"Since the 1960s onwards, the nature and the future of the European Union have been defined in legal terms. Yet, we are still in need of an explanation as to how this entanglement between Law and EU polity-building emerged and how it was maintained over time. While most of the literature offers a disembodied account of European legal integration, Brokering Europe reveals the multifaceted roles Euro-lawyers have played in EU polity, notably beyond the litigation arena. In particular, the book points at select transnational groups of multipositioned entrepreneurs that have elevated the role of law in all sorts of EU venues. In doing so, it draws from anew set of intellectual resources (field-theory) and empirical strategies only very recently mobilized for the study of the EU. Grounded on an extensive historical investigation, Brokering Europe provides a revised narrative of the 'constitutionalization of Europe'"
"How can we account for numerous and repeatedly failed attempts to redress the European Union's democratic deficit over the past three decades? In the wake of the Eurozone crisis, Democratizing Europe argues that part of our collective failure to re-orient the EU's trajectory lies in our failure to fully characterize the EU government's dependent path. Bringing together new streams of scholarship in history, law, sociology, and political science, this book suggests a new portrait of the EU's singular political model. Tasked with Europe's grand project, the edification of a unique economic and monetary Market, the European Court, Commission, and Central Bank have been the cradle in which the EU polity has been shaped, staged, and legitimized. In this context, it is no wonder that the many attempts to parliamentarize Europe have had limited democratic effects. Vauchez suggests that we recognize this historically-rooted centrality of Europe's independent branch and adapt our democratization strategies accordingly. "--
First published online: 09 July 2021 ; This Article offers an initial reflection on the output of the "Court of Justice in the Archives" project represented by the case studies included in this Special Section. The value of this collective endeavour is not a matter of finding the (legal or historical) truth hidden in some unpublished part of the dossier that would allow us to settle on the real "origins" of EU law. The project contributes to deepening our understanding of landmark cases decades later, during which time their meaning and scope have been simplified and codified as "EU law answers to EU law questions" at the cost of losing their many legal, sociological and economic layers. As the Articles bring back defeated and the marginalized arguments, and exemplify how things could have gone otherwise, the reader is led to a thought-experiment that can prove extremely useful in reopening the legal and political imagination of EU law, emancipating it from a sense of necessity and exposing more explicitly the normative choices made by the Court. And as alternative legal pasts of Europe emerge, it may become easier to conceive of alternative futures for EU legal integration.
International audience ; The notion of "public" is making an unexpected yet impressive comeback. After decades of neo-liberal policies where State failures and public irrationalities were systematically pointed out and the superiority of private management consistently affirmed, public authority and public intervention again appear as the inescapable solution to the most daunting issues of our times, particularly at the EU level. As the environmental emergency is making its way through our minds and the challenge raised by the accumulation of private authority in the hands of a limited number of multinational corporations becomes clearer every day, many call for stronger regulations-in areas of data privacy, tax fraud, environment, health standards, and others-and a staunch relaunch of investments, evidenced by the many versions of the "Green New Deal." With the dys-topia of a fully private vision of the future diffusing in popular culture series and novels, notions of the "common" and the "public good" are making a striking return in our democratic conversation. Interestingly, these calls for the rearmament of Europe's public capacity parallel our increasing sensitivity to the receding "publicness" of EU decision-making under the pressure of intense lobbying and revolving door mechanisms. Documentaries and journalist investigations have diffused a critical vision of an EU deemed incapable of evading the pressure of business stakeholders while providing a solely marginal place to the interests of citizens. Whatever one thinks of the diagnosis , they are proof of a growing awareness, particularly among younger generations, that the dividing line between the public and the private is not any social or professional border, and that its robustness conditions political sovereignty, equality, citizenship, and ultimately, democracy itself. And yet, such a comeback finds us unprepared. The public lexicon that we continue to use routinely is still the same as thirty years ago, as if the realities that this public compass was supposed to capture-public-sphere, good or goods, interest, utilities, service public, and others-had not been profoundly turned around by three decades of neoliberal policies. Short of an overall reassessment of both the map and the territory of the public, we run the risk of using it as an empty signifier, or even a mere buzzword. Strikingly, pseudo-notions of the public interest do, in fact, blossom today, such as corporate social responsibility, pro bono publico, philanthropy, and more.
International audience ; The notion of "public" is making an unexpected yet impressive comeback. After decades of neo-liberal policies where State failures and public irrationalities were systematically pointed out and the superiority of private management consistently affirmed, public authority and public intervention again appear as the inescapable solution to the most daunting issues of our times, particularly at the EU level. As the environmental emergency is making its way through our minds and the challenge raised by the accumulation of private authority in the hands of a limited number of multinational corporations becomes clearer every day, many call for stronger regulations-in areas of data privacy, tax fraud, environment, health standards, and others-and a staunch relaunch of investments, evidenced by the many versions of the "Green New Deal." With the dys-topia of a fully private vision of the future diffusing in popular culture series and novels, notions of the "common" and the "public good" are making a striking return in our democratic conversation. Interestingly, these calls for the rearmament of Europe's public capacity parallel our increasing sensitivity to the receding "publicness" of EU decision-making under the pressure of intense lobbying and revolving door mechanisms. Documentaries and journalist investigations have diffused a critical vision of an EU deemed incapable of evading the pressure of business stakeholders while providing a solely marginal place to the interests of citizens. Whatever one thinks of the diagnosis , they are proof of a growing awareness, particularly among younger generations, that the dividing line between the public and the private is not any social or professional border, and that its robustness conditions political sovereignty, equality, citizenship, and ultimately, democracy itself. And yet, such a comeback finds us unprepared. The public lexicon that we continue to use routinely is still the same as thirty years ago, as if the realities that this public compass ...
International audience ; The article explores the "strange non-death" of the French statist tradition in matters regarding the judiciary. It traces the formation of the specific French model of government of the judiciary describing the stronghold established by the duopole of the Cour de cassation and the ministry of justice's bureaucracy (the so-called Chancellerie) over time (1810-1993) and the failed attempt of the IVth Republic (1946-1958) to unsettle this power balance. It then considers the new context that emerged in the 1990s and analyzes successive reforms that have tried to undermine this deep-seated tradition. In the last part, the article provides an overall assessment of the impact of these reforms on the independence, accountability, and legitimacy of the French judiciary.
International audience ; The article explores the "strange non-death" of the French statist tradition in matters regarding the judiciary. It traces the formation of the specific French model of government of the judiciary describing the stronghold established by the duopole of the Cour de cassation and the ministry of justice's bureaucracy (the so-called Chancellerie) over time (1810-1993) and the failed attempt of the IVth Republic (1946-1958) to unsettle this power balance. It then considers the new context that emerged in the 1990s and analyzes successive reforms that have tried to undermine this deep-seated tradition. In the last part, the article provides an overall assessment of the impact of these reforms on the independence, accountability, and legitimacy of the French judiciary.
Scholars generally agree that 'independent' institutions such as the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and European Central Bank have created a space and role for themselves that has no equivalent in national political settings. However, we still lack a better understanding of the importance of this independent branch in the EU polity. This article contends that the central relevance of independence is connected to the historically rooted connection between 'independence' and 'international government' – a relationship the history of which can be traced back to the League of Nations' foundational period as the inaugural scene for the nexus between power and knowledge in international politics. Ultimately, this article questions the extent to which this specific grammar of international government has been constitutive of the EC polity in terms of valued modes of legitimacy and types of authority.
International audience ; The paper gets back to Carol Harlow's sobering assessment on Europe's general failure to legally and politically corset the turbulent and expansionary flow of lawmaking, and questions what is left of EU law's inte-grative capacity in the wake of the current polymorphous crisis of EU integration.
International audience ; The paper gets back to Carol Harlow's sobering assessment on Europe's general failure to legally and politically corset the turbulent and expansionary flow of lawmaking, and questions what is left of EU law's inte-grative capacity in the wake of the current polymorphous crisis of EU integration.
How does the European Court of Justice (ECJ) firmly maintain a now 45-year-old consistent integrationist jurisprudence when exerting virtually no control over the recruitment of its members (a selection left to national governments)? Rather than considering such judicial consistency over time as a 'given', the paper questions the social fabric of judicial preferences. On the basis of a variety of commemorative materials produced within the Court (Festschriften, tributes, eulogies, and jubilees) and never studied so far, the paper stresses the manner in which these rituals are home to social processes of aggregation (into one unique judicial family), demarcation (from the political realm), and self-identification (to roles of so-called 'founding father', 'current spokesmen', or 'would-be judges'), thereby enabling transnational role transmission within international courts such as the ECJ.
