Top

Published in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Between Compliance and Particularism

Member State Interests and European Union Law

Authors : Marton Varju, Veronika Czina

Published in: Between Compliance and Particularism

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The European Union was brought to life by its Member States with a view to meeting certain local needs and responding to particular national interests. The process of integration as well as the fate of individual polices have continued to be directly influenced by the interests brought by the Member States to the European arena and negotiated among them. From this perspective, European integration serves as a vehicle for the promotion of the particular interests of individual Member States. However, membership in the EU has proved to be different from the participation States in other international organisations. The Member States are bound under constitutional principles to act loyal to the objectives of integration and cooperate sincerely with the Union institutions and the other Member States. They have imposed on themselves general and detailed binding legal obligations and established a multi-layered system for the effective enforcement of those obligations. Thus, the achievement of the common objectives pursued in the Union, and with that the realisation of the corresponding national interests of the Member States, depends on Member State conduct being brought under frameworks of compliance.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

next chapter In Search of Limits for the Protection of National Identities as a Member State Interest

European integration has enabled the Member States to reassert themselves as organisations that are able to respond to socio-economic needs and advance policy objectives, Milward (2000), p. 3. EU membership has “offerings” for the Member States; these are constraint (leverage) and compliance enabling the achievement of policy objectives and the opportunity to rely on EU policy tools in order to address national policy concerns, Bartolini (2005), pp. 305–306.

Contrast with neo-functionalism’s tendency to “assume away” the nation State within EU integration, Milward and Sørensen (1994), p. 4.

The theory’s main arguments were corrected in Dimitrakopoulos and Kassim (2004), pp. 248–249.

Contrast with the opinion that as a result of the compensation mechanisms available they, in fact, enjoy an advantage in EU decision-making, Bunse et al. (2005).

EU law shamelessly promotes an “ideology of obedience” and it exploits the basic instincts of the Member States under the rule of law in order to secure the delivery of common policies, Shaw (1996), p. 237.

In general, law offered to keep the complex and controversial operation of transnational policy-making and governance within “formal and technical bounds”, Walker (2011), p. 98.

Walker argued ultimately for establishing a proper balance among these factors not only within the framework of EU policies, but also under policies developed by the Member States.

See the critical remarks of Davies regarding the consistently pursued approach by the Court that “all good things can be had together within the framework of the Treaty”, which emerged from interpreting the derogation jurisprudence that it aims to secure a “reconciliation of interests” instead of measuring and balancing them against each other, Davies (2016), pp. 218–219.

See, in this regard, the highly sceptical analysis of Snell in connection with the treatment of Member State derogations of economic nature, which was held to delimit the ability of the Member States to discharge one of their most important functions that is to protect the economic security of their citizens, Snell (2016), p. 30.

See, in this regard, the recent analysis of the Court of Justice’s performance in Blauberger and Schmidt (2017).

Solely as conflicts and contradictions.

See Judgment of 10 December 1969, France v Commission, 6 and 11/69, EU:C:1969:68 and Judgment of 7 February 1973, Commission v Italy (Premiums for Slaughtering Cows), 39/72, EU:C:1973:13.

Judgment of 10 December 1969, France v Commission, 6 and 11/69, EU:C:1969:68, paragraphs 15–16; Judgment of 7 February 1973, Commission v Italy (Premiums for Slaughtering Cows), 39/72, EU:C:1973:13, paragraphs 22–24.

See the tentative exploration of derogations enabling that national and EU policy action mutually reinforce each other in Barnard (2009).

Azoulai, L. (2013). The European Court of Justice and the duty to respect sensitive national interests. In B. De Witte et al. (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice (pp. 167–187). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Barnard, C. (2000). Flexibility and social policy. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU: From uniformity to flexibility? (pp. 197–216). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Barnard, C. (2009). Derogations, justifications and the four freedoms: Is state interest really protected? In C. Barnard & O. Odudu (Eds.), The outer limits of European law (pp. 273–305). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Bartolini, S. (2005). Restructuring Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Blauberger, M., & Schmidt, S. K. (2017). The European Court of Justice and its political impact. West European Politics, 40, 907–918.CrossRef

Bunse, S., Nicolaïdis, K., & Magnette, P. (2005). Is the Commission the small Member States’ friend? Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Studies (SIEPS). No. 9.

Clift, B. (2013). Economic patriotism, the clash of capitalisms, and state aid in the European Union. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 13, 101–117.CrossRef

Clift, B., & Woll, C. (2012). Economic patriotism: Reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 307–323.CrossRef

Copeland, P. (2012). EU enlargement, the clash of capitalisms and the European Social Model. Comparative European Politics, 10, 476–504.CrossRef

Craig, P. (2012). Competence and Member State autonomy: Casualty, consequence and legitimacy. In H. Micklitz & B. De Witte (Eds.), The ECJ and the autonomy of the Member States (pp. 11–34). Antwerp: Intersentia.

Dashwood, A. (1998). States in the European Union. European Law Review, 23, 201–216.

Davies, G. (2016). Free movement, the quality of life and the myth that the Court balances interests. In P. Koutrakos, N. Nic Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law (pp. 218–239). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

de Búrca, G. (2000). Differentiation within the core: The case of the common market. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU: From uniformity to flexibility? (pp. 133–172). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

de Búrca, G. (2005). Rethinking law in neofunctionalist theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 310–326.CrossRef

de Búrca, G., & Scott, J. (2000). Introduction. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU: From uniformity to flexibility? (pp. 1–8). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Dehousse, R. (1997). European integration and the nation state. In M. Rhodes et al. (Eds.), Developments in West European politics (pp. 37–54). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Dimitrakopoulos, D. G., & Kassim, H. (2004). Deciding the future of the European Union: Preference formation and Treaty reform. Comparative European Politics, 2, 241–260.CrossRef

Eriksen, E. O. (2014). The normativity of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRef

Garret, G. (1992). International cooperation and institutional choice: The European Community’s internal market. International Organisation, 41, 533–560.CrossRef

Grøn, C. H., & Wivel, A. (2011). Maximizing influence in the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: From small state policy to smart state strategy. Journal of European Integration, 33, 523–539.CrossRef

Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or obsolete: The fate of the nation state and the case of Western Europe. Daedalus, 95, 892–915.

Jakobsen, P. V. (2009). Small states, big influence: The overlooked Nordic influence on the civilian ESDP. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47, 81–102.CrossRef

Kaupa, C. (2013). Maybe not activist enough? On the Court’s alleged neoliberal bias in its recent labor cases. In B. De Witte et al. (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice (pp. 56–75). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Kronsell, A. (2002). Can small states influence EU norms? Insights from Sweden’s participation in the field of environmental politics. Scandinavian Studies, 74, 287–304.

Mancini, F. (1989). The making of a constitution for Europe. Common Market Law Review, 26, 595–614.CrossRef

Mattli, W. (1999). The logic of regional integration: Europe and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Milward, A. (2000). The European rescue of the nation-state. Abingdon: Routledge.

Milward, A., & Sørensen, V. (1994). Interdependence or integration? A national choice. In A. Milward et al. (Eds.), The frontier of national sovereignty: History and theory, 1945–1991 (pp. 1–32). Abingdon: Routledge.

Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.CrossRef

Moravcsik, A. (1999). The choice for Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.

Panke, D. (2010). Small states in the European Union: Structural disadvantages in EU policy-making and counter-strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17, 799–817.CrossRef

Panke, D. (2011). Small states in EU negotiations: Political dwarfs or power-brokers? Cooperation and Conflict, 46, 123–143.CrossRef

Panke, D. (2012). Being small in a big Union: Punching above their weights? How small states prevailed in the vodka and the pesticides cases. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25, 329–344.CrossRef

Pastore, G. (2013). Small new Member States in the EU foreign policy: Towards ‘small state smart strategy’. Baltic Journal of Political Science, 2, 67–84.CrossRef

Schwarze, J. (2013). Die Abwägung von Zielen der europäischen Integration und mitgliedstaatliche Interessen in der Rechtssprechung des EUGH. Europarecht, 48, 253–271.CrossRef

Shaw, J. (1996). European Union studies in crisis? Towards a new dynamic. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 231–253.CrossRef

Snell, J. (2016). Economic justifications and the role of the state. In P. Koutrakos, N. Nic Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law (pp. 12–31). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Stein, E. (1981). Lawyers, judges and the making of a transnational constitution. American Journal of International Law, 75, 1–27.CrossRef

Thorallsson, B. (2000). The role of small states in the European Union. Abingdon: Ashgate.

Walker, N. (2011). The place of European law. In J. H. H. Weiler & G. de Búrca (Eds.), The worlds of European constitutionalism (pp. 57–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Title: Between Compliance and Particularism
Authors: Marton Varju
Veronika Czina
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Between Compliance and Particularism
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05781-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-05782-4

Copyright Year: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05782-4_1