告别制宪权力?欧洲未来会议,公民大会和最低限度的民主

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Markus Patberg
{"title":"告别制宪权力?欧洲未来会议,公民大会和最低限度的民主","authors":"Markus Patberg","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I ask about the extent to which the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) has advanced democracy in the European Union. I critically engage with the claim that the CoFoE’s success should not be measured by whether it enabled constituent power, or ultimately results in treaty reforms, but by the fact that, by introducing citizens’ assemblies to EU politics, it has laid the foundation for participatory democracy in the European Union. Drawing on established theories of participatory democracy, I argue that this interpretation misses the point. To put forward an alternative view, I revisit James Bohman’s concept of a democratic minimum. The best democratic defence of permanent EU citizens’ assemblies is that they could provide citizens with the capacity to initiate deliberation about common concerns – and thus function as a nucleus for constituent power in the European Union. Nevertheless, the idea should be viewed with caution, as permanent citizens’ assemblies could just as well become a democratic fig-leaf allowing EU institutions to reject calls for fundamental reforms. Much therefore depends on their institutional design.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Farewell to constituent power? The Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens’ assemblies and the democratic minimum\",\"authors\":\"Markus Patberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s2045381723000333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this article, I ask about the extent to which the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) has advanced democracy in the European Union. I critically engage with the claim that the CoFoE’s success should not be measured by whether it enabled constituent power, or ultimately results in treaty reforms, but by the fact that, by introducing citizens’ assemblies to EU politics, it has laid the foundation for participatory democracy in the European Union. Drawing on established theories of participatory democracy, I argue that this interpretation misses the point. To put forward an alternative view, I revisit James Bohman’s concept of a democratic minimum. The best democratic defence of permanent EU citizens’ assemblies is that they could provide citizens with the capacity to initiate deliberation about common concerns – and thus function as a nucleus for constituent power in the European Union. Nevertheless, the idea should be viewed with caution, as permanent citizens’ assemblies could just as well become a democratic fig-leaf allowing EU institutions to reject calls for fundamental reforms. Much therefore depends on their institutional design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Constitutionalism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Constitutionalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000333\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Constitutionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000333","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: 1

摘要

在这篇文章中,我询问了欧洲未来会议(CoFoE)在欧盟推进民主的程度。我对以下观点持批判态度:CoFoE的成功不应以它是否实现了选民权力或最终导致了条约改革来衡量,而应以这样一个事实来衡量:通过将公民大会引入欧盟政治,它为欧盟的参与式民主奠定了基础。根据参与式民主的既定理论,我认为这种解释没有抓住要点。为了提出另一种观点,我重温了詹姆斯·博曼(James Bohman)关于民主最低限度的概念。对永久性欧盟公民大会的最佳民主辩护是,它们可以为公民提供发起审议共同关切问题的能力——从而发挥欧盟组成权力核心的作用。然而,应该谨慎看待这一想法,因为永久公民大会也可能成为民主的遮羞布,让欧盟机构拒绝要求根本改革的呼声。因此,很大程度上取决于它们的制度设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Farewell to constituent power? The Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens’ assemblies and the democratic minimum
Abstract In this article, I ask about the extent to which the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) has advanced democracy in the European Union. I critically engage with the claim that the CoFoE’s success should not be measured by whether it enabled constituent power, or ultimately results in treaty reforms, but by the fact that, by introducing citizens’ assemblies to EU politics, it has laid the foundation for participatory democracy in the European Union. Drawing on established theories of participatory democracy, I argue that this interpretation misses the point. To put forward an alternative view, I revisit James Bohman’s concept of a democratic minimum. The best democratic defence of permanent EU citizens’ assemblies is that they could provide citizens with the capacity to initiate deliberation about common concerns – and thus function as a nucleus for constituent power in the European Union. Nevertheless, the idea should be viewed with caution, as permanent citizens’ assemblies could just as well become a democratic fig-leaf allowing EU institutions to reject calls for fundamental reforms. Much therefore depends on their institutional design.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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