scholarly journals A Democratic Dilemma of European Power to Tax: Reconstructing the Symbiosis Between Taxation and Democracy Beyond the State?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (05) ◽  
pp. 660-678
Author(s):  
Jussi Jaakkola

AbstractIn Western capitalist societies, the three postwar decades witnessed a strong interconnection between income taxation and democracy. On the one hand, the democratically representative political process constituted a precondition for the legitimacy of taxation. On the other hand, redistributive income taxation enhanced conditions for equal democratic participation by allocating resources and equalizing political power among citizens. The asymmetric European integration that has advanced transnationalization of cross-border market order but preserved income taxation under national political authority has established fiscal interdependence between Member States of the EU and exposed them to transnational regulatory effects. As a result, Member States’ performance to uphold the symbiosis between democracy and taxation has eroded. While this has led some to call for further integration of taxes beyond the nation state, others have remained skeptical about the democratic legitimacy of Europeanized taxation. This Article argues that the Europeanization of income taxation would help to reconstruct the conditions under which the symbiosis between income taxation and democracy is restored, although this requires the notion of democratic community to be reinterpreted according to the standards that cannot be equated with nation-based boundaries of a political community.

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-672
Author(s):  
Josef Weinzierl

AbstractQuite a few recent ECJ judgments touch on various elements of territorial rule. Thereby, they raise the profile of the main question this Article asks: Which territorial claims does the EU make? To provide an answer, the present Article discusses and categorizes the individual elements of territoriality in the EU’s architecture. The influence of EU law on national territorial rule on the one hand and the emergence of territorial governance elements at the European level on the other provide the main pillars of the inquiry. Once combined, these features not only help to improve our understanding of the EU’s distinctly supranational conception of territoriality. What is more, the discussion raises several important legitimacy questions. As a consequence, the Article calls for the development of a theoretical model to evaluate and justify territoriality in a political community beyond the state.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-86
Author(s):  
Dragan Trailovic

The article explores the European Union's approach to human rights issues in China through the processes of bilateral and multilateral dialogue on human rights between the EU and the People's Republic of China, on the one hand. On the other hand, the paper deals with the analysis of the EU's human rights policy in the specific case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which is examined through normative and political activities of the EU, its institutions and individual member states. Besides, the paper examines China's response to the European Union's human rights approaches, in general, but also when it comes to the specific case of UAR Xinjiang. ?his is done through a review of China's discourse and behaviour within the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue framework, but also at the UN level and within the framework of bilateral relations with individual member states. The paper aims to show whether and how the characteristics of the EU's general approach to human rights in China are reflected in the individual case of Xinjiang. Particular attention shall be given to the differentiation of member states in terms of their approach to human rights issues in China, which is conditioned by the discrepancy between their political values, normative interests and ideational factors, on the one hand, and material factors and economic interests, on the other. Also, the paper aims to show the important features of the different views of the European Union and the Chinese state on the very role of Human Rights Dialogue, as well as their different understandings of the concept of human rights itself. The study concluded that the characteristics of the Union's general approach to human rights in China, as well as the different perceptions of human rights issues between China and the EU, were manifested in the same way in the case of UAR Xinjiang.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232110600
Author(s):  
Karoline Helldorff ◽  
Johan Christiaens

This paper analyses the powers and competences of the EU to standardise public sector accounting of the member states and to take other EU action in the field of public sector accounting. We argue that public sector accounting forms part of the administrative organisation of the member states that is not a core EU competence. EU initiatives such as the European Public Sector Accounting Standards project, which aim to increase transparency and comparability, therefore need to follow the rules set out for administrative matters in general. The study reveals on the one hand that EU actions are essentially limited to voluntary cooperation and influences of other policy areas. But on the other hand, it shows that they do not need to be limited to the initiatives currently driven by Eurostat. Points for practitioners The future of the European Public Sector Accounting Standards project is uncertain. However, it is very unlikely that it will take the shape of a top-down set of readymade EU accounting standards that will force public administrations to adjust their inner workings. Public sector accounting is not (yet) a (typical) European policy, but simply a national one that the EU can support. The EU initiative can be considered as an opportunity for collaboration and knowledge sharing on how to increase transparency of public sector accounting.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-358
Author(s):  
Desmond JOHNSON

The right to vote and participate in the political process is a quintessential feature of any democratic society. Systematic risks to the integrity of US elections and passive civic participation in the EU political process present fundamental threats to the constitutional aspirations and the democratic ideals connected to “We the People” in the US and “United in Diversity” in the EU. The existence of power imbalances, social inequalities and information asymmetries in electoral and political processes illustrate that both jurisdictions are in peril and in risk of democratic backsliding. Blockchain-based voting can transform existing electoral and political processes in the digital age. This raises the question whether blockchain-based voting can be utilised as a digital tool to enhance the democratic legitimacy of US and EU electoral and political systems. Accordingly, this article aims to examine the prospects and limits of blockchain technology to secure foundational democratic norms connected to the right to vote and civic participation at the heart of contemporary constitutionalism. It contends that the decentralised, immutable, accessible, transparent, and secure processes of blockchain technology have the potential to enhance the legitimacy of the US and EU constitutional orders, since blockchain-based voting can act as a forum for enhanced civic participation, public deliberation, and democratic contestation. Nevertheless, the article concludes that a number of important steps must be taken to fully realise the potential of blockchain-based voting in a manner that combats the risks associated with the technology, strengthens public confidence in electoral and political processes and secures a balanced system of governance in the US and the EU constitutional orders.


Author(s):  
Katrin Auel

The role and position of national parliaments in European Union (EU) affairs have undergone a long, slow, and sometimes rocky, but overall rather remarkable, development. Long regarded as the victims of the integration process, they have continuously strengthened their institutional prerogatives and have become more actively involved in EU affairs. Since the Lisbon Treaty, national parliaments even have a formal and direct role in the European legislative process, namely, as guardians of the EU’s subsidiarity principle via the so-called early warning system. To what extent institutional provisions at the national or the European level provide national parliaments with effective means of influencing EU politics is still a largely open question. On the one hand, national parliaments still differ with regard to their institutional prerogatives and actual engagement in EU politics. On the other hand, the complex decision-making system of the EU, with its multitude of actors involved, makes it difficult to trace outcomes back to the influence of specific actors. Yet it is precisely this opacity of the EU policymaking process that has led to an emphasis on the parliamentary communication function and the way national parliaments can contribute to the democratic legitimacy of the EU by making EU political decisions and processes more accessible and transparent for the citizens. This deliberative aspect is also often emphasized in approaches to the role of national parliaments in the EU that challenge the territorially defined, standard account of parliamentary representation. Taking the multilevel character of the EU as well as the high degree of political and economic interdependence between the member states into account, parliamentary representation is conceptualized as extending beyond the nation-state and as shared across the EU, with a strong emphasis on the links between parliaments through inter-parliamentary cooperation and communication as well as on the representation of other member states’ citizens interests and concerns in parliamentary debates. Empirical research is still scarce, but existing studies provide evidence for the development of an increasingly dense web of formal and informal interactions between parliaments and for changes in the way national parliamentarians represent citizens in EU affairs.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1223-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslava Scholten ◽  
Marloes van Rijsbergen

Although not explicitly regulated by the EU treaties, EU agencies not only exist but also have increased in number and power. In addition, while EU agencies may exercise very similar functions to those of the Commission, Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) do not list agencies among the possible authors of non-legislative acts. The existing situation raises the questions of the extent to which the ongoing agencification in the EU is legitimate and what its limits are. This article addresses these questions in the light of the old and new Treaties and case law, including the just releasedESMA-shortsellingcase. It shows that while the Lisbon Treaty made a few steps forward on the road of legitimizing EU agencies and delegating important powers to them, the scope of powers that EU agencies can have remains unclear. In this respect, the European Court of Justice's lenient approach in theESMA-shortsellingcase is unfortunate because it neither clarifies the issue nor pushes the Union Legislator and the Member States to address it. Consequently, in the absence of clear limits, further agencification is likely to persist at the risk of increasing the democratic legitimacy deficit and remaining accountability gaps.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
V. Yu. Slepak

The paper is devoted to the examination of the main aspects of the legal regulation of exporting dual-use goods in the EU under Council Regulation (EU) No. 428/2009 of 5 May 2009. The main objective of the instrument under consideration is to establish a system common for EU Member States to control effectively the export of dual-use goods in order to ensure compliance of EU member States with international obligations, especially with regard to the regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The author concludes that the current Regulation on export of dual-use goods is a logical extension and continuation of the EU instruments regulating arms trade with the third countries that pursues the same objectives, i.e. to implement the international legal obligations of the EU Member States assumed under multilateral control and non-proliferation regimes. Under the selected regulatory model, the EU failed to take the opportunity of replacing relevant national regulation; the Dual-Use Export Regulation defines a general framework, leaving it to Member States to take certain measures aimed at promoting an EU-wide approach. It is up to Member States to establish an appropriate control system for transactions, involving dual-use products, carried out by their nationals and legal entities. On the one hand, it allows the authorities of Member States, due to their proximity to economic entities, to take into account to a greater extent the characteristics of the national market. On the other hand, such a system leads to discrepancies in the practice of applying, in theory at least, uniform measures for the whole Union. Thus, even with the legal basis for independent and exclusive regulation of the export of dual-use products, the EU has faced with the unwillingness of Member States to adopt such restrictions and had to focus on coordinating the activities of Member States, leaving them with a considerable degree of independence and autonomy.


Author(s):  
Hana Zídková ◽  
Aneta Šťastná

Although, the VAT contributes significantly to tax revenues in all EU Member States, the current VAT system is vulnerable to organized fraud schemes and suffers from large scale tax evasion. The EU Member States and the European Commission are discussing new ways of VAT collection to prevent the evasive and fraudulent practices. This paper aims at the description of different VAT collection methods including their flaws and benefits that are addressed in the available literature. The conclusion is that reverse charge and split payment method are changing the character of the VAT system. The One stop shop system is lacking trust of the EU member states. Therefore, the recommendation is to improve current system by electronic means of reporting.


European integration is largely seen as a process that has delivered stability and peace, as well as the economic prosperity of the Member States of the European Union (EU). It has helped to raise standards of living and build an internal market. But, there are more and more arguments that the EU decision-making system is not effective and the governance model is obsolete. Some are pointing out increasingly rising divergence on crucial EU policy matters. Others are arguing that the EU has been confronted with the challenge of heterogeneity, stressing the issue of immigration as the one of the most contentious policy matters currently facing the EU. Besides those controversial issues inside EU and different positions among member states there is Brexit. The paper analyses in particular the issue of EU economic governance and one of its main pillars – the European Semester. The Country Specific Recommendations, as the integral part of the economic governance model are presented in a view of the new framework envisaged to tighten budgetary coordination and keep the deficit and debt levels in accordance to the EU rules.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document