危机、重新诠释与法治:将 "凝聚力 "重新用作欧盟的一般支出权

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Pub Date : 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3
Peter L. Lindseth, Päivi Leino-Sandberg
{"title":"危机、重新诠释与法治:将 \"凝聚力 \"重新用作欧盟的一般支出权","authors":"Peter L. Lindseth, Päivi Leino-Sandberg","doi":"10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The EU Treaties contain no provision akin to the clause in the United States Constitution empowering spending in the ‘general Welfare’, i.e., for the general public good. Nonetheless, supporters of a broad reading of the cohesion flexibility clause, Article 175(3) TFEU, now claim that the EU, in effect, already has that power. The claim is inspired by that clause serving as the sole legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This is the cornerstone of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) Programme, the EU’s massive borrowing and spending initiative that has directed a large amount of money to national priorities to address not just economic consequences of Covid but also longer-term issues of climate change, energy transition, and digitalization. This contribution critically assesses whether Article 175(3) TFEU can serve as the basis for general spending authority in the EU, particularly at the expense of its traditional role in regional development in Europe’s economic periphery. The analysis draws on the historic purposes of cohesion policy, the existing case law on the limited scope of the cohesion flexibility clause, as well as legal opinions of the Council Legal Service on the same question. This contribution concludes that the crisis-driven reinterpretation of Article 175(3) TFEU not only undermines cohesion as developmental tool for the periphery, but it also raises serious concerns about democratic legitimacy and the rule of law at Europe’s core. The EU may well need a general spending power, but the way to achieve it is not through institutional lawyers engaging in strained crisis reinterpretation outside of public scrutiny. Instead, what is needed is democratic politics pure and simple, i.e., Treaty change.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crisis, Reinterpretation, and the Rule of Law: Repurposing ‘Cohesion’ as a General EU Spending Power\",\"authors\":\"Peter L. Lindseth, Päivi Leino-Sandberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The EU Treaties contain no provision akin to the clause in the United States Constitution empowering spending in the ‘general Welfare’, i.e., for the general public good. Nonetheless, supporters of a broad reading of the cohesion flexibility clause, Article 175(3) TFEU, now claim that the EU, in effect, already has that power. The claim is inspired by that clause serving as the sole legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This is the cornerstone of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) Programme, the EU’s massive borrowing and spending initiative that has directed a large amount of money to national priorities to address not just economic consequences of Covid but also longer-term issues of climate change, energy transition, and digitalization. This contribution critically assesses whether Article 175(3) TFEU can serve as the basis for general spending authority in the EU, particularly at the expense of its traditional role in regional development in Europe’s economic periphery. The analysis draws on the historic purposes of cohesion policy, the existing case law on the limited scope of the cohesion flexibility clause, as well as legal opinions of the Council Legal Service on the same question. This contribution concludes that the crisis-driven reinterpretation of Article 175(3) TFEU not only undermines cohesion as developmental tool for the periphery, but it also raises serious concerns about democratic legitimacy and the rule of law at Europe’s core. The EU may well need a general spending power, but the way to achieve it is not through institutional lawyers engaging in strained crisis reinterpretation outside of public scrutiny. Instead, what is needed is democratic politics pure and simple, i.e., Treaty change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00234-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟条约》中没有类似于《美国宪法》中授权为 "普遍福利"(即普遍公共利益)支出的条款。然而,对《欧盟运作条约》第 175(3)条 "凝聚力灵活性条款 "进行广义解读的支持者现在声称,欧盟实际上已经拥有这种权力。这一主张的灵感来源于该条款作为恢复和复原基金(RRF)的唯一法律依据。这是欧盟下一代计划(NGEU)的基石,该计划是欧盟的一项大规模借贷和支出计划,将大量资金用于国家优先事项,以解决科威德事件的经济后果以及气候变化、能源转型和数字化等长期问题。这篇论文批判性地评估了《欧盟运作条约》(TFEU)第 175(3)条是否可作为欧盟一般支出权力的基础,尤其是以牺牲欧盟在欧洲经济边缘地区发展中的传统作用为代价。分析借鉴了欧盟凝聚力政策的历史目的、关于欧盟凝聚力灵活性条款有限范围的现有判例法以及欧盟理事会法律服务处关于同一问题的法律意见。本文的结论是,由危机驱动的对《欧盟运作条约》第 175(3)条的重新解释不仅破坏了作为外围地区发展工具的凝聚力,而且还引发了对欧洲核心地区民主合法性和法治的严重担忧。欧盟很可能需要一种总体支出权,但实现这一目标的途径不是通过机构律师在公众监督之外进行紧张的危机重新解释。相反,我们需要的是纯粹而简单的民主政治,即修改条约。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Crisis, Reinterpretation, and the Rule of Law: Repurposing ‘Cohesion’ as a General EU Spending Power

The EU Treaties contain no provision akin to the clause in the United States Constitution empowering spending in the ‘general Welfare’, i.e., for the general public good. Nonetheless, supporters of a broad reading of the cohesion flexibility clause, Article 175(3) TFEU, now claim that the EU, in effect, already has that power. The claim is inspired by that clause serving as the sole legal basis for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This is the cornerstone of the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) Programme, the EU’s massive borrowing and spending initiative that has directed a large amount of money to national priorities to address not just economic consequences of Covid but also longer-term issues of climate change, energy transition, and digitalization. This contribution critically assesses whether Article 175(3) TFEU can serve as the basis for general spending authority in the EU, particularly at the expense of its traditional role in regional development in Europe’s economic periphery. The analysis draws on the historic purposes of cohesion policy, the existing case law on the limited scope of the cohesion flexibility clause, as well as legal opinions of the Council Legal Service on the same question. This contribution concludes that the crisis-driven reinterpretation of Article 175(3) TFEU not only undermines cohesion as developmental tool for the periphery, but it also raises serious concerns about democratic legitimacy and the rule of law at Europe’s core. The EU may well need a general spending power, but the way to achieve it is not through institutional lawyers engaging in strained crisis reinterpretation outside of public scrutiny. Instead, what is needed is democratic politics pure and simple, i.e., Treaty change.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
18.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Rule-of-Law Violations in a State of Emergency? Towards a General Analytical Framework The Shifting Landscape of Judicial Independence Criteria Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure: A Comment on the CJEU’s Recent Case Law and the Trajectory of Article 267 TFEU The Rule of Law and Corporate Actors: Measuring Influence EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’ Confused Constitutionalism in Hungary—New Assessment Criteria for Recognising a Populist Constitutional Court
×
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