Context and Continuity: Philistines,Pharisees and Art in English Culture

Cultural identity is an important facet of globalization, and cultural policy involves an international network of policymakers at the subnational, national, and supranational levels. It is often unclear what cultural identity means and who effects policy change, especially in a fast-changing world. The author examines one of the most important cultural policy conflicts of the last two decades to suggest that the intersections among multiple policymakers led to considerable learning through interaction and clear articulation of policy preferences. The author examines the culture war between the European Union (EU) and the United States over trade in cultural products.¹ The conflict played out in international organizations and allowed the EU to come together to articulate a somewhat coherent cultural identity policy, while the United States realized the difficulty of sustaining cultural exports in the context of provocative cultural identity frames.     

Introduction

Institutional design, structure, and processes in the European Union (EU) provide a fertile ground for studying a new model of intergovernmental and supranational cultural policymaking. In this article, the author provides a map and an analytical compass to assist researchers and practitioners in navigating the EU cultural policy labyrinth. She offers insight into how transnational cultural policymaking occurs in the EU by tracing the Culture Programme through the agenda-setting, policy formulation, policy decision, and policy implementation stages of the policy process. The author concludes by introducing an emerging process of institutionalized cultural policy transfer that appears to be developing through systematic and incremental policy transfer, policy learning, and policy convergence.     

Should the EU Protect Democracy and the Rule of Law inside Member States?

Against the background of recent developments in Hungary, the article discusses the question whether the European Union ought to play a role in protecting liberal democracy in Member States. First, it is argued that the EU has the authority to do so, both in a broad normative sense and in a narrower legal sense (though the latter is more likely to be disputed). The article then asks whether the EU has the capacity to establish a supranational militant democracy; here it is argued that at the moment both appropriate legal instruments and plausible political strategies are missing. To remedy this situation, the article proposes a new democracy watchdog, analogous to, but more powerful than, the Venice Commission. Finally, it is asked whether EU interventions would provoke a nationalist backlash. There is insufficient evidence to decide this question, but the danger of such a backlash probably tend to be overestimated.     

Referendums and the Political Constitutionalisation of the EU

Abstract:  This article argues that European integration has triggered a dual constitutionalisation process in Europe. One is the revision of national constitutions to accommodate the integration project at the national level. The other is the construction of transnational rules to regulate novel inter-state relationships at the European level. EU referendums are contextualised in such a duel constitutionalisation process. At the domestic level, EU referendums handle the debates on national constitutional revision. At the transnational level, these popular votes ratify supranational constitutional documents. The article comparatively analyses three types of EU referendums—membership, policy and treaty referendums—according to this analytical framework, exploring the campaign mobilisation of voters, national governments, and transnational institutions, and examining the legal and political interaction between referendums and European integration. A key finding is that, as the dual constitutionalisation process deepens and widens, entrenched domestic players and restrained transnational actors are under increasing pressure to 'voice' themselves in EU referendums.     

Rehabilitating Social Conflicts in European Public Law

Subject to conditions that public law can secure, social conflicts can be normatively appealing for their dividend in terms of dynamism, identity and stability. While this notion was key to post‐World War II European public law, it no longer holds true now that social conflicts are increasingly marginalised by the expansion of supranational law and its consensus culture. However, far from disappearing social conflicts re‐emerge as challenges to the current institutional setting, even despite the policy of constitutional gesture undertaken by EU institutions. This paper tracks the role of social conflicts in European public law and argues that as long as EU politics fails to embrace a culture of social conflicts, challenges to the authority of EU law can be normatively justified.     

The Self-Referential European Polity, its Legal Context and Systemic Differentiation: Theoretical Reflections on the Emergence of the EU's Political and Legal Autopoiesis

Abstract:  This article starts by summarising major theoretical debates regarding European polity and governance. It highlights the role of statehood in those debates and suggests moving beyond the constraints of institutionalist and constructivist perspectives by adopting specific notions from the theory of autopoietic social systems. The following part describes the EU political system as self-referential, functionally differentiated from the system of European law, and internally differentiated between European institutions and Member State governments. Although the Union transgresses its nation-state segmentation, the notions of statehood and democratic legitimacy continue to inform legal and political semantics of the EU and specific responses to the Union's systemic tensions, such as the policy of differentiated integration legislated by the flexibility clauses. The democratic deficit of instrumental legitimation justified by outcomes, the most recent example of which is the Lisbon Treaty, subsequently reveals the level of EU functional differentiation and the impossibility of fostering the ultimate construction of a normatively integrated and culturally united European polity. It shows a much more profound social dynamics of differentiation at the level of emerging European society—dynamics which do not adopt the concept of the European polity as an encompassing metaphor of this society, but makes it part of self-referential and self-limiting semantics of the functionally differentiated European political system.     

Women's Rights, the European Court, and Supranational Constitutionalism

This analysis examines supranational constitutionalism in the European Union (EU). In particular, the study focuses on the role of the European Court of Justice in the creation of women's rights. I examine the interaction between the Court and member state governments in legal integration, and also the integral role that women's advocates—both individual activists and groups—have played in the development of EU social provisions. The findings suggest that this litigation dynamic can have the effect of fueling the integration process by creating new rights that may empower social actors and EU organizations, with the ultimate effect of diminishing member state government control over the scope and direction of EU law. This study focuses specifically on gender equality law yet provides a general framework for examining the case law in subsequent legal domains, with the purpose of providing a more nuanced understanding of supranational governance and constitutionalism.     

REFLECTIONS ON EU INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: AN INTROSPECTIVE VIEW

This article presents three main arguments: First, shared competence exists between the national and supranational levels within the European Union (EU) because EU Member States do not trust the European Commission in the external relations law of the EU. Second, the EU will have greater bargaining power in international negotiations if it speaks in a single voice. Within the EU-27, we have compatible values, overlapping interests, shared goals, as well as economic, social and political ties. Therefore, there is a presumption of collective action in the EU’s external relations. However, EU Member States disagree on many issues before they start negotiations, while trying to define a mission together as partners of the European project. Third, Member States confer specific negotiating powers on the EU only when it is in their own national interest to have a common European position on international negotiations.     

National Parliaments and EU Fiscal Integration

This article analyses the impact of the euro crisis on national parliaments and examines their response to the deepening of EU fiscal integration and the correspondent limitation of their budgetary autonomy. It argues that the sovereign debt crisis has provoked the emergence of new channels of parliamentary involvement in EU economic governance. National parliaments have acquired various rights of approval in the European Semester, strengthened the accountability of national governments, reinforced their scrutiny over budgeting, improved their access to information, and created domestic and supranational avenues for deliberation and political contestation of European integration. In these respects, they have undergone further Europeanisation. While these reforms do not outweigh the centralisation of EU powers, they represent an embryonic step in the parliamentary adaptation to the nascent EU fiscal regime. Yet they are unlikely substantially to influence EMU policy‐making processes, because of the democratic disconnect inherent in the EU's multilevel constitution.     

War as a pretext to wave the rule of law goodbye? The case for an EU constitutional awakening

The war in Ukraine triggered significant changes at the European Union level. The speed at which the EU has achieved progress on sanctions, migration and defense is particularly impressive. But the Russian aggression against Ukraine has also served as a pretext for putting aside internal discussions about the rule of law, and provided additional political rationales for inaction against Member State governments responsible for the violation of European values, as well as triggered the deepening of double standards in several fields. Against this background, the paper argues that using this crisis as a justification for further inaction in the context of EU values is not a sustainable course of action. The Union must not delay further the need to act to halt the insidious erosion of democracy and the rule of law within its own borders both at the national and supranational level.     

A European Constitutional Patriotism? The Case Restated

Abstract:  Especially since the failure of the European Constitutional Treaty, the idea of a European constitutional patriotism has become subject to ever more intense criticism. This article argues that many of the criticisms of the idea of a European constitutional patriotism have been based on philosophical misunderstandings (both of the notion of constitutional patriotism as such, and of the role it could play in Europe) or rely on implausible empirical claims. Accordingly, the normative idea of constitutional patriotism is first clarified; second, the article discusses some of the most common normative and empirical traps when trying to 'transfer' constitutional patriotism from a domestic nation-state context to the supranational level, as well as the tendency to overburden constitutional patriotism with expectations of solidarity and deliberative democracy; third, an EU-specific post-sovereign, pluralist version of constitutional patriotism is defended against critics who see even such a vision as insufficiently sensitive to value pluralism and cultural diversity.     

Democracy in Europe: Why the Development of the EU into a Transnational Democracy Is Necessary and How It Is Possible

Can the process of European unification lead to a form of democracy that is at once supranational and situated above the organisational level of a state? The supranational federation should be constructed in such a way that the heterarchical relationship between the Member States and the federation remains intact. The author finds the basis for such an order in the idea of the EU constituted by a ‘doubled’ sovereign—the European citizens and the European peoples (the States). In order to sustain such an order, reforms of the existing European treaties are needed. It is necessary to eliminate the legitimation deficits of the EU in a future Euro‐Union—that is, a more closely integrated core Europe. The European Parliament would have to gain the right to take legislative initiatives, and the so‐called ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, which requires the approval of both chambers, would have to be extended to all policy fields.     

The environment as a strategic priority in the European Union–Brazil partnership: is the EU behaving as a normative power or soft imperialist?

In 2007, Brazil entered the European Union’s (EU) list of strategic partners; a token of recognition of the place Brazil occupies in current global affairs. Although promoting bilateral environmental convergence is a stated priority, cooperation between the EU and Brazil in this policy field is largely under-researched, raising interesting questions as to whether the current state of play could support EU claims for the normative orientation of its external environmental policy. Through an analysis of partnership activities in the fields of deforestation and biofuels, we suggest that while normative intentions may be regarded as a motivating force, critically viewing EU foreign environmental policy through a ‘soft imperialism’ lens could offer a more holistic understanding of the current state of bilateral cooperation. While the normative power thesis can be substantiated with regard to deforestation, we argue that by erecting barriers to shield its domestic biofuels production, the EU is placing trade competitiveness and economic growth above its normative aspirations. Subsequently, the partial adoption of sustainable development as an EU norm leads to policy incoherence and contradictory actions.     

Legitimacy for a Supranational European Political Order—Derivative,Regulatory or Deliberative?

This paper discusses some models purported to legitimise a European supranational legal order. In particular, the author focuses on an application of the so-called regulatory model to the complex structure of the European Community and the European Union. First of all, he tackles the very concept of legitimacy, contrasting it with both efficacy and efficiency. Secondly, he summarises the most prominent positions in the long-standing debate on the sources of legitimation for the European Community. Thirdly, in this perspective, he analyses several, sometimes contradictory, notions of the rule of law. His contention is that we can single out five fundamental notions of the rule of law and that some but not all of them are incompatible with or oppose democracy. Finally, the paper addresses the regulatory model as a possible application of the rule of the law to the European supranational order. The conclusion is that the regulatory model should be rejected if it is presented as an alternative to classical democratic thought, though it might be fruitful if reshaped differently and no longer assessed from a functionalist standpoint of deliberation.     

The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the way in which it works can be seen as a microcosm of how a multilingual, multicultural supranationalisation process and legal order can be constructed—the Court is a microcosm of the EU as a whole and in particular of EU law. The multilingual jurisprudence produced by the CJEU is necessarily shaped by the dynamics within that institution and by the ‘cultural compromises’ at play in the production process. The resultant texts, which make up that jurisprudence, are hybrid in nature and inherently approximate. On the one hand, that approximation can lead to discrepancies between language versions of the Court’s case law and thus jeopardise the uniform application of EU law. On the other hand, that approximation and hybridity define EU law as a distinct, supranational legal order. This paper analyses the operation of the CJEU and considers whether a linguistic cultural compromise exists within that institution which exercises a formative influence on the character of its ‘output’—i.e. its jurisprudence—and what that may mean for our understanding of the development of EU law.     

The European Union and Human Rights: Towards A Post-National Human Rights Institution?

There is growing evidence that the European Union (EU) is becomingmore involved in human rights protection and has the capacityto turn into an unprecedented post-national human rights protectioninstitution. Based on that evidence, this article suggests differentarguments in favour of a further development in this direction.These arguments stem not only from a general global justiceapproach to post-national institutions’ responsibilities,but also from the concept of human rights itself and the specificneeds of human rights protection at the post-national level.The EU's institutional framework presents advantages that fitthe general criteria of institutional design in the human rightscontext. Of course, many doubts and critiques may be raisedagainst an entity which started primarily as a functional andeconomic institution, and important reforms, some of which areventured in the present article, are still needed to get theEU closer to this institutional ideal. More generally, the articleemphasises the unique example and precedent the EU may constitutefor normative institutional thinking about global justice atthe post-national level.     

Representation in multilateral democracy: How to represent individuals in the EU while guaranteeing the mutual recognition of peoples

The democratic criteria for representation in the European Union are complex since its representation involves several delegation mechanisms and institutions. This paper develops institutional design principles for the representation of peoples and individuals and suggests reform options of the European Union on the basis of the theory of multilateral democracy. In particular, it addresses how the equality of individuals can be realised in EU representation while guaranteeing the mutual recognition of peoples. Unlike strict intergovernmental institutions, the EU requires an additional and independent legislative chamber in which individuals are directly represented. However, strict equality of individuals cannot be the guiding principle for this chamber. In order to avoid the overruling of peoples through supranational majorities, it is necessary to bind the chamber's composition by a principle of degressive proportionality. The representation of peoples, on the other hand, needs to be connected to their domestic democratic institutions.     

Electronic health record: Wiring Europe’s healthcare

The European Commission wants to boost the digital economy by enabling all Europeans to have access to online medical records anywhere in Europe by 2020. With the newly enacted Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare due for implementation by 2013, it is inevitable that a centralised European health record system will become a reality even before 2020. However, the concept of a centralised supranational central server raises concern about storing electronic medical records in a central location. The privacy threat posed by a supranational network is a key concern. Cross-border and Interoperable electronic health record systems make confidential data more easily and rapidly accessible to a wider audience and increase the risk that personal data concerning health could be accidentally exposed or easily distributed to unauthorised parties by enabling greater access to a compilation of the personal data concerning health, from different sources, and throughout a lifetime.     

Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy

This essay by Joshua Cohen and Charles Sabel promotes visions of democracy, constitutionalism and institutional innovations which may help to open up new dimensions in the search for legitimate European governance structures and their constitutionalisation. Faced with Europe's legitimacy problems, proponents of the European project often react by pointing to the many institutional failings in the (national) constitutional state. These reactions, however, seem simplistic, offering no normatively convincing alternatives to the once undisputed legitimacy of a now eroding nation state. The essay by Cohen and Sabel forecloses such strategies. Summarising and endorsing critiques of both the unfettered market system and the manner of its regulatory and political correction, it concludes that the many efforts to establish new equilibria between well-functioning markets and well-ordered political institutions are doomed to fail, and opts instead for fundamental change: conservative in their strict defence of fundamental democratic ideals, such ideas are radical in their search for new institutional arrangements which bring democratic values directly to bear. How is the concept of directly-deliberative polyarchy complementary to and reconcilable with our notions of democratic constiutionalism? To this question the readers of the essay will find many fascinating answers. Equally, however, how might the debate on the normative and practical dilemmas of the European system of governance profit from these deliberations? Which European problem might be resolved with the aid of the emerging and new direct forms of democracy identified in this essay? How might direct democracy interact with the intergovernmentalist and the functionalist elements of the EU system? Although this essay contains no certain answers to these European questions, its challenging messages will be understood in European debates.