August 17, 2014

Special Issue of the German Law Journal -- "EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On"

Network member Russell Miller (W&L, also Editor-in-Chief of the German Law Journal)has passed on the announcement of a special issue entitled "EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On," edited by Patricia Mindus (Uppsala).  The announcement is below and the issues contents can be found here.

* * *

What does it mean to be a citizen of the European Union?  The question cuts right to the heart of the project of re-locating state authority at level of the supranational European Union.

On one hand, the dream seems to have failed to capture the European imagination.  The World Cup's old national rivalries and the opaque voting patterns that play-out each year at the Eurovision Song Contest tell the story of a stubborn identification with the nation state.  European Union leaders were relieved to see that voter turnout in last spring's European election did not follow the decades-old trend of declines.  But turnout held steady at a mere 43%, leaving Guy Verhofstadt to celebrate the fact that “We have finally broken the downward trend of falling participation in European elections."

On the other hand, European citizenship resonates in its way, as any of us who wearily queue in the long, slow-moving "All Nationalities" or "All Other Passport" lines at European airports know all too well.  And the Internet is bursting with offers to sell EU citizenship for the pricy sum of GBP 150,000 (the market seems to be most active in Malta and Bulgaria).

Patricia Mindus of Uppsala University has assembled a special issue on European Citizenship - marking the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the concept in the Maastricht Treaty - that treats the question in all its complexity.  Prof. Mindus explains that "Much has happened in and across the EU since Union citizenship was first introduced. Though many question its value, few advocate its irrelevance. This special issue takes stock of how EU citizenship has evolved over the last two decades and what ideas it conveys into the future."  The German Law Journal is very pleased to publish this impressive collection.

August 13, 2014

Book Announcement: A Transatlantic Community of Law--Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US Legal Orders (Fahey & Curtin, eds.)

We are pleased to announce the appearance of a new collective volume from Cambridge University Press, A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US Legal Orders, edited by network member Elaine Fahey (Amsterdam) along with her colleague (and friend of the network) Deirdre Curtin.  The book also includes a Foreword by network member Mark Pollack (Temple) and is of obvious interest to the readership here at europaeus|law.  An overview is below and more details can be found on the CUP page here.

* * *

As a medium for communication between the EU and the USA, law has the ability to provide unique insights into the state of contemporary transatlantic relations. A Transatlantic Community of Law offers legal perspectives on the emerging institutional characteristics of transatlantic relations and contemporary rule-making in both trade and security. Making use of rule of law analysis which has hitherto not been conducted in transatlantic relations scholarship, it draws together EU law, governance and rule-making scholarship and offers new ways of thinking about the use of law and contemporary transatlantic institutions.

July 23, 2014

The Network on SSRN: Erin Delaney on "Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom"

Network member Erin Delaney (Northwestern) has posted a new piece on SSRN, entitled "Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom."  The article is forthcoming from the Northwestern University Law Review.  The abstract is below and the full article may be downloaded here.

* * *

Britain is experiencing a period of dramatic change that challenges centuries-old understandings of British constitutionalism. In the past fifteen years, the British Parliament enacted a quasi-constitutional bill of rights; devolved legislative power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and created a new Supreme Court. British academics debate how each element of this transformation can be best understood: is it consistent with political constitutionalism and historic notions of parliamentary sovereignty, or does it usher in a new regime that places external, rule-of-law-based limits on Parliament? Much of this commentary examines these changes in a piecemeal fashion, failing to account for the systemic factors at play in the British system.

This Article assesses the cumulative force of the many recent constitutional changes, shedding new light on the changing nature of the British constitution. Drawing on the U.S. literature on federalism and judicial power, the Article illuminates the role of human rights and devolution in the growing influence of the U.K. Supreme Court. Whether a rising judiciary will truly challenge British notions of parliamentary sovereignty is as yet unknown, but scholars and politicians should pay close attention to the groundwork being laid.

July 17, 2014

Peter Lindseth: Equilibrium, Demoi-cracy and Delegation in the Crisis of European Integration (Corrected Version)

Network member Peter Lindseth (UConn Law School) has a new article out in the German Law Journal entitled "Equilibrium, Demoi-cracy and Delegation in the Crisis of European Integration".  The abstract is below.  A corrected version has been posted to fix errors inadvertently introduced by the editors without the author's approval.  The corrected version can be downloaded on SSRN here or the GLJ site here.

* * *

As my work has argued previously, European integration enjoys an “administrative, not constitutional” legitimacy. This view is in obvious tension with the deeply-rooted conceptual framework—what we might call the “constitutional, not international” perspective—that has dominated the public-law scholarship of European integration over many decades. Although the alternative presented in my work breaks from that traditional perspective, we should not view it as an all-or-nothing rejection of everything that has come before it. The administrative alternative can be seen, rather, as providing legal-historical micro-foundations for certain theories that also emerged out of the traditional perspective even as they too are in tension with it. I am referring in particular to Joseph Weiler’s classic notion of European “equilibrium”—now updated as “constitutional tolerance”—as well as Kalypso Nicolaïdis’s more recently developed theory of European “demoi-cracy” on which this article focuses in particular. The central idea behind the “administrative, not constitutional” interpretation—the historical-constructivist principal-agent framework rooted in delegation, as well as the balance demanded between supranational regulatory power and national democratic and constitutional legitimacy—directly complements both theories. The administrative alternative suggests how the relationship between national principals and supranational agents is one of “mediated legitimacy” rather than direct control. It has its origins in the evolution of administrative governance in relation to representative government over the course of the twentieth century (indeed before). By drawing on the normative lessons of that history—notably the need for some form of national oversight as well as enforcement of outer constraints on supranational delegation in order to preserve national democratic and constitutional legitimacy in a recognizable sense—this article serves an additional purpose. It suggests how theories of European equilibrium and demoi-cracy might be translated into concrete legal proposals for a more sustainable form of integration over time—a pressing challenge in the context of the continuing crisis of European integration.