Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:44:41.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Democratic Function of the Public Sphere in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Mayte Peters

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Democratically legitimized European integration calls for developments in culture and society—which arise naturally in the scope of on-going political, economic and institutional European Union (EU) integration—to be publically debated so they may be politically processed. The space where this happens is the public sphere, or, in the context of the EU, the European public sphere. The latter complements national public spheres. Successful integration among EU Member States is made possible by adhering to a common set of values at the same time as respecting the national identities of the Member States and fostering cultural diversity. By way of Union citizenship rights, individuals are able to make use of and actively promote the Europeanization of societies and cultures. Yet citizens are affected by Europeanization to differing degrees, with only a minority of citizens actively partaking in transnational exchange. In order to account for European integration democratically, the EU treaties hold provisions allowing for a close institutional interdependence of national and European democracy.

Type
Special Issue - Regeneration Europe
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 5: Special issue - Regeneration Europe , 01 May 2013 , pp. 673 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union art. 1(2), Mar. 30, 2010, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 15 [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

2 Id. art. 2.Google Scholar

3 Id. art. 4(2).Google Scholar

4 Calliess, Christian, Art. 1 EUV, in Kommentar zum EUV/AEUV 11 (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 4th ed. 2011).Google Scholar

5 TEU art. 2.Google Scholar

6 Id. art. 2.Google Scholar

7 See Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Art. I-2, in Europäischer Verfassungsvertrag 1 (Christoph Vedder & Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg eds., 2007).Google Scholar

8 Streinz, Rudolf, Christoph Ohler & Christoph Herrmann, Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU: Einführung mit Synopse 64 (2d ed. 2008).Google Scholar

9 Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: On a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World, at 2, COM (2007) 242 final (May 10, 2007).Google Scholar

10 Consolidated Version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 21, Mar. 30, 2010, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 171 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

11 Council Directive 2004/58, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77 (EC).Google Scholar

12 Council Decision of 18 May 2006, Annex 1(a), 2006 O.J. (L 201) 15, 19 (EU).Google Scholar

13 See Commission Decision 2008/708, 2008 O.J. (L 236) 10 (EC).Google Scholar

14 Council Decision of 18 May 2006, Annex 1(a), 2006 O.J. (L 201) 15, 19 (EU).Google Scholar

15 See Council Resolution of 20 November 1995, 1995 O.J. (C 327) 1 (EU); Council Conclusions of 20 November 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 319) 15 (EU); Council Directive 2007/65, 2007 O.J. (L 332) 27 (EC).Google Scholar

16 See Commission of the European Communities, supra note 9, at 3:Google Scholar

The European Union is not just an economic process or a trading power, it is already widely—and accurately—perceived as an unprecedented and successful social and cultural project. The EU is, and must aspire to become even more, an example of a ‘soft power’ founded on norms and values such as human dignity, solidarity, tolerance, freedom of expression, respect for diversity and intercultural dialogue, values which, provided they are upheld and promoted, can be of inspiration for the world of tomorrow.

17 See Council Decision 1903/2006, 2006 O.J. (L 378) 22 (EC).Google Scholar

18 European Commission, Standard Eurobarometer 67: Public Opinion in the European Union 70 (Nov. 2007).Google Scholar

19 European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 337: Geographical and Labour Market Mobility 4 (June 2010).Google Scholar

20 European Commission, Eurobarometer Qualitative Studies: Obstacles Citizens Face in the Internal Market 50–83 (Sept. 2011).Google Scholar

21 European Commission, Geographic Labour Mobility in the Context of EU Enlargement, in Employment in Europe 2008 116 (Oct. 2008), available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=113&newsId=415&furtherNews=yes.Google Scholar

22 European Commission, Standard Eurobarometer 77: European Citizenship 36 (July 2012).Google Scholar

23 Id. at 39.Google Scholar

24 European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 243: Europeans and their Languages 18 (Feb. 2006).Google Scholar

25 Id. at 11.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 26.Google Scholar

27 Chryssochoou, Dimitris, Europe's Contested Democracy, in European Union Politics 377, 379 (Michelle Cini & Nieves Pérez-Solórzano Borragán eds., 2010); Bovens, Mark, Deirdre Curtin & Paul ‘t Hart, The EU's Accountability Deficit: Reality or Myth?, in The Real World of EU Accountability: Which Deficit? 1, 5 (Mark Bovens, Deirdre Curtin & Paul ‘t Hart eds., 2010).Google Scholar

28 Geiger, Rudolf, Art. 6 EUV, in Kommentar zum EUV/EGV 5 (Rudolf Geiger ed., 4th ed. 2004).Google Scholar

29 Stumpf, Cordula, Art. 6 EUV, in EU-Kommentar 5 (Jürgen Schwarze ed., 2d ed. 2009); see also Winfried Kluth, Die demokratische Legitimation der Europäischen Union: Eine Analyse der These vom Demokratiedefizit der Europäischen Union aus gemeineuropäischer Verfassungsperspektive 44 (1995).Google Scholar

30 Calliess, , supra note 4, at 13.Google Scholar

31 Heintschel von Heinegg, supra note 7, at 6.Google Scholar

32 TEU art. 10(1).Google Scholar

33 Id. art. 10(2).Google Scholar

34 Id. Google Scholar

35 Id. art. 14(2).Google Scholar

36 Id. art. 10(1).Google Scholar

37 See Heintschel von Heinegg, supra note 7, at 7.Google Scholar

38 TEU art. 12.Google Scholar

39 Tomuschat, Christian, The Ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 German L.J. 1259, 1261 (2009); Hrbek, Rudolf, The Role of National Parliaments in the EU, in The European Union after Lisbon: Constitutional Basis, Economic Order and External Action 129, 147 (Hermann-Josef Blanke & Stelio Mangiameli eds., 2012).Google Scholar

40 TEU Protocol 1 (describing the role of national parliaments in the European Union).Google Scholar

41 Id. Google Scholar

42 Grimm, Dieter, Braucht Europa eine Verfassung?, 1995 JuristenZeitung [JZ] 581, 587.Google Scholar

43 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1877/97, Mar. 31, 1998, 97 BVerfGE 350, 369 (Ger.)[hereinafter Euro Case].Google Scholar

44 Dreier, Horst, Art. 20, in 2 Grundgesetz-Kommentar 83 (Horst Dreier ed., 2d ed. 2006).Google Scholar

45 Cf. Kaufmann, Marcel, Europäische Integration und Demokratieprinzip 43 (1997).Google Scholar

46 Habermas, Jürgen, Faktizität und Geltung 442 (1998).Google Scholar

47 See generally Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Die verfassungstheoretische Unterscheidung von Staat und Gesellschaft als Bedingung der individuellen Freiheit (1973); Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Die Bedeutung der Unterscheidung von Staat und Gesellschaft im demokratischen Sozialstaat der Gegenwart, in Recht, Staat, Freiheit 209 (Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde ed., 1991); Josef Isensee, Subsidiarität und Verfassungsrecht: Eine Studie über das Regulativ des Verhältnisses von Staat und Gesellschaft 149 (2001); Hans Heinrich Rupp, Die Unterscheidung von Staat und Gesellschaft, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts [HStR] II, § 31 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof eds., 3d ed. 2004).Google Scholar

48 Eder, Klaus, Kai-Uwe Hellmann & Hans-Jörg Trenz, Regieren in Europa jenseits öffentlicher Legitimation? Eine Untersuchung zur Rolle von politischer Öffentlichkeit in Europa, in 29 Regieren in entgrenzten Räumen, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Sonderheft 321, 327 (Beate Kohler-Koch ed., 1998).Google Scholar

49 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/65, July 19, 1966, 20 BVerfGE 56, 98 (quoting “[f]rei, offen, unreglementiert und grundsätzlich ‘staatsfrei,’ “); see also Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 233, 341/81, May 14, 1985, 69 BVerfGE 315, 346.Google Scholar

50 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2, 5/08, 2 BvR 1010, 1022, 1259/08, 2 BvR 182/09, June 30, 2009, 123 BVerfGE 267, ¶ 250 [hereinafter Lisbon Judgment Case].Google Scholar

51 Olsen, Johan P., Europe in Search of Political Order: An institutional perspective on unity/diversity, citizens/their helpers, democratic design/historical drift and the co-existence of orders 119 (2007).Google Scholar

52 See Greven, Michael, Mitgliedschaft, Grenzen und politischer Raum: Problemdimensionen der Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union, in Regieren in entgrenzten Räumen 249, 257 (Beate Kohler-Koch ed., 1998); Marianne van de Steeg, Bedingungen für die Entstehung von Öffentlichkeit in der EU, in Bürgerschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa 169, 179 (Ansgar Klein et al. eds., 2003); Jürgen Habermas, Medien, Märkte und Konsumenten, in Ach, Europa 131, 134 (Jürgen Habermas ed., 2008); see also Carl Cohen, Democracy 7 (1971) (stating, “[d]emocracy is that system of community government in which, by and large, the members of the community participate, or may participate, directly or indirectly, in the making of decisions which affect them all”); Kai-Uwe Hellmann, Integration durch Öffentlichkeit. Zur Selbstbeobachtung der modernen Gesellschaft, 7 Berliner Journal für Soziologie [BJS] 37, 59 (1997); Bernhard Peters, Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit, in Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen 42 (Friedhelm Neidhardt ed., 1994).Google Scholar

53 See Häberle, Peter, Struktur und Funktion der Öffentlichkeit im demokratischen Staat, in Die Verfassung des Pluralismus: Studien zur Verfassungstheorie der offenen Gesellschaft 126, 130 (Peter Häberle ed., 1980).Google Scholar

54 Holznagel, Bernd, Erosion demokratischer Öffentlichkeit?, 68 Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer [VVDStRL] 381, 386 (2008).Google Scholar

55 Hans-Jörg Trenz, Europa in den Medien: Die europäische Integration im Spiegel nationaler Öffentlichkeit 392 (2005); see also Dieter Fuchs & Barbara Pfetsch, Die Beobachtung der öffentlichen Meinung durch das Regierungssystem in Kommunikation und Entscheidung: Politische Funktionen öffentlicher Meinungsbildung und diskursiver Verfahren 103, 125 (Wolfgang van den Daele & Friedhelm Neidhardt eds., 1996).Google Scholar

56 See Habermas, , supra note 52, at 135; see also Juan Díez Medrano, Qualitätspresse und europäische Integration, in Bürgerschaft, Öffentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa 191, 192 (Ansgar Klein et al. eds., 2003).Google Scholar

57 Habermas, , supra note 52, at 134.Google Scholar

58 Habermas, , supra note 52, at 136; see Habermas, supra note 46, at 436.Google Scholar

59 See Gerhards, Jürgen, Westeuropäische Integration und die Schwierigkeiten der Entstehung einer europäischen Öffentlichkeit, 22 Zeitschrift für Soziologie [ZfS] 96, 98 (1993).Google Scholar

60 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2134, 2159/92, Oct. 12, 1993, 89 BVERFGE 155, 185 (Ger.); Euro Case at 369; Lisbon Judgment Case at ¶ 268; Holznagel, supra note 54, at 384; Grimm, supra note 42, at 587; Habermas, supra note 52, at 136; Wolfgang van den Daele & Friedhelm Neidhardt, “Regierung durch Diskussion”—über Versuche, mit Argumenten Politik zu machen, in Kommunikation und Entscheidung: Politische Funktionen öffentlicher Meinungsbildung und diskursiver Verfahren 9, 10 (Wolfgang van den Daele & Friedhelm Neidhardt eds., 1996); Greven, supra note 52, at 257.Google Scholar

61 Grimm, , supra note 42, at 588.Google Scholar

62 Cammaerts, Bart & Audenhove, Leo Van, Online Political Debate, Unbounded Citizenship, and the Problematic Nature of a Transnational Public Sphere, 22 Pol. Comm. 179, 183 (2005).Google Scholar

63 See Bennett, Lance, Grounding the European Public Sphere: Looking Beyond the Mass Media to Digitally Mediated Issue Publics, 43 Kolleg-Forschergruppe: Working Paper Series [KFG] 7 (2012); Cammaerts & Van Audenhove, supra note 62, at 193.Google Scholar

64 See Heidbreder, Eva G., Civil Society Participation in EU Governance, 7 Living Revs. Eur. Governance [LREG] 2 (2012); Bennett, supra note 63, at 7; Cammaerts & Van Audenhove, supra note 62, at 182.Google Scholar

65 E.g., Pirate Party of Switzerland, Stop ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), http://www.stoppacta.info/ (last accessed May 9, 2013).Google Scholar

66 Dave, Lee, ACTA Protests: Thousands Take to Streets Across Europe, BBC News (Feb. 11, 2012), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16999497.Google Scholar

67 Grimm, , supra note 42, at 590.Google Scholar

68 Grindheim, Jan Erik & Lohndal, Terje, Lost in Translation? European Integration and Language Diversity, 9 Persp. on Eur. Pol. & Soc'y 451, 453 (2008).Google Scholar

69 See Commission, European, Official EU Languages, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/languages-of-europe/eu-languages_en.htm (last accessed May 9, 2013).Google Scholar

70 See Habermas, Jürgen, Hat die Demokratie noch eine epistemische Dimension? Empirische Forschung und normative Theorie, in Ach, Europa 138, 156 (Jürgen Habermas ed., 2008); Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Verfassungsrechtliche Fragen regierungsamtlicher Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und öffentlicher Wirtschaftstätigkeit im Internet, 2002 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung [DÖV] 1, 3 (stating “[d]as Internet ist ein ‘hybrides’ Medium, das verschiedene Kommunikationsformen miteinander verknüpft und vor allem den Unterschied zwischen Massen- und Individualkommunikation, aber auch zwischen Information der Bürger durch die Medien und der unmittelbaren öffentlichen Adressierung der Bürger durch die Regierung aufhebt.”).Google Scholar

71 See Liquid Democracy e.V., Liquid Democracy, https://liqd.net/en/schwerpunkte/theoretische-grundlagen/liquid-democracy/ (last accessed May 18, 2013); Piratenpartei, http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Liquid_Democracy (last accessed May 9, 2013).Google Scholar

72 Commission, European, Standard Eurobarometer 77: Public Opinion in the European Union 39, 46 (July 2012).Google Scholar

73 Commission, European, Standard Eurobarometer 71: Standard Report, 92 (Sept. 2009).Google Scholar

74 Commission, European, Flash Eurobarometer 365: European Union Citizenship 6–7 (Feb. 2013).Google Scholar

75 Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1.Google Scholar

76 TEU art. 11(4); Council Regulation No. 211/2011, 2011 O.J. (L 65) 1 (EU).Google Scholar

77 Commission, European, Standard Eurobarometer 78: Public Opinion in the European Union 14 (Dec. 2012).Google Scholar

78 Standard Eurobarometer 77, supra note 72, at 63.Google Scholar

79 Standard Eurobarometer 77, supra note 72, at 63.Google Scholar

80 Standard Eurobarometer 78, supra note 77, at 20.Google Scholar

81 Standard Eurobarometer 78, supra note 77, at 21.Google Scholar

82 Commission, European, Flash Eurobarometer 294: European Union Citizenship 5 (Oct. 2010).Google Scholar

83 Standard Eurobarometer 77, supra note 72, at 52.Google Scholar

84 Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff calls the European legislative process a potential “Verantwortungsabschiebebahnhof” [“responsibility delegation train station,” author's translation]. Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff, Europäisches und nationales Verfassungsrecht, 60 Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer [VVDStRL] 247, 257 (2001).Google Scholar

85 Meyer, Christoph O., “Brüssel hat entschieden, dass…”: Über die Schwierigkeiten einer Kontrolle der politischen Verantwortlichkeit des EU-Ministerrats durch Medienöffentlichkeit, in Europäische Union und mediale Öffentlichkeit: Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Rolle der Medien im europäischen Einigungsprozess 129, 139 (Lutz M. Hagen ed., 2004).Google Scholar

86 Eder, Klaus & Hans-Jörg Trenz, Prerequisites of Transnational Democracy and Mechanisms for Sustaining It: The Case of the European Union, in Debating the Legitimacy of the European Union 165, 175 (Beate Kohler-Koch & Berthold Rittberger eds., 2007).Google Scholar

87 Standard Eurobarometer 77, supra note 72.Google Scholar

88 Olsen, supra note 50, at 127.Google Scholar

89 The project Publixphere (operated by Publixphere e.V. and associated with the Chair for European Law and Public Law at the Free University Berlin) is an attempt towards such a forum. See Publixphere, www.publixphere.org (last visited May 18, 2013).Google Scholar