scholarly journals The Anti-enlightenment Tradition as a Source of Cynicism in the European Union

Author(s):  
Tamas Dezso Ziegler

AbstractThis article analyses the effect of the anti-Enlightenment tradition on the functioning of the European Union. This tradition covers a lack of belief in liberal values, human rights, egalitarianism, the rule of law, individualism, tolerance, and the respectful cooperation among people. Its ideological background is not new: its existence is also the reason why scholars started to talk about post-fascism in the twenty-first century. In a number of European Union member states, where autocratic tendencies have recently been witnessed (like in Hungary or Poland), it started to dominate decision-making, while its presence is also visible elsewhere, like in the UK, Germany, and Italy. This article selects four prime examples (the rule of law backlash, refugee law, Brexit, and changes to the single market) to show how arguments containing elements of the anti-Enlightenment tradition are used in a cynical way to support partisan and oppressive politics while maintaining a seemingly inclusive façade of democratic decision-making. In the European Union, this can result in dubious, un-explained measures and great policy changes both at EU and member state level.

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 597-637
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review of a Union act. Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) specifies four grounds for review: lack of competence; infringement of an essential procedural requirement; infringement of the Treaty or any rule of law relating to its application; and misuse of power. Judicial review, whether direct through Article 263 or indirect through Article 267, is designed to ensure that decision-making is legally accountable. The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of these grounds of review in the UK post-Brexit.


EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 576-615
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review of a Union act. Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) specifies four grounds for review: lack of competence; infringement of an essential procedural requirement; infringement of the Treaty or any rule of law relating to its application; and misuse of power. Judicial review, whether direct through Article 263 or indirect through Article 267, is designed to ensure that decision-making is legally accountable. The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of these grounds of review in the UK post-Brexit.


This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vlatka Bilas ◽  
Mile Bošnjak ◽  
Sanja Franc

The aim of this paper is to establish and clarify the relationship between corruption level and development among European Union countries. Out of the estimated model in this paper one can conclude that the level of corruption can explain capital abundance differences among European Union countries. Also, explanatory power of corruption is higher in explaining economic development than in explaining capital abundance, meaning stronger relationship between corruption level and economic development than between corruption level and capital abundance. There is no doubt that reducing corruption would be beneficial for all countries. Since corruption is a wrongdoing, the rule of law enforcement is of utmost importance. However, root causes of corruption, namely the institutional and social environment: recruiting civil servants on a merit basis, salaries in public sector competitive to the ones in private sector, the role of international institutions in the fight against corruption, and some other corruption characteristics are very important to analyze in order to find effective ways to fight corruption. Further research should go into this direction.


Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.


Author(s):  
Pál Sonnevend

AbstractModern constitutionalism is based on the paradigm that courts are inherently entitled and obliged to enforce the constitution of the respective polity. This responsibility of courts also applies in the context of the European Union to both the CJEU and national constitutional courts. The present chapter argues that in the face of constitutional crises the CJEU and the Hungarian Constitutional Court shy away from applying the law as it is to the full. The reasons behind this unwarranted judicial self-restraint are most different: the CJEU aims to avoid conflicts with national constitutional courts whereas the Hungarian Constitutional Court has been facing a legislative power also acting as constitution making power willing to amend the constitution to achieve specific legislative purposes or to undo previous constitutional court decisions. Yet both courts respond to expediencies that do not follow from the law they are called upon to apply. It is argued that rule of law backsliding requires these courts to abandon the unnecessary self-restraint and exploit the means already available.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document