Authoritarian Liberalism Writ Large: the Spectre of a ‘German Europe’

2021 ◽  
pp. 211-229
Author(s):  
Michael A. Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Financial Assistance ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Euro Crisis ◽  
State Relations ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Inter State ◽  
Formal Constraints

<Online Only>This chapter explores how inter-state relations after Lisbon represented a fudge; the Lisbon Treaty maintaining much of the substance of the failed constitutional project, but without the constitutional symbolism. It traces how, through the euro crisis, this fudge became unsustainable: the issue of sovereignty could no longer be held in suspension, increasingly exercised outside the EU legal framework, as new informal formations took centre stage, notably the ‘Troika’ and the Eurogroup, which exercised both de facto power and de jure authority. They did so in such a way as to avoid the formal constraints of the Maastricht Treaty, but maintain its ordoliberal spirit. The chapter goes on to consider how sovereignty, in practice, was increasingly drained of any content, its loss appearing as the quid pro quo for accepting financial assistance. The chapter concludes by examining how all of this put the issue of German hegemony back on the agenda, suggesting a regional authoritarian liberalism writ large, more coercive and less consensual than in the foundational era, but ultimately underpinned by an ideological Europeanism.</Online Only>

Subsidiarity as a Subject of Battle in European Union Politics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees van Kersbergen ◽  
Bertjan Verbeek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

Since the Maastricht Treaty (1993), subsidiarity has guided the political process surrounding the distribution of competences between administrative layers in the European Union (EU). The EU’s subsidiarity regime affects the politics and governance of the EU, because the notion of subsidiarity allows for continuous negotiation over its practical use. The constant battle over subsidiarity implies that the notion changes its meaning over time and alters the power relations between different actors within the EU. Since the Lisbon Treaty (2009), subsidiarity has mainly strengthened the position of member states at the expense of the Commission.

17. The European Union’s Foreign, Security, and Defence Policies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Dover ◽  
Anna Maria Friis Kristensen
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Political Cooperation ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Common Security

This chapter examines the European Union's foreign, security, and defence policies. It begins with a discussion of the intergovernmental Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), established by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, focusing in particular on the role of the member states and the EU institutions in the development of the policy. The forerunner to the CFSP was the European political cooperation. The chapter then considers the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), created by the Lisbon Treaty, and the gradual militarization of the EU. It concludes with an analysis of the range of military and civilian CSDP missions that the EU has undertaken to date.

Towards a New Form of EU Law?: The Use of EU Institutions outside the EU Legal Framework

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
Monetary Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Financial Assistance ◽  
Economic And Monetary Union ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
New Form ◽  
The Eu

Economic governance – Financial assistance – Economic and monetary union – Patent litigation – Treaties between member states – Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice – powers of the EU institutions – Enhanced cooperation

scholarly journals The legal framework for delegated and implementing powers ten years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty

ERA Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merijn Chamon
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Institutional Practice ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis Article gives an overview of the legal framework governing the exercise of the delegated and implementing powers foreseen in Articles 290 and 291 TFEU in light of the most recent jurisprudence of the EU Courts in this field. It clarifies what essential elements are under Article 290 TFEU, how the Courts test this requirement and how it relates to the requirement under Article 290 TFEU that a delegation must also be specific. The article subsequently discusses and compares the control regimes in place under Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, noting that in post-Lisbon institutional practice they have evolved towards each other. Linked to this is the question how delegated and implementing powers differ. In light of the Court’s jurisprudence the article concludes that it is up to the legislature to make this distinction and that the legislature can also create executive powers outside the framework of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU and grant them to EU agencies. The article concludes by flagging some open questions which the Court has not resolved yet.

scholarly journals Recognising Effective Legal Protection to People Smuggled at Sea, by Reviewing the EU Legal Framework on Human Trafficking and Solidarity between Member States

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matilde Ventrella
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Trafficking ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Final Destination ◽  
Death Toll ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate ◽  
The Eu

The death toll of migrants at sea is on the increase. The EU and its Member States are not addressing the situation by widening the EU legal framework on human trafficking to persons smuggled at sea. People smuggled at sea are extremely vulnerable at the hands of their smugglers and suffer serious abuse of their human rights from their journeys through the desert, on the boats and when they reach their final destination. They become victims of human trafficking and they should not be neglected anymore by the EU and its Member States. However, all EU proposals lack of concreteness as Member States do not want to support and host migrants at sea on their territories. They are reluctant to launch solidarity between each other as requested by the Lisbon Treaty and by doing this, they are indirectly responsible for the death of many migrants at sea and for the abuse of their human rights. This article proposes alternatives to explore that could change the situation if Member States show their willingness to cooperate with each other.

1. History of the project (1972–2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
History Of ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Eu Project ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

This chapter traces the history of the EU, and UK participation in the EU project at its key developmental moments, revealing that the referendum outcome on 23 June 2016 was perhaps a shock, but not a wholly unpredictable one. The EU's overall goals have never quite matched the UK's reasons for participating in the project. The chapter then sets out what goals the EU project has had over time, and how these have fitted with UK priorities and interests. It also looks at each key revision of the EU's foundational Treaties in turn, including the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty. The UK willingly limited its sovereignty when it joined the EU in 1972; it has now exercised its sovereignty again by withdrawing from the EU. The chapter concludes with some thoughts on what will happen next in the now four-year-long Brexit saga.

Brexit and EU Institutional Balance

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Puetter
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Conservative Party ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
European Council ◽  
Commission President ◽  
The Uk ◽  
State Relations ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Inter State

The chapter focuses on the implications of Brexit on the EU inter-institutional balance, and inter-state relations, and argues that not much change is to be expected here. According to Puetter, the UK already dramatically reduced its engagement inside the EU institutions. It isolated itself within the European Council and it was the only Member State together with Hungary to vote against the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as Commission President in 2014. The UK lost influence in the European Parliament as a result of David Cameron’s decision to take the Conservative party out of the European Peoples’ Party. Brexit may make room for greater roles for countries like Italy and Spain, yet, the German–French axis will probably remain dominant. Puetter suggests that the inter-institutional equilibrium within the EU will not change. Brexit is unlikely to shift the balance from the European Council back towards the European Commission.

States’ Equality v States’ Power: the Euro-crisis, Inter-state Relations and the Paradox of Domination

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 3-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico FABBRINI
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Euro Crisis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
State Domination ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Inter State

AbstractThis article examines how the Euro-crisis and responses to it have affected the horizontal relations of power between the EU Member States. It is argued that, whereas the EU institutional system had been designed since its foundation to strike a balance between state equality and state power, the Euro-crisis and the responses to it have increasingly upset this balance. A dynamic of inter-state domination is evidenced by the intergovernmental modes of governance within the European Council, as well as by the legal reforms in salient areas such as economic assistance, financial stabilisation and banking resolution, which have entrenched asymmetries between the states. In this article, it is argued that this dynamic constitutes a worrying development, given the anti-hegemonic nature of the EU integration project, and shows how intergovernmentalism paradoxically caters for powerful Member States. The article ends by considering options for institutional reforms, cautioning against the proposal to parliamentarise the EU and emphasising the potential of a new separation-of-powers system to restore a proper balance between the Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document