National Identity and European Integration Beyond ‘Limited Fields’

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
M. Bonelli
{"title":"National Identity and European Integration Beyond ‘Limited Fields’","authors":"M. Bonelli","doi":"10.54648/euro2021025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the concerns that led to the introduction of Article 4(2) TEU was the growing interference of EU law into areas traditionally reserved to the Member States. In particular, Article 4(2) TEU was seen as a way to better shield matters of ‘retained competences’, where EU institutions have not been conferred legislative competences, and to possibly create no-go areas for EU law. Yet, this article argues that in practice, the national identity clause has not worked as a limit to EU competences and the scope of EU law. The case law of the Court of Justice in the decade after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and in particular a set of recent decisions in sensitive areas such as religion, family and nationality analysed in this article, allow to conclude that reliance on Article 4(2) TEU does not limit the scope of application of EU law, though it may contribute to reach results that show deference to national preferences and leave room for national diversity. The article thus suggests a weaker reading of the national identity clause: not as a fully blown limit to EU competence, but as one of the many clauses that stand for, and guarantee, national diversity.\nNational identity, constitutional identity, Lisbon Treaty, EU competences, European integration","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the concerns that led to the introduction of Article 4(2) TEU was the growing interference of EU law into areas traditionally reserved to the Member States. In particular, Article 4(2) TEU was seen as a way to better shield matters of ‘retained competences’, where EU institutions have not been conferred legislative competences, and to possibly create no-go areas for EU law. Yet, this article argues that in practice, the national identity clause has not worked as a limit to EU competences and the scope of EU law. The case law of the Court of Justice in the decade after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and in particular a set of recent decisions in sensitive areas such as religion, family and nationality analysed in this article, allow to conclude that reliance on Article 4(2) TEU does not limit the scope of application of EU law, though it may contribute to reach results that show deference to national preferences and leave room for national diversity. The article thus suggests a weaker reading of the national identity clause: not as a fully blown limit to EU competence, but as one of the many clauses that stand for, and guarantee, national diversity. National identity, constitutional identity, Lisbon Treaty, EU competences, European integration
超越“有限领域”的国家认同与欧洲一体化
导致引入第4条第(2)款标准箱的一个关切是,欧盟法律对传统上保留给成员国的领域的干涉越来越大。特别是,TEU第4条第(2)款被视为更好地保护“保留权限”事项的一种方式,即欧盟机构未被授予立法权限,并可能为欧盟法律创造禁区。然而,本文认为,在实践中,国家身份条款并没有限制欧盟的权限和欧盟法律的范围。《里斯本条约》生效后十年内法院的判例法,特别是本条分析的宗教、家庭和国籍等敏感领域的一系列最新裁决,可以得出这样的结论:对《欧洲标准条约》第4(2)条的依赖并不限制欧盟法律的适用范围,尽管这可能有助于达成尊重国家偏好并为国家多样性留出空间的结果。因此,这篇文章建议对国家身份条款进行较弱的解读:它不是对欧盟权限的全面限制,而是代表和保障国家多样性的众多条款之一。国家认同、宪法认同、里斯本条约、欧盟权限、欧洲一体化
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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