The Rule of Reason in European Citizenship

Yuri Borgmann-Prebil
{"title":"The Rule of Reason in European Citizenship","authors":"Yuri Borgmann-Prebil","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00416.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the European Court of Justice's case-law on European citizenship in the light of aspects of the rights theories of Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy. More specifically, the free movement right in Article 18(1) EC is conceptualised as a Dworkinian principle and as a prima-facie right or 'optimisation precept' in Alexy's sense. Against this backdrop the article argues that Article 18(1) can best be interpreted by drawing an analogy with the economic free movement provisions. The central argument is that the rule of reason also applies to European citizenship, or that there is a rule of reason in European citizenship. The analogy encompasses both the definition of the scope of Article 18(1) and its limitations. With regard to the latter, it is contended that there is no conceptual distinction between the 'limitations' and 'conditions' referred to in that provision. Particular emphasis is placed on the recent case-law concerning the question of access to welfare benefits. In this regard it is suggested that the notion of a 'structural link' constitutes both a threshold criterion to trigger the prima-facie right in Article 18(1) as well as a benchmark for assessing the degree of solidarity owed to the migrant citizen. The rule of reason approach leads to the stipulation of a thin, juridical conception of European citizenship that does not rely in any way on thick, essentialist properties.","PeriodicalId":431450,"journal":{"name":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00416.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This article reviews the European Court of Justice's case-law on European citizenship in the light of aspects of the rights theories of Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy. More specifically, the free movement right in Article 18(1) EC is conceptualised as a Dworkinian principle and as a prima-facie right or 'optimisation precept' in Alexy's sense. Against this backdrop the article argues that Article 18(1) can best be interpreted by drawing an analogy with the economic free movement provisions. The central argument is that the rule of reason also applies to European citizenship, or that there is a rule of reason in European citizenship. The analogy encompasses both the definition of the scope of Article 18(1) and its limitations. With regard to the latter, it is contended that there is no conceptual distinction between the 'limitations' and 'conditions' referred to in that provision. Particular emphasis is placed on the recent case-law concerning the question of access to welfare benefits. In this regard it is suggested that the notion of a 'structural link' constitutes both a threshold criterion to trigger the prima-facie right in Article 18(1) as well as a benchmark for assessing the degree of solidarity owed to the migrant citizen. The rule of reason approach leads to the stipulation of a thin, juridical conception of European citizenship that does not rely in any way on thick, essentialist properties.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲公民身份中的理性原则
本文从德沃金和阿列克谢的权利理论出发,回顾了欧洲法院关于欧洲公民权的判例法。更具体地说,欧共体第18(1)条中的自由流动权被概念化为德沃宁原则,并作为Alexy意义上的初步权利或“优化戒律”。在此背景下,该条认为,对第18(1)条的最好解释是与经济自由流动条款作类比。其核心论点是,理性法则也适用于欧洲公民身份,或者说,在欧洲公民身份中存在理性法则。这一类比既包括对第18(1)条范围的定义,也包括其局限性。关于后者,有人争辩说,该条所提到的“限制”和“条件”之间没有概念上的区别。特别强调了最近关于获得福利问题的判例法。在这方面,有人建议,“结构联系”的概念既是触发第18条第1款所述的初步权利的门槛标准,也是评估移民公民应得到的团结程度的基准。理性法则的方法导致了一种薄的、法律的欧洲公民概念的规定,这种概念不以任何方式依赖于厚的、本质主义的属性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Why Tolerate Religion? The Standards of Property England and the Rediscovery of Constitutional Faith The Indelible Science of Law The Principle Theory: How Many Theories and What is Their Merit?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1