Union's current path‐dependency: changes to the way in which the Union works should serve to question, rather than entrench, its future objectives and trajectory. The paper argues that the post‐crisis EU requires a quite different normative, institutional and juridical framework. Such a framework must focus on reproducing the social and political cleavages that underlie authority on the national level and that allow divisive political choices to be legitimised. This reform project implies reshaping the prerogatives of the European institutions. Rather than seeking to prevent or bracket political conflict, the division of institutional competences and tasks should be rethought in order to allow the EU institutions to internalise within their decision‐making process the conflicts reproduced by social and political cleavages. Finally, a reformed legal order must play an active role as a facilitator and container of conflict over the ends of the integration project.     

The Human Rights Clause in the European Union's External Trade and Development Agreements

Abstract: Since 1992, the European Union (EU) has included in all its agreements with third countries a clause defining respect for human rights and democracy as an ‘essential element’ of its external relationship. A Council decision of May 1995 spells out the basic modalities of this clause, with the aim of ensuring consistency in the text used and its application. The human rights clause is unique to the EU's bilateral agreements, and now applies to over 120 countries. It represents a new model for EU external relations as well as for international cooperation. The EU plays a leading role in the WTO and international economic relations. The human rights clause will have implications for the development of international rules concerning trade‐related human rights policy.     

Family Reunification Rights of (Migrant) Union Citizens: Towards a More Liberal Approach

Over the years, in the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determining the availability of family reunification rights for migrant Member State nationals, the pendulum has swung back and forth, from a ‘moderate approach’ in cases such as Morson and Jhanjan (1982) and Akrich (2003), towards a more ‘liberal approach’ in cases such as Carpenter (2002) and Jia (2007). Under the Court's ‘moderate approach’, family reunification rights in the context of the Community's internal market policy are only granted in situations where this is necessary for enabling a Member State national to move between Member States in the process of exercising one of the economic fundamental freedoms; in other words, where there is a sufficient link between the exercise of one of those freedoms and the need to grant family reunification rights under EC law. Conversely, under the Court's ‘liberal approach’, in order for family reunification rights to be bestowed by EC law, it suffices that the situation involves the exercise of one of the market freedoms and that the claimants have a familial link which is covered by Community law; in other words, there is no need to illustrate that there is a link between the grant of such rights and the furtherance of the Community's aim of establishing an internal market. The recent judgments of the ECJ in Eind and Metock (and its order in Sahin) appear to have decidedly moved the pendulum towards the ‘liberal approach’ side. In this article, it will be explained that the fact that the EU is aspiring to be not only a supranational organisation with a successful and smoothly functioning market but also a polity, the citizens of which enjoy a number of basic rights which form the core of a meaningful status of Union citizenship, is the major driving force behind this move. In particular, the move towards a wholehearted adoption of the ‘liberal approach’ seems to have been fuelled by a desire, on the part of the Court, to respond to a number of problems arising from its ‘moderate approach’ and which appear to be an anomaly in a citizens' Europe. These are: a) the incongruity caused between the (new) aim of the Community of creating a meaningful status of Union citizenship and the treatment of Union citizens (under the Court's ‘moderate approach’) as mere factors of production; and b) the emergence of reverse discrimination. The article will conclude with an explanation of why the adoption of the Court's liberal approach does not appear to be a proper solution to these problems.     

Retrieving the ‘subject’ of European integration

In this article, a critical reinterpretation of citizens as subjects of European integration moves the focus of EU law from EU citizens' subjection to their subjectification. This analysis draws on post‐structural social theory in arguing that the law is instrumental to securing the material conditions for transnational political subjectification because it regulates both EU citizens' access to transnational social relations and the perception of difference between them. However, the law also reinforces constraints on the process of transnational subjectification. Systematic obstacles, which must be taken into account, are not limited to economic status, but include other variables like gender or age. It will be argued on this basis that EU law needs to develop a more coherent politics of subjectivity. Towards this goal, the law must carefully attend to what is (and is not) depoliticising in EU citizenship rights.     

Parliamentary Questions,Oversight, and National Opposition Status inthe European Parliament

This study examines when and why members of the European Parliament (EP) use parliamentary questions as a form of fire alarm oversight. We argue that the multilevel nature of the EU political system allows members of the EP from national opposition parties to use parliamentary questions to alert the European Commission to governments' failures to implement EU policy. Representation in the EP provides the only avenue for such oversight for national opposition parties. Using a new sample of EP parliamentary questions, we demonstrate that MEPs from national opposition parties are more likely to alert the Commission to violations of EU law in their own member states. These parliamentary questions may lead the Commission to take legal action against member‐state governments.