The Nation-State, Sovereignty, and the European Union

2018 ◽  
pp. 107-124
Author(s):  
G. Gordon Betts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union

2. Constitutional Nature

2021 ◽  
pp. 41-72
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Political Organization ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Conceptual Distinction

This chapter discusses the nature of the European Union, presenting two—opposing—‘federal’ traditions that have been competing with each other over the past 200 years. It begins by introducing the US federal tradition, which has historically understood a Union of States as a third form of political organization between international and national law. The chapter then moves to the newer German federal tradition. Insisting on the indivisibility of sovereignty, this second tradition ultimately led to the following conceptual distinction: a ‘Union of States’ is either an international organization—like the United Nations—or a nation State—like Germany or the United Kingdom. Finally, the chapter applies both theories to the European Union. From the perspective of the older US tradition, the European Union can be seen as a Federation of States. The German tradition, by contrast, reduces it to a (special) international organization. Which is the better theory here? If legal theories are meant to explain legal practice, one sees that the second theory—insisting on the idea of State sovereignty—runs into serious explanatory difficulties and should consequently be discarded. The European Union is indeed best understood as a ‘Federation of States’.

2. Constitutional Nature

2021 ◽  
pp. 41-72
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Political Organization ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Conceptual Distinction

This chapter discusses the nature of the European Union, presenting two opposing ‘federal’ traditions that have been competing with each other over the past 200 years. It begins by introducing the US federal tradition, which has historically understood a Union of States as a third form of political organization between international and national law. The chapter then moves to the newer German federal tradition. Insisting on the indivisibility of sovereignty, this second tradition ultimately led to the following conceptual distinction: a ‘Union of States’ is either an international organization—like the United Nations—or a nation State—like Germany or the United Kingdom. Finally, the chapter applies both theories to the European Union. From the perspective of the older US tradition, the European Union can be seen as a Federation of States. The German tradition, by contrast, reduces it to a (special) international organization. Which is the better theory here? If legal theories are meant to explain legal practice, one sees that the second theory—insisting on the idea of State sovereignty—runs into serious explanatory difficulties and should consequently be discarded. The European Union is indeed best understood as a ‘Federation of States’.

Core of State Sovereignty and Boundaries of European Union's Identity in the Lissabon – Urteil

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-418
Author(s):  
Elisabetta Lanza
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Eu

In the 2009 judgment dealing with the Treaty of Lisbon, the German Federal Constitutional Court urges to modify a domestic statute in order to guarantee the rights of the internal rule-making power and also provides a reasoning on the role of the European Union (EU) as an international organization, the principle of sovereignty and the relations between European Institutions and Bodies and the EU Member States. According to the German Court the Treaty of Lisbon does not transform the European Union into a Federal State (Staatsverband), but into a Confederation of States (Staatenverbund). In spite of the 1993 landmark judgment, the so-called “Maastricht Urteil”, the Court steps forward and focuses also the subject-matters that necessarily have to pertain to the Member States jurisdiction, the so-called “domain reserve”. The German Federal Constitutional Court decision on the Lisbon Treaty arouses the reflection on the core of State sovereignty and on the boundaries of the EU legal system and focuses on the force of the right to vote of every citizen, the basis of democracy.Furthermore, the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court highlights the well-known issue of the EU's identity and the balancing between EU democracy and Member State sovereignty. In the light of the German Constitutional Court statements, the present work aims to understand which could be actually the EU's identity and how could be approached “democratic deficit” of the EU.

scholarly journals Constituent power and civil disobedience: Beyond the nation-state?

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E Scheuerman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Disobedience ◽  
Conscientious Objection ◽  
Radical Democracy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
Constitutional Politics ◽  
Proper Interpretation

Radical democratic political theorists have used the concept of constituent power to sketch ambitious models of radical democracy, while many legal scholars deploy it to make sense of the political and legal dynamics of constitutional politics. Its growing popularity notwithstanding, I argue that the concept tends to impede a proper interpretation of civil disobedience, conceived as nonviolent, politically motivated lawbreaking evincing basic respect for law. Contemporary theorists who employ it cannot distinguish between civil disobedience and other related, yet ultimately different, modes of political illegality (e.g. conscientious objection, resistance, revolution). The essay also examines Jürgen Habermas’ recent contributions to a theory of mixed or dualistic (postnational) constituent power, conceding that Habermas avoids many theoretical and political ills plaguing competing radical democratic theoretical retrievals. Nonetheless, Habermas’ attempt to salvage the idea of constituent power as part of his reformist agenda for the European Union not only breaks with his earlier understandable skepticism about the idea but also risks trimming the admirably ambitious sails of his radical democratic interpretation of civil disobedience.

scholarly journals Between intergovernmental relations and paradiplomacy: Wales and the Brexit of the regions

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 647-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Hunt ◽  
Rachel Minto
Keyword(s):  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Awareness Raising ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Regional Interests ◽  
Domestic Level

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) is an assertion of UK nation-state sovereignty. Notwithstanding this state-centrism, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have distinct interests to protect as part of the Brexit negotiations. This article explores how the interests of one regional case, Wales, were accommodated in the pre-negotiation phase, at a domestic level—through intergovernmental structures—and an EU level through paradiplomacy. We explore the structures for sub-state influence, Wales’ engagement with these structures and what has informed its approach. We argue that Wales’ behaviour reflects its positioning as a ‘Good Unionist’ and a ‘Good European’. Despite the weakness of intra-UK structures, Wales has preferred to pursue policy influence at a UK (not an EU) level. In Brussels, regional interests inform the context for Brexit. Here, Wales has focused on awareness-raising, highlighting that the UK Government does not command the ‘monopoly on perspectives’ towards Brexit in the United Kingdom.

Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der EU-Sozialpolitik: effizientere Entscheidungsfindung durch Mehrheitsentscheidungen und differenzierte Integration?

IG ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-131
Author(s):  
Miriam Hartlapp
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Member State ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Qualified Majority ◽  
Differentiated Integration ◽  
Aktuelle Entwicklungen ◽  
Organizational Heterogeneity

Design and adoption of common social policy is conditional. Limited competencies, institutional and organizational heterogeneity among member states, and ideological-programmatic majorities in the institutions of the European Union (EU) have led to far fewer new legal instruments in recent decades. One of the key challenges is the unanimity requirement in the Council, enshrined in the Treaties in areas of great member state sovereignty. In 2019 the Commission proposed to allow a transition to qualified majority voting. This paper discusses what the transition entails in legal and procedural terms and highlights three key advantages it holds. To this aim it provides an overview of the policy areas and instruments that the Commission would like to transfer to qualified majority voting. It outlines how the potential that majority voting offers for EU social policy could be exploited better with more ambitious initiatives and discusses differentiated integration as an alternative.

E-Migration

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nihil Olivera
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Society ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Information Goods ◽  
Integration Policies ◽  
Flow Of Information ◽  
Theoretical Reflection

Communication and social practices of migrants are changing the dynamics of integration policies. Terms like globalization or transnationalization denote (apparently) an increased flow of information, goods, and capital across nation-state borders. However, borders are open for transactions, not for people. Located in the research thematic area of the Information Society, this article presents some technological, geographical, and social (TGS) characteristics that create a space the author calls e-migration, where the intervention of technology in society produces changes never seen before. This article is a theoretical reflection that discussed a case study of integration and immigration policies of French e-migrants (from the European Union, EU) and Ecuadorians (non-EU) in Catalonia, Spain. The article concludes with a discussion of some implications for future empirical research on e-migration.

scholarly journals Cooperation in the Face of Transboundary Crisis: A Framework for Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Blondin ◽  
Arjen Boin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Crisis Management ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Threats ◽  
The Face ◽  
Crisis Responses

Abstract The nation state is discovering the limits of its crisis management capacities. The Ebola and Zika outbreaks, the financial crisis, the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine, sinking ships overfilled with refugees, cyber-attacks, urban terrorism and existential environmental threats serve as strong reminders of the complex origins and transboundary dimensions of many contemporary crises and disasters. As these transboundary aspects of modern crises become increasingly manifest, the need for international, collaborative responses appears ever clearer. But that collaboration does not always emerge in time (or at all). Even in the European Union, which has various transboundary crisis management mechanisms in place, the willingness to initiate joint crisis responses varies. This observation prompted our research question: Why do states collaborate in response to some transboundary crises but not others? We bring together the crisis and collective action literatures to formulate a theoretical framework that can help answer this question. This article identifies crucial factors that facilitate a possible pathway toward a joint response.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document