This post is a follow-up
to the fascinating discussion at NYU Law School on March 7-8, entitled “Understanding
the EU and its Crisis through the Lens of Demoicracy: A Conversation,”
organized and hosted network members Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Joseph
Weiler. The first day focused on
some of the philosophical and theoretical dimensions of the concept of
“demoicracy,” particularly as defined in Kalypso's work. The second examined the potential
legal and institutional implications of the “demoicratic” character of the
EU.
Unfortunately, because of commitments at my day
job (so to speak), I couldn't stay for the second round. Nevertheless, I was able to write up some thoughts
on the topic, which I passed on to Kalypso in lieu of attending. Network members and europaeus|law readers might also find these thoughts interesting, perhaps with an eye to furthering
discussion on the question, particularly in the context of the
Eurozone crisis.
* * *
First, some general normative considerations:
To me, your concept of "demoicracy" captures the essential reality in the EU
(following Joseph's lead from yesterday): weakly legitimated
supranational bodies possessing great amounts of regulatory power operating in
relation to strongly-legitimated but functionally constrained national constitutional
bodies as representative of various "demoi." The normative
challenge in these circumstances, as my book Power and Legitimacy argues, is to "maintain the connection"
between these two levels of governance so that (i) you get the benefits of
supranational regulatory power where functionally necessary/beneficial to the
political ends of integration, but (ii) always maintain the national level as viable democracies in a historically and culturally recognizable sense. Put it another way, one must maintain an
"equilibrium," in a Weiler "Transformation" sense, between the national
and the supranational, following the "community" not
"unity" vision. And to link it to your work, such equilibrium is
necessary to "govern together but not as one." Even the most
fervent advocates of integration pay at least lip service to the idea that
integration must maintain the member states as viable democracies --
integration is about empowering the MS to do things together that they can't
achieve alone, without negating their essential characteristics as democracies
in a recognizable sense.
With these basic principles in mind, I would suggest four
categories of practical, normative impact of the "demoicracy"
concept:
1. Delegation:
Demoicracy has both substantive and procedural importance on
the question of the nature and scope of authority delegable to the
supranational level. At minimum, procedurally, demoicracy implies the
need for supra-majorities or other special procedures (perhaps referenda) when
a proposed delegation to the supranational level impacts national democracy in
an essential sense. Moreover, it implies a disclosure requirement:
the implications for any delegation on national democracy must be fully
disclosed and deliberated as part of the ratification process. There can
be no implied repeals of essential attributes of democracy (EMU is especially
problematic on this score) and indeed there should be a canon of treaty
construction against such a claim (see treaty interpretation below).
But I would in fact go one step further. If a basic
premise of integration is the maintenance of member states as viable
democracies in the context of integration, this implies a substantive
limitation on the scope of authority that is delegable to the supranational
level. This is an essential lesson of the history of the modern
administrative state: such substantive delegation constraints are necessary to
maintain the democratic character of the political system in a historically
recognizable sense. This does not constitute a bar to delegation -- as
the history of administrative governance on the national level suggests, the
line between the authority which must be maintained and that which is delegable
can evolve. But actors must be sensitive to the fact that line exists,
unless and until they are prepared to recognize that the member states have
been absorbed into a genuinely autonomous democratic system at the
supranational level. But as long as it is a "demoicracy" as
opposed to a "democracy," this substantive limitation must be
respected.
2. Accountability
Beyond delegation constraints, demoicracy has a
legal/institutional impact on the legitimation of authority which can otherwise lawfully be
delegated. Because the supranational level is weakly legitimated in
autonomously democratic and constitutional terms, it requires mechanisms to "borrow"
that legitimacy from the member states. This is the argument of Power
and Legitimacy and I will not recapitulate it here. The
constitutional bodies of the member states (executive, legislative, and
judicial) remain as essential mechanisms through which the legitimacy of
functionally necessary supranational governance is "mediated,"
following the model of the "postwar constitutional settlement of administrative
governance." See my book for
details. These mechanisms are essential to overcoming what I call the
"democratic disconnect" that afflicts technocratic-juristocratic
integration.
3. Treaty interpretation
This is one of the foci of my 1999 article in the Columbia
Law Review, entitled "Democratic
Legitimacy and the Administrative Character of Supranationalism: the Example of
the European Community." Contrary to the approach of the ECJ --
which views the functional demands of integration as the paramount interpretive
principle -- demoicracy implies that the maintenance of democracy on the
national level deserves at least equal, and sometimes paramount weight.
This will have an impact on the interpretation on such issues as
subsidiarity and "legal basis" disputes. The 1999
article as well as later work goes into extensive detail on each.
4. Conflicts between orders
Here is where demoicracy links to Christian
Joerges's work: the concept implies substantive doctrines to
adjudicate between conflicting orders. But I would go a step further,
building on a model that Joseph once famously advocated (calling for a
"Constitutional Council" for the Union). I would call that a
"European Conflicts Tribunal" and detail that proposal in my 1999
article (summarized also in the Conclusion to Power
and Legitimacy). The point of the proposal is to legalize
conflicts to the greatest extent possible but, in extremis, to allow member
states to invoke "national democracy preservation" (if you will) as
the basis for a post-hoc opt out of policies that ultimately prove endangering
on that score. This sounds much more radical than what it would prove to
be in practice -- see both my 1999
article and the Conclusion to Power
and Legitimacy to get a sense of its tempered qualities.
Properly designed, such an institution would great reinforce integration
by creating a legal mechanism whose telos, in extremis, would be to supervise
the "equilbrium" in a Weiler sense, ensuring genuine
"constitutional tolerance," and hence "demoicracy."
No comments:
Post a Comment