Will Phelan Wins 2016 Book Prize of the Political Studies Association of Ireland

 We are very pleased to pass on the news that network member Will Phelan (Trinity College Dublin) has been awarded the 2016 Brian Farrell Book Prize by the Political Studies Association of Ireland for the best book published in political science by a PSAI member in 2015. He won the award for In Place of Inter-State Retaliation: The European Union's Rejection of WTO-style Trade Sanctions and Trade Remedies (OUP). Congratulations Will! For those interested, the publisher's blurb is below and more information can be found here.

* * *

Unlike many other trade regimes, the European Union forbids the use of inter-state retaliation to enforce its obligations, and rules out the use of common 'escape' mechanisms such as anti-dumping between the EU member states. How does the EU do without these mechanisms that appear so vital to the political viability of other international trade regimes, including the World Trade Organization? How, therefore, is the European legal order, with the European Court of Justice at its centre, able to be so much more binding and intrusive than the legal obligations of many other trade regimes?

This book puts forward a new explanation of a key part of the European Union's legal system, emphasising its break with the inter-state retaliation mechanisms and how Europe's special form of legal integration is facilitated by intra-industry trade, parliamentary forms of national government, and European welfare states.

It argues first that the EU member states have allowed the enforcement of EU obligations by domestic courts in order to avoid the problems associated with enforcing trade obligations by constant threats of trade retaliation. It argues second that the EU member states have been able to accept such a binding form of dispute settlement and treaty obligation because the policy adjustments required by the European legal order were politically acceptable. High levels of intra-industry trade reduced the severity of the economic adjustments required by the expansion of the European market, and inclusive and authoritative democratic institutions in the member states allowed policy-makers to prioritise a general interest in reliable trading relationships even when policy changes affected significant domestic lobbies. Furthermore, generous national social security arrangements protected national constituents against any adverse consequences arising from the expansion of European law and the intensification of the European market.

The European legal order should therefore be understood as a legalized dispute resolution institution well suited to an international trade and integration regime made up of highly interdependent parliamentary welfare states.

Tweet Storm on Karlsruhe’s OMT Judgment (with additional commentary)

With the Brexit referendum tomorrow, it will be easy to overlook yesterday’s OMT judgment from the German Federal Constitutional Court (English press release here, full German judgment here).  The conventional wisdom is that the decision is the usual “yes, but…” effort.  There’s some element of truth in that, but it also misses some important dimensions of ruling that will no doubt occupy commentators on Germany’s legal relationship with the EU for some time.  I’m still absorbing the judgment and also awaiting an English translation.  But in the interim, I thought I’d pass on my tweets from yesterday that tried to identify several key paragraphs worthy of deeper analysis. 

My current bottom line on the judgment is this: It’s basically a ripeness decision (to use American terminology) even if it's cast as a judgment on the merits. The Court acknowledged that, within the CJEU’s sphere of competence, the CJEU had the right to rule on the meaning of OMT in the first instance, as it did in Gauweiler.  The German Court, in exercising "ultra vires control," would give some significant deference to the CJEU’s interpretation.  But even with this deference, the Court found that the CJEU’s interpretation barely passed muster (indeed, it implied that the CJEU may well have been ultra vires, just not “manifestly” so, per the standard from Honeywell). So, should OMT actually ever be implemented, it will require continued monitoring by German political actors and perhaps even a new ruling by Karlsruhe.

The Court also went to great lengths, moreover, to define the limits and constitutional underpinnings of its otherwise “Europe-friendly” deference--what I called in Power and Legitimacy (pp.166 et seq) "the limits of strong deference."  This stands as a counterpoint to the CJEU's doctrine of supremacy.  And in advancing this alternative conception of EU law, the Court also strongly rejected the idea that the EU had any normative autonomy apart from what the Member States’ national constitutions permitted.  In particular, it is incumbent on all judges (supranational as well national) to police the boundaries of power delegated to the EU level in the interest of preserving democratic and constitutional legitimacy derived from the Member States. In this regard, the Court expressed profound concern about the CJEU's interpretation of the nature and scope of the ECB's independence.

In short, this a very interesting case and one worth of further study and debate.  It is also one that may have significant consequences for the future.

Emilia Korkea-aho on Third-Country Lobbying in the EU

Network member Kenneth Armstrong (Cambridge) has written to let us know that friend of the network Emilia Korkea-aho (Helsinki) has just published a piece on third-country lobbying in the European Union in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies.  Entitled "Mr Smith Goes to Brussels: Third-Country Lobbying and the Making of EU Law and Policy," the article traces the role and significance of third-country involvement in the shaping of EU norms and decisions.  

The abstract is below; the full version can be found online here for the next month.  A recommendation form for institutional subscriptions to the CYELS can be found here.

* * *

The EU’s openness towards stakeholders is central to the legitimacy of its law-making. With the rapid globalization of EU legislative activities, openness towards actors from third countries requires analysis. With reference to the notion of ‘lobbying’, this article outlines a framework for identifying the role of third country actors in EU policy processes. The two arguments brought forward suggest that third country lobbying is facilitated by the openness of Union law- and policy-making, and that third country actors contribute to EU decision-making at all stages. The article concludes with a set of questions that third country lobbying raises concerning the EU’s legitimate law-making authority in Europe and beyond.

Book Announcement: Lucas Bergkamp, Civil Liability in Europe for Terrorism-Related Risk (Cambridge 2015)

We are pleased to announce that network member Lucas Bergkamp (Hunton & Williams) has co-written a new book entitled "Civil Liability for Terrorism-Related Risk," published by Cambridge University Press.  The book analyzes liability for risks related to terrorism under international, EU, and Member State law, and a series of related matters, from insurance to contractual limitation of liability.  The publishers' blurb is below; further information can be found here or obtained from Lucas.

* * *

Today terrorism has become a world-wide phenomenon which does not stop at the European borders. Following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and terrorist attacks in Paris, Madrid and London, concerns have arisen in Europe about potential liability exposure for terrorism-related damage. This book tackles the problem of civil liability for damage caused by terrorist acts from several angles. The authors expertly deliver a comprehensive analysis of terrorism-related risk under international and EU law and the national tort law systems of seven representative EU Member States. They also provide a comparison of the situation in Europe to the liability environment in the US. Risk mitigation strategies are considered and critically assessed, as are alternative systems for redressing terrorism-related risks. The book concludes with a reflection on the analysis and presents possible strategies for future regulation by the European lawmakers.

Turkuler Isiksel on "Europe's Functional Constitution" at NYU's Jean Monnet Center (November 20, 2015) (RSVP required)

We are pleased to pass along to the network an invitation from NYU's Jean Monnet Center to join a celebration on Friday November 20, 2015, of a forthcoming book from network member Turkuler Isiksel (Columbia & currently Emile Noël Fellow at NYU): "Europe's Functional Constitution: A Theory of Constitutionalism Beyond the State" to be published by OUP in 2016.  

Turku will give a presentation on her forthcoming book; network members Joseph Weiler (EUI & NYU), Piet Eeckhout (UCL & currently Senior Emile Noël Fellow at NYU), and Daniel Francis (NYU), along with friend of the network Jan Klabbers (Helsinki & currently Senior Emile Noël Fellow at NYU), will comment.  Network member Gráinne de Búrca (NYU) will moderate the session.

Details follow; please note the RSVP request to jeanmonnet@nyu.edu.

* * *

Europe's Functional Constitution: A Theory of Constitutionalism Beyond the State

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:30-2:00PM (lunch served from 12:00PM) the Jean Monnet Center will host Turkuler Isiksel‘s presentation of her forthcoming book Europe’s Functional Constitution: A Theory of Constitutionalism Beyond the State (coming out with OUP's Constitutional Theory series in 2016).

Commentators: Joseph Weiler, University Professor, NYU; President of EUI; Piet Eeckhout, Professor of EU Law, University College London; Senior Emile Noël Fellow, NYU School of Law, 2015-16, Johannes Klabbers, Professor of International Organizations Law, University of Helsinki; Senior Emile Noël Fellow, NYU School of Law, 2015-16, and Daniel Francis, JSD candidate, NYU School of Law.

Moderator: Gráinne de Búrca, Florence Ellinwood Allen Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Hauser Global Law School and Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice.

Location: 1st Floor Lounge, 22 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10011.

Please kindly RSVP by email to jeanmonnet@nyu.edu if you would like to attend.

Network on SSRN: Dimitry Kochenov, "EU Law without the Rule of Law: Is the Veneration of Autonomy Worth It?"

We are pleased to welcome to the network Dimitry Kochenov (Groningen), who this year will be a fellow and visiting research scholar in the Law and Public Affairs Program at Princeton.  Dimitry has alerted us to a new piece he has posted on SSRN, entitled "EU Law without the Rule of Law: Is the Veneration of Autonomy Worth It?"  This article is forthcoming in the Yearbook of European Law and is also directly relevant to our ongoing discussions on the accession of the EU to the ECHR.  The abstract is below and the full paper can downloaded here.

* * *

This is a critical analysis of the Rule of Law in the EU, concluding that the Union is not driven by the Rule of Law as an institutional ideal. Instead, the Union deploys the “Rule of Law”, viewed to a large extent through the lens of the autonomy of the EU legal order, to shield itself from potential internal and external contestation. This is precisely the contrary to what the classical understanding of the Rule of Law would imply. The Union thus suffers, it is argued, as a result of misrepresenting legality at the EU level, selling it to friendly observers under the label of the “Rule of Law”, while compelling reasons exist to distinguish the two. To do so, Gianluigi Palombella’s vision of the Rule of Law as an institutional ideal is employed, implying that the law – gubernaculum – should always be controlled by other law – jurisdictio – lying outwith the sovereign’s reach. Unable to boast any jurisdictio expressly intended as the legal aspect of positive law beyond the internal market logic programmed into the Treaties, the EU emerges as a somewhat rudimentary legal system, with no strong guarantees of legal non-domination extending beyond the Treaty text. The paper demonstrates the clear negative consequences of the prevalent deficient understanding of the Rule of Law for both constitutional levels: the EU and the Member States. One of the curious outcomes of the current reading of the Rule of Law in the EU is that this principle can be presented as demanding to trump the values of the Treaties as well as of the national constitutions in the name of upholding formal organisational considerations seemingly underpinning the EU legal system, resulting in anarchical confusion.

Kim Lane Scheppele in Politico: "The Hungary Games: How Budapest evades its migrants obligations"

Network member Kim Lane Scheppele (Princeton) has a alerted us to a new piece she has up on Politico (Europe), entitled "The Hungary Games: How Budapest evades its migrants obligations."  The first two paragraphs are below and the remainder can be read here.

* * *

The Hungarian government is building a fence on the border with Serbia to keep out the ever-increasing flow of refugees to Europe. But just look at a map. Serbia represents a tiny slice of Hungary’s meandering southern border. If desperate asylum-seekers have traveled thousands of miles to get to Europe, a fence that runs for a little more than 100 miles won’t stop them. Why is Hungary building a small fence on a long border?


The fence will divert migrants toward Croatia or Romania on their way to final destinations in the wealthier parts of Europe. And that is precisely the point. [continue reading here]

Conference at LSE: 'Resilience or Resignation? National Parliaments and the EU', 10 April 2015

Friend of the network Davor Jancic (British Academy Newton Fellow, LSE), has asked us to forward the announcement below of the conference Resilience or Resignation? National Parliaments and the EU, which will take place at LSE on April 10.  Included in the speaker line-up is network member Peter Lindseth (UConn, this term Senior Emile Noël Fellow at NYU), as well as Katarzyna Granat (Emile Noël Fellow at NYU).  More details can be found here (including RSVP details) and the full announcement is below.

* * *

CFP: Sheffield University (UK) Conference on Skilled Migration Policies, September 15, 2015

Network member Francesca Strumia (Sheffield University) has asked that we pass along the following call for papers for a conference in September entitled "Unravelling the Talent Tale: Skilled Migration Policies between National Images, Membership Bonds and Economic Priorities."  See below and here for details.

***

Unravelling the Talent Tale: Skilled Migration Policies between National Images, Membership Bonds and Economic Priorities

Sheffield University School of Law

Tuesday September 15, 2015

with Professor Peter J. Spiro, Charles R. Weiner Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law (keynote speaker)

This one-day interdisciplinary conference, jointly sponsored by the Sheffield Faculty of Social Sciences Migration Research Group and the Sheffield Centre for International and European Law, proposes to bring together scholars, practitioners and institutional actors involved with the development and practice of skilled migration policies to consider a range of questions targeting the interrelation between attracting skilled migrants and redefining community boundaries and membership bonds.

Which concepts of talent underpin skilled migration policies and what kind of stake in the community do these concepts relate to? How do skilled migration policies alter existing paradigms for community closure and the nature of the ‘genuine links’ among community members? How do the claims to admission of skilled migrants relate to those of ‘standard’ migrants? How do these policies relate to narratives of sovereignty and nationalism?

Proposals for papers addressing the above questions from legal, political, sociological perspectives are encouraged. Paper proposals not exceeding 500 words in length and a one paragraph bio should be emailed by 30th April 2015 to skilledmigration.2015@gmail.com.  Successful applicants will be notified by mid-June 2015

For additional details and the full call please see http://migrationgovernance.org/activities_items/call-papers-skilled-migration-conference/.

Book Announcement: Michelle Egan, "Single Markets: Economic Integration in Europe and the United States"

Network member Michelle Egan (American University) has alerted us that her new book, Single Markets: Economic Integration in Europe and the United States, is now available from the Oxford University Press.  The publisher's blurb is below, and more information is available from the OUP site here.

***

This timely book provides in-depth analytical comparison of the nineteenth century evolution of the American single market with corresponding political, economic, and social developments in post-WWII European efforts to create a single European market. Building the regulatory framework needed for successful adoption of an integrated single market across diverse political units represents one of the most important issues in comparative political economy. What accounts for the political success or failure in creating integrated markets in their respective territories? When social discontent threatens market integration with populist backlash, what must be done to create political support and greater legitimacy?

Single Markets focuses on the creation of integrated economies, in which the United States and European Union experienced sharply contested ideas about the operation of their respective markets, conflict over the allocation of institutional authority, and pressure from competing political, economic, and social forces over the role and consequences of increased competition. Drawing upon four case studies, the book highlights the contestation surrounding the US and EU's efforts to create common currencies, expand their borders and territories, and deal with the pressures of populist parties, regional interests and varied fiscal and economic challenges. Theoretically, the book draws on work in European integration and American Political Development (APD) to illustrate that the consolidation of markets in the US and EU took place in conjunction with the expansion of state regulatory power and pressure for democratic reform.

Single Markets situates the consolidation of single markets in the US and EU in a broader comparative context that draws on research in economics, public administration, political science, law, and history.

Book Announcement: Antoine Vauchez, Brokering Europe: Euro-Lawyers and the Making of a Transnational Polity

Network member Antoine Vauchez (Paris I-Sorbonne/CNRS) has let us know that his book L'Union par le droit has now appeared in English translation from Cambridge.  Entitled Brokering Europe: Euro-Lawyers and the Making of a Transnational Polity, the publisher's blurb is below and more details can be found on the CUP site here.

* * *

Since the 1960s, the nature and the future of the European Union have been defined in legal terms. Yet, we are still in need of an explanation as to how this entanglement between law and EU polity-building emerged and how it was maintained over time. While most of the literature offers a disembodied account of European legal integration, Brokering Europe reveals the multifaceted roles Euro-lawyers have played in EU polity, notably beyond the litigation arena. In particular, the book points at select transnational groups of multipositioned legal entrepreneurs which have been in a situation to elevate the role of law in all sorts of EU venues. In doing so, it draws from a new set of intellectual resources (field theory) and empirical strategies only very recently mobilized for the study of the EU. Grounded on an extensive historical investigation, Brokering Europe provides a revised narrative of the 'constitutionalization of Europe'.

Book Announcement: Susan Rose-Ackerman et al., Due Process of Lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European Union (CUP 2015)

Network member Susan Rose-Ackerman (Yale), together with Stefanie Egidy and James Fowkes, has a new book out from CUP entitled Due Process of Lawmaking: The United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European Union.  The publisher's blurb is below and more information can be found on the CUP site here.

* * *

With nuanced perspective and detailed case studies, Due Process of Lawmaking explores the law of lawmaking in the United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European Union. This comparative work deals broadly with public policymaking in the legislative and executive branches. It frames the inquiry through three principles of legitimacy: democracy, rights, and competence. Drawing on the insights of positive political economy, the authors explicate the ways in which courts uphold these principles in the different systems. Judicial review in the American presidential system suggests lessons for the parliamentary systems in Germany and South Africa, while the experience of parliamentary government yields potential insights into the reform of the American law of lawmaking. Taken together, the national experiences shed light on the special case of the EU. In dialogue with each other, the case studies demonstrate the interplay between constitutional principles and political imperatives under a range of different conditions.

Book Announcement: William Phelan, In Place of Inter-State Retaliation: The European Union's Rejection of WTO-style Trade Sanctions and Trade Remedies (OUP)

Network member William Phelan (Trinity College Dublin) has a new book out from OUP entitled In Place of Inter-State Retaliation: The European Union's Rejection of WTO-style Trade Sanctions and Trade Remedies.  For those interested, there will be a book rountable at the upcoming EUSA Conference in Boston (see the full program here), in which two network members will be providing comments, Daniel Kelemen (Rutgers) and Peter Lindseth (UConn), along with Peter Hall (Harvard), Alexandra Hennessy (Seton Hall), and Jonathan Slapin (Houston).  For those who want to learn more now, the publisher's blurb is below and more information can be found here.

* * *

Unlike many other trade regimes, the European Union forbids the use of inter-state retaliation to enforce its obligations, and rules out the use of common 'escape' mechanisms such as anti-dumping between the EU member states. How does the EU do without these mechanisms that appear so vital to the political viability of other international trade regimes, including the World Trade Organization? How, therefore, is the European legal order, with the European Court of Justice at its centre, able to be so much more binding and intrusive than the legal obligations of many other trade regimes?

This book puts forward a new explanation of a key part of the European Union's legal system, emphasising its break with the inter-state retaliation mechanisms and how Europe's special form of legal integration is facilitated by intra-industry trade, parliamentary forms of national government, and European welfare states.

It argues first that the EU member states have allowed the enforcement of EU obligations by domestic courts in order to avoid the problems associated with enforcing trade obligations by constant threats of trade retaliation. It argues second that the EU member states have been able to accept such a binding form of dispute settlement and treaty obligation because the policy adjustments required by the European legal order were politically acceptable. High levels of intra-industry trade reduced the severity of the economic adjustments required by the expansion of the European market, and inclusive and authoritative democratic institutions in the member states allowed policy-makers to prioritise a general interest in reliable trading relationships even when policy changes affected significant domestic lobbies. Furthermore, generous national social security arrangements protected national constituents against any adverse consequences arising from the expansion of European law and the intensification of the European market.

The European legal order should therefore be understood as a legalized dispute resolution institution well suited to an international trade and integration regime made up of highly interdependent parliamentary welfare states.

The Network on SSRN: Neil Walker on Secession Movements and EU Membership

Network member Neil Walker (Edinburgh, visiting this term at Yale) has alerted us to a new piece posted on SSRN entitled "Beyond Secession? Law in the Framing of the National Polity," which is forthcoming in a collective volume on nationalization and globalization from Hart Publishing.  The abstract is below and the full article can be downloaded here.

* * *

This paper examines the legal and political course of contemporary secession struggles within the European Union, with particular reference to the recent Scottish referendum, the 'consultation' in Catalonia, and the developing situation in Flanders. The focus is upon the way in which secession debates have become tied up with the question of the EU membership prospects of the potentially seceding state. The EU institutions themselves have adopted an attitude of 'conservative neutrality' to these prospects and to the legitimacy of secession more generally – a minimalist approach which largely defers to the various and differing domestic constitutional arrangements of the ‘parent’ state and which, at best, does not exclude new membership where secession may be compatible with these domestic arrangements. The paper contrasts the unwillingness of the EU to assume a directorial role in the theatre of European secession – an attitude which has some anomalous consequences but which accurately reflects the EU’s weak legitimacy over such a ‘high political’ question – with its highly significant role in the more elementary matter of stage (re) design. For the very existence and development of the EU as a supranational entity, alters the basic calculus through which we attribute value – both instrumental and expressive – to forms of political life at, above and below the level of the state. And while the full historical consequences of the EU’s reframing exercise remain unsettled and unpredictable, they are already reshaping political expectations and aspirations in ways that alter our very sense of the significance of 'secession' and associated statuses.

"Futures of the European Union" at NYU (Dec. 12): Dieter Grimm, Miguel Poaires Maduro, Gráinne de Búrca, and Christine Landfried

Network member Gráinne de Búrca asked us to pass along the information below regarding "Futures of the European Union," which will take place on December 12 at the Deutches Haus at NYU.  The gathering will feature Dieter Grimm, Miguel Poiares Maduro, and Christine Landfried, as well as Gráinne herself. Details are below.  If you are in the New York area, please give consideration to attending.

* * *

Max Weber Guest Lectures: Futures of the European Union

Friday, December 12, 6:00 p.m.

Deutsches Haus, New York University

Deutsches Haus at NYU and the NYU Center for European and Mediterranean Studies present "Futures of the European Union" featuring presentations by Dieter Grimm and Miguel Poiares Maduro with a commentary by Gráinne de Búrca. The event will be moderated by Christine Landfried and is part of the Max Weber Guest Lectures 2014 series.

Dieter Grimm is Professor Emeritus of Law at Humboldt University in Berlin and Visiting Professor at Yale Law School. He was a Justice of the Constitutional Court of Germany as well as the Rector of the Wissenschaftskolleg (Institute for Advanced Study) in Berlin.

Miguel Poiares Maduro is the Portuguese Minister for Regional Development. He was a Professor of Law at the European University Institute in Florence and a Visiting Professor at Yale Law School. He was also an Advocate General of the European Court of Justice.

Gráinne de Búrca is the Florence Ellinwood Allen Professor of Law at NYU and Director of the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice. She was a Professor at Harvard Law School and at the European University Institute in Florence.

Christine Landfried is the Max Weber Professor at NYU.

Events at Deutsches Haus are free of charge. If you would like to attend this event, please send us an email to deutscheshaus.rsvp@nyu.edu. Space at Deutsches Haus is limited; please arrive ten minutes prior to the event. Thank you!

This event is sponsored by the NYU Center for European and Mediterranean Studies, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), and Deutsches Haus at NYU.

The Network on SSRN: Gráinne de Búrca, International Law Before the Courts: The European Union and the United States Compared

Network member Gráinne de Búrca (NYU Law) has alerted us to a new article she has posted on SSRN, entitled “International Law Before the Courts: the EuropeanUnion and the United States Compared.”  The article is forthcoming from the Virginia Journal ofInternational Law.  The abstract is below and the full article may be downloaded here.

* * *

Against the background of a broadly shared perception of the US and the EU as very different kinds of international actors, and a related assumption that the approaches of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice towards the internalization of international law are also very different, this article takes a systematic look at the approaches of the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court to the internalization of international law over the decade 2002-2012. The perception of the US in recent decades has been as a frequently unilateralist and exceptionalist actor in international relations, with the Supreme Court remaining resistant to law which emanates from outside the American legislative process, or which lacks a clear domestic imprimatur as applicable US law. The EU, by comparison, is seen as having a greater commitment to multilateralism and to the development and observance of international law, and the case-law of the Court of Justice has until recently been broadly viewed – with WTO jurisprudence seen as an exception – as actively contributing to shaping that image through its embrace and internalization of international law norms. The analysis over a ten-year period of the case law of the two courts dealing with international law suggests that, rather than a simplified picture of the Supreme Court as the skeptical judicial arm of an internationally exceptionalist United States and the CJEU as the embracing judicial arm of an open and internationalist European Union, there are many more commonalities between the approaches of the two courts than conventional depictions acknowledge.

The Network on SSRN: Philomila Tsoukala on Household Regulation in the Crisis of European Integration

Network member Philomila Tsoukala (Georgetown) has posted a new article on SSRN, entitled “Household Regulation and European Integration: The Family Portrait of a Crisis.”  The article is forthcoming from the American Journal of Comparative Law and can be downloaded in full here.  The abstract is below.

* * *

This article develops a theoretical framework for analyzing the regulation of the household and its effects on the economy. Incorporating insights from family economics, comparative family law, legal realism, political economy and feminism, it describes the array of different legal regimes that can affect household composition and function. The article then analyzes the case of Greece using this framework. It argues that the role of households organized as families was a central element in the Greek debt crisis, overlooked by scholars and policymakers alike. It identifies the host of legal regimes that helped consolidate families as the main providers of both welfare and employment and analyzes the consequences of this organization for Greece’s economy. Finally, the article argues that a household based analysis offers useful comparative insights in the context of the euro crisis and its management. More specifically, it elucidates how the structural reforms now required through the European Semester necessitate a dramatic transformation of basic schemes of welfare provisioning. It argues that without additional support these transformations are likely to fail or have dramatic unintended consequences.

National Constitutional Rights as a Limit on the Application of European Law in Integration's Early Decades (Will Phelan)

Network member Will Phelan (Trinity College Dublin) has let us know about a new article entitled "The Limited Practical Relevance of National Constitutional Rights as a Constraint on the National Application of European Law in the Early Decades of European Integration". The article is available from the Irish Journal of European Law and can be downloaded in full here. An abstract is below.

Scholarship on the early development of the supremacy of European law has frequently been dominated by discussion of the possibility that a directly effective European law obligation would not be applied in the national legal order because it violated a national constitutional law fundamental right, as discussed, for example, in the Frontini and Solange decisions of the Italian and German Constitutional Courts. This paper argues that such a possibility should instead be seen as of limited practical relevance. This claim is supported by early scholarship on the application of European law in the national legal orders and by the practice of constitutional review of laws giving execution to treaty obligations in Denmark, Ireland, Italy and Germany, including the German Constitutional Court’s 1955 decision on the Saar Statute. Two conclusions are drawn from this discussion. First, scholarship examining the development of European law supremacy in relation to national constitutional law fundamental rights in particular should be situated within the context of the flexible and politically sensitive approach to adjudication demonstrated by Europe’s national courts in their decisions on potential conflicts between constitutional rights and international legal obligations. Second, scholarship offering a general explanation of the development of the supremacy of European law should not focus on the national constitutional rights question to the exclusion of a thorough examination of national law solutions to European law’s lex posterior problem.