Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:39:31.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-generating Europe through Human Rights? Proceduralism in European Human Rights Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Mark Dawson

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.

The present-day EU, as is well known, faces a serious crisis. As contributions to this volume make clear, that crisis is political as much as it is economic. Developments such as the limitations on national democracies established via the golden rule, as well as the exclusion of parliaments from EU decision-making, illustrate the grave challenges to democracy brought about by the EU's response to the euro crisis. Given this context, the task of regenerating Europe is primarily a political task. It would be strange indeed to address such a crisis by turning to a seemingly apolitical tool, such as human rights. Accordingly, human rights—anti-majoritarian and legalistic—seem to be in full retreat from the kind of adversarial politics needed to reorient the European project along more democratic lines.

Type
Special Issue - Regeneration Europe
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 5: Special issue - Regeneration Europe , 01 May 2013 , pp. 651 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Dawson, Mark & Witte, Floris de, Constitutional Balance in the EU After the Euro Crisis (forthcoming) (on file with author); Christian Joerges, From Integration through Law to Financial Crisis: What is Left of Europe's Economic Constitution (forthcoming) (on file with author).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Ending the Honeymoon: Constructing Europe Beyond the Market, regeneration Europe (Feb. 1, 2012), http://regenerationeurope.eu.Google Scholar

3 For two excellent overviews, see Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, Who Believes in Human Rights? (2006); Tom Campbell, Keith D. Ewing & Adam Tompkins, The Legal Protection of Human Rights: Sceptical Essays (2011).Google Scholar

4 See e.g., Waldron, Jeremy, The Core of the Case against Judicial Review, 115 Yale L.J. 1346, 1346–1406 (2005).Google Scholar

5 Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (1986).Google Scholar

6 See Weiler, Joseph, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: Common Standards and Conflicting Values in the Protection of Human Rights in European Space, in An Identity for Europe, The Relevance of Multiculturalism in EU Construction 73 (Riva Kastoryano ed., 2009) (detailing the important distinction between fundamental rights and fundamental boundaries where fundamental rights may be a product and lever for both fundamental unity and fundamental disagreement between polities).Google Scholar

7 Bellamy, Richard, Still in Deficit: Rights, Regulation and Democracy in the EU, 12 Eur. L.J. 725 (2006).Google Scholar

8 See the variation of this argument in relation to subsidiarity advanced by Armin von Bogdandy. See Armin von Bogdandy, The European Union as a Human Rights Organization: Human Rights and the Core of the European Union, 37 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1307, 1316–18 (2000).Google Scholar

9 Marx, Karl, On the Jewish Question, in Karl Marx: Selected Writings 21 (David McLellan ed., 2000).Google Scholar

10 See Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, The Convention in a Marxist Light, in Who Believes in Human Rights? (2006) (providing an overview).Google Scholar

11 One must note that ‘realist’ critiques also often follow a similar logic, i.e. that rights discourse encourages rights without concomitant responsibilities. See e.g., Jeremy Bentham, Selected Writings on Utilitarianism 458 (2000) (noting the classical objection of Jeremy Bentham to the idea of ‘natural’ rights: “From real law comes real rights; but from imaginary laws come imaginary rights”).Google Scholar

12 Weiler, Joseph, Individuals and Rights-The Sour Grapes, 21 Eur. J. Int'l L. 277, 278 (2010).Google Scholar

13 See Hartmann, Moritz & Witte, Floris de, Regeneration Europe: Towards Another Europe (in this issue).Google Scholar

14 See Weiler, Joseph, On the Values, Virtues (and Vices) of the European Construct: What We Can Learn from Aristotle, Aquinas, and Maimonides, Presentation at the Hertie School of Governance (Mar. 13, 2012).Google Scholar

15 See Somek, Alexander, Engineering Equality: An Essay on European Anti-Discrimination Law 15 (2011) (arguing that, by “engineering” equality, EU fundamental rights aim to create a Europe “inhabited by better people—and not a world where power differentials in the relation of capital and labor have been readjusted such as to approach evermore closely a sustainable equilibrium”).Google Scholar

16 Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd. v. Svenska Byggnadsarbeteraforbundet, 2007 E.C.R. I-11767 [hereinafter Laval].Google Scholar

17 Case C-438/05, Int'l Transp. Fed'n v. Viking Lines, 2007 E.C.R. I-10779 [hereinafter Viking].Google Scholar

18 See e.g., Anne C.L. Davies, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Viking and Laval Cases in the ECJ, 37 Indus. L.J. 126 (2008); Silvana Sciarra, Viking and Laval. Collective Labour Rights and Market Freedoms in the Enlarged EU, 10 Cambridge Y.B. of Eur. Legal Stud. (2007-2008).Google Scholar

19 See Reich, Norbert, Free Movement v. Social Rights in an Enlarged Union—the Laval and Viking Cases before the ECJ, 2 German L.J. 125, 125–161 (2009).Google Scholar

20 See Rönnmar, Mia, Laval Returns to Sweden: The Final Judgment of the Swedish Labour Court and Swedish Legislative Reforms, 39 Indus. L.J. 280 (2010) (detailing the domestic impacts of Laval in Sweden).Google Scholar

21 Newdick, Christopher, Citizenship, Free Movement and Health Care: Cementing Individual Rights by Corroding Social Solidarity, 43 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1645, 1645–68 (2006).Google Scholar

22 Micklitz, Hans & Benöhr, Iris, Consumer Protection and Human Rights, in Handbook of Research on International Consumer Law 18, 28–35 (Geraint Howells, Iain Ramsay & Thomas Wilhelmsson eds., 2010).Google Scholar

23 Garben, Sacha, EU Higher Education Law: The Bologna Process and Harmonization by Stealth (2011).Google Scholar

24 Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Court of Justice: The Ambiguous Nature of Judicial Review, in The Legal Protection of Human Rights: Skeptical Essays 268, 268–296 (Tom Campbell, Keith D. Ewing & Adam Tompkins eds., 2011).Google Scholar

25 See Shuibhne, Niamh Nic, The Resilience of EU Market Citizenship, 47 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1597, 1597–1628 (2010).Google Scholar

26 Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review 11–43 (1980).Google Scholar

27 Id. at 74.Google Scholar

28 Ely, , supra note 26, at 93–94.Google Scholar

29 Habermas, Jürgen, On the Internal Relation Between the Rule of Law and Democracy, in The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Ciaran Cronin & Pablo De Greiff eds., 1998); Jürgen Habermas, Private and Public Autonomy, Human Rights and Popular Sovereignty, in Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy 84, 84–103 (1996).Google Scholar

30 Habermas, supra note 29, at 258.Google Scholar

31 Id. at 261.Google Scholar

32 See Jürgen Habermas, The Crisis of the European Union (2012).Google Scholar

33 See also Empowerment and Disempowerment of the European Citizen (Michael Dougan, Niamh NicShuibhne & Eleanour Spaventa eds., 2012).Google Scholar

34 See e.g., Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of 18 Dec. 2000, ch. V, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1, 18, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf.Google Scholar

35 Commission Regulation 1049/2001, Regarding Public Access to European Parliament, Council and Commission Documents, art. 2(1), 2001 O.J. (L 145) 43, 44, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:145:0043:0048:EN:PDF.Google Scholar

36 Id. at art. 4(1).Google Scholar

37 Id. at art. 4(2).Google Scholar

38 See Adamski, Dariusz, Approximating a Workable Compromise on Access to Official Documents: The 2011 Developments in the European Courts, 49 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 251 (2012) (providing a useful recent overview of the case-law).Google Scholar

39 Case C-64/05, Sweden v Comm'n, 2007 E.C.R. I-11389.Google Scholar

40 Joined Cases C-39 & 52/05 P, Sweden & Turco v. Council, 2008 E.C.R. I-4723.Google Scholar

41 Id. ¶ 46.Google Scholar

42 Ely, supra note 26; Habermas, supra note 29.Google Scholar

43 Case C-145/04, Spain v. United Kingdom, 2006 E.C.R. I-07961, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0145:EN:PDF.Google Scholar

44 Case C-300/04, Eman & Sevinger v. College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van Den Haag, 2006 E.C.R. I-8055 [hereinafter Eman & Sevinger].Google Scholar

45 Spain v. United Kingdom, supra note 43, ¶ 78.Google Scholar

46 Spain v. United Kingdom, supra note 43, ¶ 79.Google Scholar

47 Eman, & Sevinger, , supra note at 44, ¶ 61.Google Scholar

48 See Shaw, J., The Political Representation of Europe's Citizens: Developments, 4 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 162, 168 (2008) (detailing the extent (and limits) of this extension).Google Scholar

49 Spain v United Kingdom, supra note 43, ¶ 77.Google Scholar

50 Id. ¶ 77.Google Scholar

51 See e.g., Weiler, Joseph & Alston, Philip, An “Ever Closer Union” in Need of a Human Rights Policy, 9 Eur. J. Int'l L. 658, 665–67 (1998).Google Scholar

52 Kochenov, D., Free Movement and Participation in the Parliamentary Elections in the Member State of Nationality: an Ignored Link?, 16 Maastricht J. OF Eur & Comp. L. 197 (2009).Google Scholar

53 Laval, , supra note 16; Viking, supra note 17.Google Scholar

54 See Belavusau, Uladzislau, The Case of Laval in the Context of the Post-Enlargement EC Law Development, 9 German L.J. 2279, 2279–2307 (2008).Google Scholar

55 Such a point is of course the subject of wide-ranging philosophical debate. As a starting point, see Waldron, Jeremy, Law and Disagreement (1999).Google Scholar

56 Blauberger, Michael, With Luxembourg in Mind … the Remaking of National Policies in the Face of ECJ Jurisprudence, 19 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 109, 109–26 (2012).Google Scholar

57 Id. at 113.Google Scholar

58 See Malmberg, Jonas, Posting Post Laval: International and National Responses 5 (Uppsala Ctr. for Lab. Stud., Working Paper No. 2010:5, 2010) (detailing the work of the Commissions).Google Scholar

59 See European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC Response to ECJ Judgments Viking and Laval (Mar. 10, 2008), http://www.etuc.org/a/4704 [hereinafter ETUC].Google Scholar

60 See e.g., Exchange of Views on the Laval and Viking Rulings of the ECJ, Comm. on Emp't & Soc. Aff. (Mar. 12, 2008), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201005/20100527ATT75143/20100527ATT75143EN.pdf (detailing the extensive discussions of the standing committee of the European Parliament on Employment.Google Scholar

61 See e.g., José Manuel Barroso, President, the European Commission, Passion and Responsibility: Strengthening Europe in a Time of Change (Sept. 15, 2008) (transcript available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/391).Google Scholar

62 Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC Concerning the Posting of Workers in the Framework of the Provision of Services, COM (2012) 131 final (Mar. 21, 2012).Google Scholar

63 Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Exercise of the Right to Take Collective Action Within the Context of the Freedom of Establishment and the Freedom to Provide Services, COM (2012) 130 final (Mar. 21, 2012).Google Scholar

64 See Benjamin, Fox, EU Anti-Strike Rules Sink as Parliaments Wield Lisbon powers, EU Observer, Dec. 9, 2012, http://euobserver.com/news/117523.Google Scholar

65 ETUC, supra note 59.Google Scholar

66 See also Press Release, Business Europe, Commission Proposals on Posting of Workers Undermines the Development of the Single Market (Mar. 21, 2012), available at http://www.businesseurope.eu/content/default.asp?PageID=568&DocID=30033.Google Scholar

67 Case C-26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlands Administratie der Belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. I-1.Google Scholar

68 Dawson, Mark, The Political Face of Judicial Activism: Europe's Law/Politics Imbalance, in Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice 11–31 (Mark Dawson, Elise Muir & Bruno de Witte eds., 2013).Google Scholar

69 See e.g., Cichowski, Rachel A., The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance (2007); Loveday Hodson, NGOs and the Struggle for Human Rights in Europe (2011); Dimitrios-Panagiotis Tzakas, Effective Collective Redress in Antitrust and Consumer Protection Matters: A Panacea or a Chimera?, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1125, 1125–74 (2011).Google Scholar

70 See Dawson, Mark, Elise Muir & Monica Claes, Enforcing the EU's Rights Revolution: The Case of Equality, 3 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 276, 286–90 (2012).Google Scholar

71 Case C-80/70, Defrenne v. Belgium, 1971 E.C.R. I-445.Google Scholar

72 Cichowski, , supra note 69, at 171–206.Google Scholar

73 See European Women's Lobby, http://www.womenlobby.org/ (last visited May 13, 2013).Google Scholar

74 See e.g., European Roma Rights Centre, Strategic Litigation, http://www.errc.org/strategic-litigation (last visited May 13, 2013).Google Scholar

75 Council Directive (EC) 2000/43 Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin, 2000 O.J. (L 180) 22 [hereinafter Race Directive].Google Scholar

76 Case, Ronda Evans & Givens, Terri E., Re-Engineering Legal Opportunity Structures in the European Union? The Starting Line Group and the Politics of the Racial Equality Directive, 48 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 221, 221–41 (2010).Google Scholar

77 Id. at 230–31.Google Scholar

78 On this element of the Race Directive, see Bell, Mark, Anti-Discrimination Law and the European Union 391 (2002).Google Scholar

79 See Directive, Race, supra note 75, art. 8, at 25.Google Scholar

80 See Directive, Race, supra note 75, art. 7(2), at 25.Google Scholar

81 See e.g., Vanhala, Lisa, Legal Opportunity Structures and the Paradox of Legal Mobilization by the Environmental Movement in the UK, 46 L. & Soc'y Rev. 523, 523–56 (2012).Google Scholar

82 See Case, & Givens, , supra note 76, at 236.Google Scholar

83 Commission Staff Working Document: Public Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress, SEC (2011) 173 final (Feb. 4, 2011).Google Scholar

84 Graínne de Búrca, EU Race Discrimination Law: A Hybrid Model?, in Law and New Governance in the EU and the US 97–120 (Graínne de Búrca & Joanne Scott eds., 2006).Google Scholar

85 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, COM (2011) 173 final (Apr. 5, 2011) [hereinafter Roma Integration Strategies]. On the need for a governance framework to tackle minority rights abuses, see Dawson, Mark & Muir, Elise, Individual, Institutional and Collective Vigilance in Protecting Fundamental Rights in the EU: Lessons from the Roma, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 751, 751–75 (2011).Google Scholar

86 Roma Integration Strategies, supra note 85, at 12.Google Scholar

87 Habermas, Jürgen, Why Europe Needs a Constitution, 11 New Left Rev. 5, 5–26 (2001); Olivier de Schutter, Europe in Search of its Civil Society, 8 Eur. L.J. 198, 198–217 (2002). For a contrary view, see Liebert, Ulrike, The Contentious Role of Civil Society in Reconstituting Democracy in the European Union, 28 Pol. & Soc'y 71, 71–86 (2008).Google Scholar

88 See Sabel, Charles F. & Simon, William H., Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1015, 1015–1101 (2004) (detailing the value (and limits) of rights discourse in ‘de-stabilizing’ entrenched public policies).Google Scholar

89 See Dawson, M. & Muir, E., Enforcing Fundamental Values: EU Law and Governance in Hungary and Romania, 19 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 469, 469–76 (2013) (providing a summary).Google Scholar

90 Release, Press, European Commission, Hungary—infringements (Apr. 25, 2012), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/395&type=HTML. See also Armin Von Bogdandy et al., Reverse Solange—Protecting the Essence of Fundamental Rights Against EU Member States, 49 Common Mkt. L Rev. 489, 489–519 (2012). For a more skeptical view, see Müller, J.W., Beyond Militant Democracy?, 73 New Left Rev. 45 (2012).Google Scholar