Beyond Legality- Before Democracy: Rule of Law Caveats in the EU Two Level Systems

G. Palombella
{"title":"Beyond Legality- Before Democracy: Rule of Law Caveats in the EU Two Level Systems","authors":"G. Palombella","doi":"10.1017/cbo9781316258774.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What are the grounds on which the EU should be entitled to dictate substantive RoL measures within a member country, that do not attach to the infringement of any other law of the EU itself?<br><br>The main, genuinely ‘European’, justification for such EU interference into a Member State domain should simply be in the relevance of the peoples and individuals directly to the Union as an autonomous supranational ‘unity’. <br><br>The quality of a distinctive EU RoL, as an ultimate safeguard and a template of reference should come to the forefront. But all in all, the main aspects of the RoL propounded in this realm, concisely amount to the idea of vertical legality (on a mainly market driven viability) and to some not fully defined RoL as a system-relative notion. Moreover, some relevant further aspects are in order: the chronic lack of legal (let alone political) accountability of EU itself, particularly in its substantive governance mode (especially in the well known infra-structure of agencies and comitology), decision making process’s relative independence of legal review, let alone the innovating practice stretching the limits of legally legitimate powers in the times of financial crisis. It is equally complex for the EU to propound a valued ideal phrasing it through requirements of thicker import than that which itself has practiced on a very thin interpretation. So, a vicious circle surfaces: the deep justification for a RoL oversight reinforcing by the EU can be traced back to the protection of persons as Europeans and is pointed upon the aspiration of the EU to be- and grow up as- an autonomous polity and an autonomous legal order. But the RoL records of such a supranational entity, made of peoples and individuals (not just by Member States), would hardly be seen as fully credible and reliable. For the EU can certainly be a RoL guardian over its Member States due, among the rest, to associative obligations already agreed upon by States: but to be such a guardian is much different from being itself the justification and the ultimate reference, the space of citizenship of its peoples and of each Europeans, independently of the authority of their national States. In this case, the European citizens should be met by EU exemplary RoL evidence and reputation: something that they would now barely recognise. <br><br>","PeriodicalId":112419,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Governmental Organizations (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: International Governmental Organizations (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316258774.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

What are the grounds on which the EU should be entitled to dictate substantive RoL measures within a member country, that do not attach to the infringement of any other law of the EU itself?

The main, genuinely ‘European’, justification for such EU interference into a Member State domain should simply be in the relevance of the peoples and individuals directly to the Union as an autonomous supranational ‘unity’.

The quality of a distinctive EU RoL, as an ultimate safeguard and a template of reference should come to the forefront. But all in all, the main aspects of the RoL propounded in this realm, concisely amount to the idea of vertical legality (on a mainly market driven viability) and to some not fully defined RoL as a system-relative notion. Moreover, some relevant further aspects are in order: the chronic lack of legal (let alone political) accountability of EU itself, particularly in its substantive governance mode (especially in the well known infra-structure of agencies and comitology), decision making process’s relative independence of legal review, let alone the innovating practice stretching the limits of legally legitimate powers in the times of financial crisis. It is equally complex for the EU to propound a valued ideal phrasing it through requirements of thicker import than that which itself has practiced on a very thin interpretation. So, a vicious circle surfaces: the deep justification for a RoL oversight reinforcing by the EU can be traced back to the protection of persons as Europeans and is pointed upon the aspiration of the EU to be- and grow up as- an autonomous polity and an autonomous legal order. But the RoL records of such a supranational entity, made of peoples and individuals (not just by Member States), would hardly be seen as fully credible and reliable. For the EU can certainly be a RoL guardian over its Member States due, among the rest, to associative obligations already agreed upon by States: but to be such a guardian is much different from being itself the justification and the ultimate reference, the space of citizenship of its peoples and of each Europeans, independently of the authority of their national States. In this case, the European citizens should be met by EU exemplary RoL evidence and reputation: something that they would now barely recognise.

超越合法性——在民主之前:欧盟两级体系中的法治警告
欧盟有什么理由有权在成员国内部规定实质性的RoL措施,而不附带违反欧盟本身的任何其他法律?欧盟干涉成员国领域的主要、真正的“欧洲”理由应该是,作为一个自治的超国家“统一”,人民和个人与欧盟直接相关。作为终极保障和参考模板,欧盟独特的RoL的质量应该被放在首位。但总而言之,在这个领域提出的RoL的主要方面,简单地说就是垂直合法性(主要是市场驱动的可行性)的想法,以及一些没有完全定义为系统相关概念的RoL。此外,一些相关的进一步方面是有序的:欧盟本身长期缺乏法律(更不用说政治)问责制,特别是在其实质性治理模式(特别是在众所周知的机构和委员会基础设施中),决策过程相对独立于法律审查,更不用说在金融危机时期扩大合法权力限制的创新实践。对于欧盟来说,提出一个有价值的理想,通过更严格的进口要求来表述,而不是自己在非常狭隘的解释上实践的要求,同样是复杂的。因此,一个恶性循环浮出水面:欧盟加强RoL监督的深层理由可以追溯到保护作为欧洲人的人,并指向欧盟成为一个自治政体和自治法律秩序的愿望。但是,这样一个由人民和个人(不仅仅是成员国)组成的超国家实体的RoL记录很难被视为完全可信和可靠的。因为欧盟当然可以成为其成员国的RoL监护人,其中包括各国已经商定的联合义务:但成为这样的监护人本身与成为其人民和每个欧洲人的公民身份空间的理由和最终参考有很大不同,独立于其民族国家的权威。在这种情况下,欧洲公民应该得到欧盟模范的RoL证据和声誉:这是他们现在几乎认不出来的东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信