We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The article proposes a historical materialist reading of the European Union, placing the class struggle at the heart of the analysis of the EU project. A central idea is that historical development is the result of social conflict, a ubiquitous force which materialises unevenly at multiple levels, nationally and internationally. As far as the European Union is concerned, it is argued that class struggle occurs predominantly at the level of Member States rather than transnationally at the level of the Union. This reading has several repercussions. An important repercussion is that by anchoring the understanding of the EU to the struggle born out of the material clash between interests of national collective forces, this contribution distances itself from liberal idealistic readings of the Union that see the EU as an example of Kantian cosmopolitan right. Where the latter approach sees the European Union as a real-life example of universal hospitality, historical materialism sees a Union divided along class- and national lines. The article supports that the latter understanding is in a better place to describe the nature of the EU project.
This chapter on the Re-constructing the construction of Laval: Studying EU law as a social interpretive process focuses on one of the most controversial ECJ rulings in recent decades. Trying to understand how this particular ruling became so controversial, this chapter presents an analytical approach that views the construction of EU law as an interpretive process, which concerns not only the meaning of a specific ruling, but also its importance in terms of setting crucial precedence and in terms of having impact on European society. The chapter argues that to understand how Laval became so important, we must study the case as a protracted process of social, legal and political construction, in which a diverse set of actors – such as lawyers, legal scholars, politicians and trade unionist – all contributed to enchanting the case’s significance both before and after the ruling itself. Tracing this interpretive process, the chapter shows how the political context (of EU enlargement and Services Directive) and the legal context (of other somewhat related rulings) were knitted together to make Laval a symbolic stake in a struggle regarding the future of the European Union. Doing so, the chapter illustrates how a methodological approach which centers less on the ruling itself, but more on its social and political construction, can shed new light on how EU law is created. At the same time, the chapter takes the study of the Laval case as an opportunity to discuss the underlying principles of this processual approach, the challenges of its practical implementation and its limitations.
This article places the current legal framework governing posted work within the debate on ‘Europeanisation’ in order to assess to what extent the Posted Workers Directive may be seen as a successful tool to ‘Europeanise’ national labour law systems as assessed against its dual objectives of promoting the transnational provision of services while also guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers. In doing so, the article contextualises and analyses the Posted Workers Directive which allows for the identification of remaining gaps in protection. The article concludes with an assessment of the European Commission’s most recent proposal to amend the Directive.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.