Rethinking the Instrumentality of European Private Law

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
{"title":"Rethinking the Instrumentality of European Private Law","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/erpl2022023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article challenges the view that European Union private law (EPL) is inherently instrumental, due to its role in achieving the EU Treaties’ goals, such as completing the internal market. In particular, we claim that characterizing EPL as instrumental, and contrasting it to national private laws in that regard, misses the mark. This is because, contrary to national private laws, it is only a partial legal order. Accordingly, theoretical approaches to private law and its goals that have been devised for complete legal orders cannot apply to EPL, which is not self-standing and needs to be complemented by national private law concepts, in line with the EU principle of national autonomy. Moreover, even if taken on its own, EPL is not particularly instrumental. On the one hand, many of its provisions can be interpreted as applying non-instrumental considerations, such as personal autonomy and interpersonal justice. On the other hand, the European Court of Justice often uses non-instrumental concepts when adjudicating private law disputes and is not focused solely on implementing the public goals of the Treaties. In view of these facts, commentators should be careful when asserting that EPL is particularly instrumental, when compared to national private laws.","PeriodicalId":43736,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Private Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2022023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article challenges the view that European Union private law (EPL) is inherently instrumental, due to its role in achieving the EU Treaties’ goals, such as completing the internal market. In particular, we claim that characterizing EPL as instrumental, and contrasting it to national private laws in that regard, misses the mark. This is because, contrary to national private laws, it is only a partial legal order. Accordingly, theoretical approaches to private law and its goals that have been devised for complete legal orders cannot apply to EPL, which is not self-standing and needs to be complemented by national private law concepts, in line with the EU principle of national autonomy. Moreover, even if taken on its own, EPL is not particularly instrumental. On the one hand, many of its provisions can be interpreted as applying non-instrumental considerations, such as personal autonomy and interpersonal justice. On the other hand, the European Court of Justice often uses non-instrumental concepts when adjudicating private law disputes and is not focused solely on implementing the public goals of the Treaties. In view of these facts, commentators should be careful when asserting that EPL is particularly instrumental, when compared to national private laws.
对欧洲私法工具性的再思考
这篇文章挑战了这样一种观点,即欧盟私法(EPL)在实现欧盟条约的目标(如完成内部市场)方面发挥着固有的作用。特别是,我们声称,将EPL定性为工具性的,并在这方面将其与国家私法进行对比,是没有切中要害的。这是因为,与国家私法相反,它只是一种局部的法律秩序。因此,为完整的法律秩序而设计的私法理论方法及其目标不能适用于EPL,因为EPL不是独立的,需要由国家私法概念来补充,符合欧盟的国家自治原则。此外,即使单独进行,EPL也不是特别有用。一方面,它的许多条款可以被解释为适用非工具性考虑,如个人自主和人际公正。另一方面,欧洲法院在裁决私法争端时经常使用非工具性概念,而不仅仅侧重于实现条约的公共目标。鉴于这些事实,评论员在断言EPL与国家私法相比特别重要时应该小心。
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
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
×
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