Limits of the Classic Method: Positive Action in the European Union After the New Equality Directives

Q1 Social Sciences Harvard International Law Journal Pub Date : 2003-09-09 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.437202
D. Caruso
{"title":"Limits of the Classic Method: Positive Action in the European Union After the New Equality Directives","authors":"D. Caruso","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.437202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union's member states are currently implementing two new directives, prohibiting discrimination on such grounds as race, ethnicity and religion. Both directives allow for positive action - a European version of affirmative action confined to \"soft,\" non-quota measures arguably reconcilable with the canon of individual equality. Based on time-honored EC provisions on gender discrimination, the European Court of Justice has already scrutinized, and occasionally prohibited as in breach of EC individual rights, states' positive action in favor of women. The Court is now likely to extend the same mode of scrutiny to the forms of discrimination contemplated by the new directives. Against this development, this Article argues for a reconceptualization of positive action. Rather than exceptional aberration from the paradigm of individual equality, affirmative action in both soft and hard mode is an identity-sensitive mechanism for the reallocation of resources, to be placed along a continuum of redistributive techniques. Identity-based redistribution measures are already known to both EC and state legal actors, in ways that a traditional individual-rights discourse both fails to capture and succeeds at hiding. At the present stage of integration, states' most significant redistributive policies are mostly exempt from judicial review. States should therefore be able to experiment with affirmative action in favor of minorities within national constitutional constraints and in light of local equilibria, but with no supranational review. The Open Method of Coordination - a \"soft\" instrument of EU governance recently applied to the fight against social exclusion may provide states with proper EU guidance in matters of identity-based policies.","PeriodicalId":35765,"journal":{"name":"Harvard International Law Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":"331-386"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard International Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.437202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

The European Union's member states are currently implementing two new directives, prohibiting discrimination on such grounds as race, ethnicity and religion. Both directives allow for positive action - a European version of affirmative action confined to "soft," non-quota measures arguably reconcilable with the canon of individual equality. Based on time-honored EC provisions on gender discrimination, the European Court of Justice has already scrutinized, and occasionally prohibited as in breach of EC individual rights, states' positive action in favor of women. The Court is now likely to extend the same mode of scrutiny to the forms of discrimination contemplated by the new directives. Against this development, this Article argues for a reconceptualization of positive action. Rather than exceptional aberration from the paradigm of individual equality, affirmative action in both soft and hard mode is an identity-sensitive mechanism for the reallocation of resources, to be placed along a continuum of redistributive techniques. Identity-based redistribution measures are already known to both EC and state legal actors, in ways that a traditional individual-rights discourse both fails to capture and succeeds at hiding. At the present stage of integration, states' most significant redistributive policies are mostly exempt from judicial review. States should therefore be able to experiment with affirmative action in favor of minorities within national constitutional constraints and in light of local equilibria, but with no supranational review. The Open Method of Coordination - a "soft" instrument of EU governance recently applied to the fight against social exclusion may provide states with proper EU guidance in matters of identity-based policies.
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
经典方法的局限性:新平等指令后欧盟的积极行动
欧盟成员国目前正在实施两项新指令,禁止基于种族、民族和宗教等理由的歧视。这两项指令都允许采取积极行动——欧洲版的平权行动仅限于“软的”、非配额的措施,可以说与个人平等的准则相协调。根据欧共体关于性别歧视的历史悠久的规定,欧洲法院已经审查并偶尔禁止违反欧共体个人权利的国家对妇女的积极行动。法院现在很可能将同样的审查模式扩展到新指令所设想的各种歧视形式。针对这种发展,本文主张重新定义积极行动。软硬两种方式的平权行动都不是对个人平等范式的例外偏离,而是一种对资源重新分配的身份敏感的机制,将沿着重新分配技术的连续体进行。基于身份的再分配措施已经为欧共体和国家法律行为者所熟知,而传统的个人权利论述既未能捕捉到这些措施,又成功地隐藏了这些措施。在一体化的现阶段,各州最重要的再分配政策大多免于司法审查。因此,各国应该能够在国家宪法限制和地方平衡的情况下试验有利于少数群体的肯定行动,但不进行超国家审查。开放的协调方法——一种欧盟治理的“软”工具,最近被应用于反对社会排斥的斗争中,它可以在基于身份的政策问题上为各国提供适当的欧盟指导。
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
Harvard International Law Journal
Harvard International Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: In an opinion survey published in The International Lawyer, senior scholars in the international and comparative law fields ranked the Harvard International Law Journal as having the “strongest academic reputation” of all student-edited international and comparative law specialty journals published in the United States. The ILJ publishes articles on international, comparative, and foreign law, the role of international law in U.S. courts, and the international ramifications of U.S. domestic law. These articles are written by the most prominent scholars and practitioners in the field and have been recognized as important contributions to the development of international law.
期刊最新文献
The Human Right to peace What is an International Crime? (A Revisionist History) Power Shifts in International Law: Structural Realignment and Substantive Pluralism Behavioral International Law and Economics Getting to Rights: Treaty Ratification, Constitutional Convergence, and Human Rights Practice
×
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