"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. "--
International audience ; C'est l'histoire d'un échec ; un échec qui sonne d'abord comme une énigme : comment comprendre en effet qu'un « projet européen » né au coeur des années 1950-60, en plein âge d'or des services publics, n'ait jamais fait véritablement place au circuit public de l'économie, voire en ait fait au fil du temps une de ses cibles réformatrices privilégiées ? La question soulevée par Mélanie Vay n'est pas simple ; surtout quand elle est posée depuis la patrie auto-proclamée du service public et qu'elle nous arrive encore prise sous la couche épaisse des batailles politiques qui se sont développées sur ce thème depuis la campagne référendaire de 2005. Les mots (service public, intérêt général, etc.) paraissent piégés tant ils sont chargés de sens, usés sans doute d'avoir trop servi. Et les récits arrivent tout faits et font la part belle à une Adn européenne « néo-libérale » dont il s'agit de retrouver le moment inaugural, qu'il s'agisse du traité de Rome ou de l'agenda du Marché unique de la fin des années 1980, pour en retracer ensuite le déploiement implacable. Ce n'est pas le moindre mérite de Mélanie Vay que d'avoir relevé le défi de l'analyse et on ne s'étonnera pas au final de découvrir qu'elle est finalement l'une des premières à le faire. Non pas que l'auteure se cache derrière sa méthode car on sent entre les lignes un attachement viscéral à cette « civilisation du service public » dont parlait Pierre Bourdieu, et sans doute aussi une certaine incompréhension face à son délitement progressif. Mais passée au prisme des sciences sociales et d'une méthodologie éprouvée, cette inquiétude devient l'aiguillon d'une démonstration exemplaire apportant la preuve concrète de ce qu'une thèse produit comme connaissance et problématisation nouvelles des objets les plus centraux de la politique contemporaine.
International audience ; C'est l'histoire d'un échec ; un échec qui sonne d'abord comme une énigme : comment comprendre en effet qu'un « projet européen » né au coeur des années 1950-60, en plein âge d'or des services publics, n'ait jamais fait véritablement place au circuit public de l'économie, voire en ait fait au fil du temps une de ses cibles réformatrices privilégiées ? La question soulevée par Mélanie Vay n'est pas simple ; surtout quand elle est posée depuis la patrie auto-proclamée du service public et qu'elle nous arrive encore prise sous la couche épaisse des batailles politiques qui se sont développées sur ce thème depuis la campagne référendaire de 2005. Les mots (service public, intérêt général, etc.) paraissent piégés tant ils sont chargés de sens, usés sans doute d'avoir trop servi. Et les récits arrivent tout faits et font la part belle à une Adn européenne « néo-libérale » dont il s'agit de retrouver le moment inaugural, qu'il s'agisse du traité de Rome ou de l'agenda du Marché unique de la fin des années 1980, pour en retracer ensuite le déploiement implacable. Ce n'est pas le moindre mérite de Mélanie Vay que d'avoir relevé le défi de l'analyse et on ne s'étonnera pas au final de découvrir qu'elle est finalement l'une des premières à le faire. Non pas que l'auteure se cache derrière sa méthode car on sent entre les lignes un attachement viscéral à cette « civilisation du service public » dont parlait Pierre Bourdieu, et sans doute aussi une certaine incompréhension face à son délitement progressif. Mais passée au prisme des sciences sociales et d'une méthodologie éprouvée, cette inquiétude devient l'aiguillon d'une démonstration exemplaire apportant la preuve concrète de ce qu'une thèse produit comme connaissance et problématisation nouvelles des objets les plus centraux de la politique contemporaine.
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.
I welcome Jan Komárek's project to engage in a history of "European Constitutional Imaginaries" as seen through EU law landmark theories and most prominent authors. Some malicious minds would think of it as yet another avatar of the "scholastic bias" that structurally incites us scholars to transform our professional anxieties (what is my/our scholarship worth for?) into full-fledged research question (do ideas matter?)… Others could see it as a vain exercise in nostalgia, as EU law researchers return to a golden age, that of the late 1980s, in which EU law was indeed able to frame professional identities and capture political imaginaries way beyond the academic circles. I would rather take it as part of the "critical turn" that has come along the sense of désoeuvrement so pervasive among EU lawyers ever since the constitutional project failed to gather popular support. A détour to the history of the discipline can indeed be a powerful methodological device to strengthen our reflexive gaze and, maybe, start again rolling up the immense boulder of theoretically connecting Europe, the European Union and the Law. I would argue however that the success of such endeavor is conditioned by our capacity to provide a renewed analytical framework able to compare past theoretical undertakings not only from an "internal" point of view (in terms of legal ideas) but also from an "external" point of view (in terms of social and political relevance) and -most importantly- account for the tensions and contradictions between the two. I take the very notions of "utopia", "imaginaries" and "ideology" introduced by the project IMAGINE, that all refer to the capacity of legal ideas to capture political expectations and strategies, as strong incentives to move in that direction. In this paper, I suggest to examine theories of European law along two (partly conflicting) dimensions -their scientific robustness and their social relevance- and apply this simple conceptual toolbox to three historical constellations of European law theory.
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 ...
