European Law Journal最新文献

What are the potential strengths and weaknesses in the current reconstruction of foresight at the EU level? In questioning foresight's institutionalisation processes from both a historical and a political sociology perspective, the article claims that charting the future is an issue of political power and that, hence, foresight's institutionalisation can never be taken for granted. More precisely, we identify two factors that determine how such process plays out. First, it depends on the definition and importance of the future according to specific contexts (war, economic or health crisis, periods of growth, etc.). Second, this changing definition intertwines with socio-institutional structures and agents that are crucial for this institutionalisation to be sustainable. The analysis is twofold. First, we provide an overview of past international experiences of projections into the future (both foresight and forecast). Second, we illustrate how these issues may resurface and rebound within the EU’s unique power context.

While in Poland the October 2023 elections led to a government halting the rule of law crisis, in Hungary the political situation continues to deteriorate. Focusing on European Parliament resolutions, this article analyses Hungarian developments from the prism of human dignity, the EU's first foundational value under Article 2 TEU. First the article discusses the key features of human dignity with reference to the original commitment to human dignity under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the EU Charter. Secondly, it uses these key features as an analytical grid for evidencing the construction of a counter-model of human beings made to live in a society of inequality and exclusion. Finally, this paper outlines five reasons why human dignity as the first Article 2 value is breached by the Hungarian regime and why the EU Commission's decision not to trigger Article 7(2) is so problematic.

Drawing on examples of foresight projects situated at the interface between academia and foreign policy practice, this article reflects on the role of academics in informing the practice of foreign policy-making in the EU. The study explores why academics have rarely engaged in foresight over the past two decades and why this has changed in recent years. It argues that this shift is triggered, on the one hand, by the strategic blunders of the last decade and, on the other hand, by the conceptual developments within the disciplines of political science or international relations. After demonstrating the growing trend of scholarly engagement in foresight with a series of illustrative examples, the article discusses the added value and limitations of academic-generated foresight for EU foreign policy. Taking these into account, the analysis indicates best practice solutions, such as foresight exercises, with the joint involvement of researchers and policymakers.

Introducing this issue, the present article notes how the growing political importance given to foresight in EU governance has so far only sparked limited interest among scholars of EU law and policy-making. To address this gap, the article starts by clarifying concepts and defining the key terminology at the intersection between (strategic) foresight and EU governance ‘in the law’ (involving societal actors in law-making processes) and ‘through law’ (governmental actors steering society via law). It then offers a comparative discussion of the main insights of the contributions to the issue, highlighting how and why foresight has become institutionalised and how it operates across EU institutions today. In the concluding section, the article turns to the future and calls for more research into how foresight shapes EU governance, setting a research agenda for the study of foresight as a practice informing law- and policy-making in the European Union.

This article assesses the impact of strategic foresight in shaping the European Commission’s new industrial policy. It argues that, since it was introduced by President von der Leyen as a political portfolio, foresight has contributed to mainstreaming the concepts of ‘resilience’ and ‘open strategic autonomy’ into the EU's industrial strategy, via the Strategic Foresight Reports and new participatory structures inside and outside the Commission. This responded to the need for building up preparedness in the face of ‘radical uncertainty’ on future supply chain disruptions. We conclude that strategic foresight—if supported by an effective governance—will play an increasingly large role in shaping the EU's future policymaking. In particular, the concepts of ‘competitive sustainability’ and people's wellbeing, advanced by the 2023 Strategic Foresight Report as pillars of open strategic autonomy, may help futureproof the EU's green industrial policy going forward.

This article examines the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) network and assesses its impact on efforts to embed strategic foresight in EU policy-making. It analyses the development of the network through three stages: preparatory steps to 2014, quasi-institutionalisation from 2015 and high-level anchoring from 2019. Throughout, the view that a new approach to strategic analysis was needed met concerns about preserving institutional prerogatives and competences. The article suggests that this tension mitigated the network's impact, which has been more significant on matters of process than of substance. Achievements include the creation of foresight capacity and of dialogue across institutional and sectoral boundaries and greater appreciation of the interdependence of global challenges across different domains. Progress towards deeper engagement with worst-case scenarios and with the challenge of societal fragmentation has been more limited.

The article argues that the ever-closer Union among peoples of Europe finds itself at a critical juncture: the unstated and implicit assumption of a community made up of liberal democracies is being challenged and pitted against the rival rebirth of the nationalistic narrative of uniqueness and self-sufficiency. The readiness to live, or paddle together, is on the line as the once sacrosanct ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ seems to be the focal point of the principled disagreement that calls into question the very belonging to the community and its continued existence. Faced with these challenges, this article charts an interdisciplinary and holistic road map to grapple with the big supranational questions of the day. It argues that the traditional European discourse moves beyond the technical dichotomy of ‘market regulation versus deregulation’ and ‘Union competence versus Member State competence’ and instead zeroes in on the more fundamental questions pertaining to mega-politics centred on the identity of the common legal order. While the analysis appreciates the critical interaction between the legal dimension of European supranational integration—the search for optimal tools to safeguard the integrity of the supranational order—it stresses the importance of the ethical face—the narrative and justification that would explain in the name of whom the supranational governance and design acts when it defines and then defends its narrative and First Principles of the common legal order today in flux more than ever.

This article examines the foundational principles and methodologies of foresight and their integration into EU policy-making. It explores how foresight can improve policy analysis to create future-ready, resilient decisions amid uncertainties. By synthesising empirical evidence and interpreting multifaceted issues through an interdisciplinary lens, foresight provides EU policymakers with tools to make informed decisions that remain adaptable in the face of unpredictability. The author argues that foresight, through comprehensive analysis of trends, uncertainties and potential challenges, can guide policymakers in forming future-focused strategies. Key foresight methods emphasised include horizon scanning, systems analysis, stakeholder engagement and scenario planning. The article advocates a holistic policy approach, urging analysts to acknowledge biases and assumptions while integrating diverse perspectives. Concluding with a framework for responsible policy-making, the article argues that foresight can shape evidence-based, inclusive and transparent strategies, ensuring that the EU will be prepared for unpredictable futures.

Although foresight has played a central role in the history of European integration since its inception in the 1950s, it has not always had the same meaning, nor has it always been used in the same political way. This article looks at the genesis and development of foresight on a European scale between 1950 and 2020, analysing it as a specific public policy: such a perspective aims to highlight the differentiated relationships to time and future, the different conceptions of the respective roles of administration, politics and science, and the forms of competence on which successive foresight policies are based. It also enables us to identify the institutional and political factors that explain its development, and the particular forms it takes.

Contemporary politics require a swift and responsive policy-making approach to respond to emergency situations quickly and to anticipate them in a strategic manner. Maintaining decision-making agility in times of urgency makes it necessary to think ahead of stress-impacting situations. To increase systemic resilience, policies must be designed in an adaptive way. Strategic options, futurity of policies and potential futures must be elaborated and kept in sight when developing policies. Anticipatory governance and strategic foresight activities are elements of such an adaptive governance mode. To transform decision-making in a future-oriented way, these forward-planning elements need to be institutionalised to support governance resilience. This article asks how anticipatory governance and strategic foresight are embedded within EU multilevel governance. It investigates the EU Better Regulation Agenda to understand how anticipatory governance already contributes to EU governance. Additionally, it discusses how the institutionalisation of strategic foresight can contribute to EU anticipatory governance.