Suchergebnisse

The traditional debate surrounding the force of law in international politics is re-examined here through an analysis of the concrete operation of such transnational legal communities as emerged with the development of multilateralism & of international organizations during the 1920s. This article reveals the social mechanisms underpinning the third power constituted by jurists on the international stage of the period. It underscores the particular vision of the international general good constructed at the time within these academic transnational communities which were constantly torn between national & international loyalties, on the one hand, & between political & learned logic, on the other. Adapted from the source document.

Résumé Cet article (et le dossier qu'il introduit) propose de renouveler l'étude des formes de connaissance de l'Europe à partir de la notion-test d'Archive. Reprise à la fois aux historiens et à L'archéologie du savoir de Michel Foucault, la notion d'Archive – ici retravaillée pour la mettre au service d'une sociohistoire attentive aussi bien aux acteurs, à leurs luttes d'intérêt qu'à leurs discours – permet d'inclure dans l'analyse des « savoirs d'Europe » ce qui a été jusqu'ici laissé dans l'ombre. Car si l'étude des savoirs de gouvernement transnationaux est en plein essor, elle s'est concentrée pour l'instant sur les catégories et les paradigmes les plus consacrés, et donc sur ce qu'on pourrait appeler la doxa européenne. Mais elle a laissé de côté tous les savoirs avortés de la « construction européenne » : les catégories oubliées, les objets perdus, les savoirs contestés et rejetés... bref, tous ces « échecs doxiques » que la notion d'Archive permet de prendre en compte, en élargissant la focale pour inclure tous les discours, souvent contradictoires, qui ont été formulés sur l'Europe, par des acteurs bien plus divers que les traditionnels « entrepreneurs d'Europe » bien identifiés. Une manière de réencastrer l'« Europe de Bruxelles » dans ses différents contextes historiques et sociaux, pour mieux en comprendre les logiques de structuration.

Calling into question the meaning of "independence" in contemporary central banking, the present article investigates the social origins and post-crisis persistence of the European Central Bank's (ECB) core macroeconomic model, despite broad acknowledgement of its failure to anticipate the financial crisis. We trace the making of the model; the process by which it became dominant in European central banking and beyond; criticism in the wake of its failure to predict the financial-cum-Eurozone crisis; and its persistence, nonetheless, in the crisis' aftermath. We argue that the formation, meanings, and persistence of the ECB's model cannot be understood as effects of the bank's independence or the model's intrinsic qualities. Rather, the model's trajectory is best understood in light of the ECB's transnationally embedded social location in international finance, professional economics, and European governing institutions. The necessity of calculating Europe, irrespective of the accuracy or predictive strength of the model being used, has less to do with the ECB's independence from domestic politics and more to do with its transnational embeddedness – or, stated differently, that the ECB is, in a sense, too embedded to fail.

Calling into question the meaning of "independence" in contemporary central banking, the present article investigates the social origins and post-crisis persistence of the European Central Bank's (ECB) core macroeconomic model, despite broad acknowledgement of its failure to anticipate the financial crisis. We trace the making of the model; the process by which it became dominant in European central banking and beyond; criticism in the wake of its failure to predict the financial-cum-Eurozone crisis; and its persistence, nonetheless, in the crisis' aftermath. We argue that the formation, meanings, and persistence of the ECB's model cannot be understood as effects of the bank's independence or the model's intrinsic qualities. Rather, the model's trajectory is best understood in light of the ECB's transnationally embedded social location in international finance, professional economics, and European governing institutions. The necessity of calculating Europe, irrespective of the accuracy or predictive strength of the model being used, has less to do with the ECB's independence from domestic politics and more to do with its transnational embeddedness - or, stated differently, that the ECB is, in a sense, too embedded to fail.

"Mainstream legal scholarship on the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU) has long been dominated by meta-narratives and grand theories to explain European legal integration as a necessary, if not self-evident, process toward ever greater integration. The directional pull of these functional narratives, whether termed as Europeanization, federalization, or constitutionalization, is one towards an ever-closer Union, thereby replicating the original teleology of the Rome Treaty (1957). Although there are theoretical differences among these explanations, notably between intergovernmental and neo-functionalist narratives, most scholars agree that one particular institutional actor has played an outsized role: the European Court of Justice (ECJ), now the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) since the Lisbon Treaty (2009) that includes the Court of Justice, the General Court. For the same reasons, the CJEU has become a coveted object of inquiry for studies of European integration and governance. We have for years learned about its role in constitutionalizing Europe, establishing the supremacy of European law, creating a system of supranational governance, and the new types of litigation and mobilization spurred by the ECJ"--

The book takes stock of the on-going 'methodological turn' in the field of EU law scholarship. Introducing a new generation of scholars of the European Court of Justice from law, history, sociology, political science and linguistics, it provides a set of novel interdisciplinary research strategies and empirical materials for the study of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The twelve case studies included challenge the usual top-down approach to EU law and the CJEU and instead suggest a more localized and fine-grained observation of the socio-legal actors and practices involved in the making of CJEU case-law. Moving beyond mainstream legal scholarship and the established 'grand narratives' of legal integration, the volume provides a more historically-informed and sociologically-grounded account of the EU law's uneven embeddedness in Europe's economies and societies.

The European Union has long suffered from a lack of democratic accountability. In the past decade, the problem has become particularly acute in the economic management of the Eurozone, the 19 countries of the E.U. that use the Euro (nine members don't). At present, the central institution for management of the Eurozone is the Eurogroup, an informal body led by national finance ministers who report neither to the European Parliament nor to national parliaments but coordinate their activities with the Troika, that is, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Council. Critics accuse the Eurogroup both of lack of transparency and of consistently putting the interests of the rich northwest ahead of the interests of poorer and smaller nations in the east and south. In How to Democratize Europe, four distinguished French scholars describe the diverse problems of the Eurozone and propose a treaty that would establish a parliament for economic policy consisting of selected members of national parliaments. Various contributors then respond to the proposal with support, criticism, or ideas for alternatives.--