Is the European Union a militant democracy? Democratic backsliding and EU disintegration

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
T. Theuns
{"title":"Is the European Union a militant democracy? Democratic backsliding and EU disintegration","authors":"T. Theuns","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n There has been much recent debate over whether the European Union is or should be a ‘militant democratic’ actor in order to respond to democratic backsliding in EU member states. This article argues that the EU is a militant democracy in a specific and limited sense, but that this may be normatively undesirable from a democratic perspective. I first develop a definition of militant democracy that focuses on the militant democratic paradox. I argue that the strongest justifications for militant democracy require that two conditions are met: an ‘existential threat condition’ and a ‘necessity condition’. Next, I analyse four ways in which the European Union has been said to be empowered to act in a militant democratic fashion to combat democratic backsliding in EU member states. I show how some, though not all, of these warrant the label ‘militant democracy’. Moving from the descriptive to the normative analysis, I then consider whether the necessity condition can ever be met since there is always the possibility of non-militant responses through forms of EU disintegration. If we accept this argument, EU actors should prioritize robust non-militant measures where possible while pro-democratic member states should disassociate from frankly autocratic member states where non-militant measures fail.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Constitutionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been much recent debate over whether the European Union is or should be a ‘militant democratic’ actor in order to respond to democratic backsliding in EU member states. This article argues that the EU is a militant democracy in a specific and limited sense, but that this may be normatively undesirable from a democratic perspective. I first develop a definition of militant democracy that focuses on the militant democratic paradox. I argue that the strongest justifications for militant democracy require that two conditions are met: an ‘existential threat condition’ and a ‘necessity condition’. Next, I analyse four ways in which the European Union has been said to be empowered to act in a militant democratic fashion to combat democratic backsliding in EU member states. I show how some, though not all, of these warrant the label ‘militant democracy’. Moving from the descriptive to the normative analysis, I then consider whether the necessity condition can ever be met since there is always the possibility of non-militant responses through forms of EU disintegration. If we accept this argument, EU actors should prioritize robust non-militant measures where possible while pro-democratic member states should disassociate from frankly autocratic member states where non-militant measures fail.
欧盟是一个激进的民主国家吗?民主倒退和欧盟解体
为了应对欧盟成员国的民主倒退,欧盟是否是或应该是一个“激进的民主”行动者,最近有很多争论。这篇文章认为,欧盟在特定和有限的意义上是一个激进的民主国家,但从民主的角度来看,这可能是不可取的。我首先提出了激进民主的定义,重点是激进民主悖论。我认为,激进民主最有力的理由需要满足两个条件:“生存威胁条件”和“必要条件”。接下来,我分析了四种方式,据说欧盟有权以激进的民主方式采取行动,打击欧盟成员国的民主倒退。我展示了其中一些(尽管不是全部)是如何被冠以“激进民主”的标签的。从描述性分析转向规范性分析,然后我考虑是否可以满足必要性条件,因为通过各种形式的欧盟解体,总是有可能做出非军事回应。如果我们接受这一论点,欧盟行为者应尽可能优先考虑强有力的非激进措施,而亲民主的成员国应与非激进措施失败的坦率专制的成员国脱钩。
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
Global Constitutionalism
Global Constitutionalism Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
×
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