{"title":"危机、重新诠释与法治:将 \"凝聚力 \"重新用作欧盟的一般支出权","authors":"Peter L. Lindseth, Päivi Leino-Sandberg","doi":"10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The EU Treaties contain no provision akin to the clause in the United States Constitution empowering spending in the ‘general Welfare’, i.e., for the general public good. Nonetheless, supporters of a broad reading of the cohesion flexibility clause, Article 175(3) TFEU, now claim that the EU, in effect, already has that power. The claim is inspired by that clause serving as the sole legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This is the cornerstone of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) Programme, the EU’s massive borrowing and spending initiative that has directed a large amount of money to national priorities to address not just economic consequences of Covid but also longer-term issues of climate change, energy transition, and digitalization. This contribution critically assesses whether Article 175(3) TFEU can serve as the basis for general spending authority in the EU, particularly at the expense of its traditional role in regional development in Europe’s economic periphery. The analysis draws on the historic purposes of cohesion policy, the existing case law on the limited scope of the cohesion flexibility clause, as well as legal opinions of the Council Legal Service on the same question. This contribution concludes that the crisis-driven reinterpretation of Article 175(3) TFEU not only undermines cohesion as developmental tool for the periphery, but it also raises serious concerns about democratic legitimacy and the rule of law at Europe’s core. The EU may well need a general spending power, but the way to achieve it is not through institutional lawyers engaging in strained crisis reinterpretation outside of public scrutiny. Instead, what is needed is democratic politics pure and simple, i.e., Treaty change.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crisis, Reinterpretation, and the Rule of Law: Repurposing ‘Cohesion’ as a General EU Spending Power\",\"authors\":\"Peter L. Lindseth, Päivi Leino-Sandberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The EU Treaties contain no provision akin to the clause in the United States Constitution empowering spending in the ‘general Welfare’, i.e., for the general public good. Nonetheless, supporters of a broad reading of the cohesion flexibility clause, Article 175(3) TFEU, now claim that the EU, in effect, already has that power. The claim is inspired by that clause serving as the sole legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This is the cornerstone of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) Programme, the EU’s massive borrowing and spending initiative that has directed a large amount of money to national priorities to address not just economic consequences of Covid but also longer-term issues of climate change, energy transition, and digitalization. This contribution critically assesses whether Article 175(3) TFEU can serve as the basis for general spending authority in the EU, particularly at the expense of its traditional role in regional development in Europe’s economic periphery. The analysis draws on the historic purposes of cohesion policy, the existing case law on the limited scope of the cohesion flexibility clause, as well as legal opinions of the Council Legal Service on the same question. This contribution concludes that the crisis-driven reinterpretation of Article 175(3) TFEU not only undermines cohesion as developmental tool for the periphery, but it also raises serious concerns about democratic legitimacy and the rule of law at Europe’s core. The EU may well need a general spending power, but the way to achieve it is not through institutional lawyers engaging in strained crisis reinterpretation outside of public scrutiny. Instead, what is needed is democratic politics pure and simple, i.e., Treaty change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Crisis, Reinterpretation, and the Rule of Law: Repurposing ‘Cohesion’ as a General EU Spending Power
The EU Treaties contain no provision akin to the clause in the United States Constitution empowering spending in the ‘general Welfare’, i.e., for the general public good. Nonetheless, supporters of a broad reading of the cohesion flexibility clause, Article 175(3) TFEU, now claim that the EU, in effect, already has that power. The claim is inspired by that clause serving as the sole legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This is the cornerstone of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) Programme, the EU’s massive borrowing and spending initiative that has directed a large amount of money to national priorities to address not just economic consequences of Covid but also longer-term issues of climate change, energy transition, and digitalization. This contribution critically assesses whether Article 175(3) TFEU can serve as the basis for general spending authority in the EU, particularly at the expense of its traditional role in regional development in Europe’s economic periphery. The analysis draws on the historic purposes of cohesion policy, the existing case law on the limited scope of the cohesion flexibility clause, as well as legal opinions of the Council Legal Service on the same question. This contribution concludes that the crisis-driven reinterpretation of Article 175(3) TFEU not only undermines cohesion as developmental tool for the periphery, but it also raises serious concerns about democratic legitimacy and the rule of law at Europe’s core. The EU may well need a general spending power, but the way to achieve it is not through institutional lawyers engaging in strained crisis reinterpretation outside of public scrutiny. Instead, what is needed is democratic politics pure and simple, i.e., Treaty change.
期刊介绍:
The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.