Urn:Nbn:Nl:Ui:10-1874-211177
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONALISM: ACCOUNTABILITY BEYOND BORDERS National Parliaments and European Constitutionalism: Accountability Beyond Borders (with a summary in English) Nationale parlementen en Europees constitutionalisme: politieke verantwoordelijkheid voorbij grenzen (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 des ochtends te 10.30 uur door Davor Jančić geboren op 12 maart 1982 te Novi Sad, Servië Promotor: Prof. dr. L. Besselink Assessment committee: Prof. dr. S. Weatherill (Oxford University) Prof. dr. R. Dehousse (Sciences Po Paris) Prof. dr. F. de Quadros (University of Lisbon) Prof. dr. D. Curtin (University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University) Prof. dr. H. Kummeling (Utrecht University) (Chairman) Acknowledgments The past four years have been a tremendous academic experience that would not have been the same without the generous help of many people. More than anyone else, my supervisor Professor Leonard Besselink was an incessant source of intellectual inspiration and leadership. He unselfishly supported each of the steps in my life as a doctoral student. I will always be immensely grateful to him for believing in me and for giving me the chance to learn not only about law and politics but also about the research world in general. Leonard was always there for me, be it regular personal meetings, e-mail discussions or Skype calls during summer breaks. He also took care about my social life and personal well-being, which meant a whole lot to me. In a less direct but no less important way, Professors Rob Widdershoven, Henk Kummeling and Ben Schueler have been associated with my PhD and I thank them wholeheartedly for their support. The atmosphere at Achter Sint Pieter 200 in Utrecht was always extremely pleasant. I thank all of my dear colleagues for making me feel at home and accepting me as one of them. Above all, I thank my fellow PhD students – Jasper, Peter, Daan, Brecht, Alberto, Haak, Anoeska, Melissa, Loes, Margot, Milan and Bettina – for being awesome colleagues and friends. I also thank Frieda, Corrie, Miranda, Vanessa, Inge and Cathelijne for their prompt administrative support. I wish to praise the Utrecht Law Library personnel for their swift services and excellent cooperation. The couple without whom my PhD life would have been much more ascetic are Jan and Louise from the canteen. I thank them for giving in to my constant requests for fried chicken and chicken soup, which have given me the energy to persist in my research efforts. My thanks also go to my comrades outside the research milieu, Nima and Swen, my true friends. Due to the comparative nature of my PhD project, it was highly beneficial for me to become acquainted with the English, French and Portuguese literature. For this reason, I was fortunate enough to spend research periods at Sciences Po Paris, the London School of Economics and the University of Lisbon. Each of these stays left a specific mark on my thinking and enriched my thesis. This would not have been possible without the kind assistance, collegiality and academic support of Professors Renaud Dehousse and Fausto de Quadros as well as Dr Jo Murkens. I am indebted to Utrecht University’s G.J. Wiarda Institute for Legal Research for providing financial assistance for my stay in London. It has been a great honour for me to have an international reading committee. I am truly grateful to Professors Stephen Weatherill, Renaud Dehousse, Fausto de Quadros, Deirdre Curtin and Henk Kummeling for taking their precious summer time to read and assess my manuscript. I am also grateful to Professor Mark Bovens, Dr Madalina Busuioc, Dr Gijs Jan Brandsma and Dr Marianne van de Steeg for several informal meetings at which we i Acknowledgments discussed each other’s writings. I have also profited from constructive comments by Professor Beate Kohler-Koch and Dr Ben Crum. All these discussions were invaluable in getting a perspective from political science. For her limitless support and encouragement, I am obliged to Professor Marjoleine Zieck, a colleague and friend who occupies a very special place in my life and to whom I owe much of what I have so far achieved in my academic career. The person whom I wish to single out especially is Lívia Freitas de Lima. The very structure of my dissertation was born when I tried to explain to her what my job was about. She was my emotional backbone, my ultimate source of energy, strength, stability and tranquility, my fount of joy and happiness. Lívia, obrigado por tudo. Last but not least, I thank my dear family – my mother Olga, my father Vlasta and my sister Lana – for being with me each and every day, for bearing my complaints, for helping me solve my dilemmas, for giving me sincere advice, for giving me the love and care, and for enabling me to be where I am now. I devote this dissertation to the three of you. ii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY TRANSCENDING NATIONAL BORDERS 1 1. FRAMING THE STUDY: WHOSE ARE OUR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS? 1 1.1. Topic 1 1.2. Objectives and added value 2 2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW: TOWARDS A QUALITATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS 3 2.1. The pre-Maastricht placidity: adjusting the lens 3 2.2. The Maastricht frenzy: parliamentary decline diagnosis 4 2.3. The post-Maastricht avalanche: scrutiny as a democracy fix 6 3. STRUCTURE: SUBSTANTIVE PARLIAMENTARY FUNCTIONS IN FOCUS 9 4. METHODOLOGY: LEGAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS COMBINED 12 CHAPTER 2 PARLIAMENTARY INTERDEPENDENCE: CONCEPTUALISING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND EU INSTITUTIONS 15 1. IN SEARCH OF A THEORETICO-METHODOLOGICAL DEVICE 15 2. INTERDEPENDENCE AND EU GOVERNANCE 16 3. INTERDEPENDENCE AND EU CONSTITUTIONALISM 18 3.1. Federalism 19 3.2. Constitutional pluralism 21 3.3. Multilevel constitutionalism 22 3.4. Composite constitutionalism 24 3.5. Synthetic constitutionalism 26 3.6. Multilevel parliamentary field 26 4. THE CONCEPT OF PARLIAMENTARY INTERDEPENDENCE 27 4.1. Parliamentary role perceptions 27 4.2. Rationale behind parliamentary interdependence 28 4.3. Definition and added value of the concept 31 PART I – CONDITIONS THE LOST AND FOUND OF EUROPE'S DEMOCRACY 1. VISIONS OF A UNITED EUROPE: A PRELUDE 37 2. METHOD 39 2.1. Questions 39 iii Table of Contents 2.2. Case studies selection 39 3. ARGUMENT AND STRUCTURE 42 CHAPTER 3 OVERTURE THE COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY: THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS' EUROPEAN YOUTH 43 1. THE BIRTH OF THE FIRST EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: A HUMBLE BEGINNING 43 2. THE PREROGATIVES OF THE FLEDGLING COMMON ASSEMBLY 46 3. THE NATURE OF THE DOUBLE MANDATE: POSITIVE BUT UNSUSTAINABLE? 49 3.1. The High Authority as the Community's powerhouse 49 3.2. National parliaments as archetypal repositories of popular representation 50 4. THE COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY TREATY IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS 55 4.1. France: sowing the germ of supranational parliamentarism 55 4.2. Britain: strategic abstention 57 4.3. Portugal: obstructed by dictatorship 61 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS 62 CHAPTER 4 INTERMEZZO THE MAASTRICHT TREATY: PARLIAMENTS BECKONED TO THE UNION 65 1. EXPLORING INTERPARLIAMENTARISM ACROSS LEVELS 65 2. CHALLENGING NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS THROUGH TREATY REFORM 68 2.1. The parliaments' comeback in the Treaties and in practice 68 2.1.1. Declarations on national parliaments 68 2.1.2. The Assizes: a failed experiment 69 2.1.3. COSAC: a success story 70 2.2. Codecision: empowering the national parliaments' counterpart 71 2.3. Wading into intergovernmentalism 72 2.4. Consecrating a principled organisation of EU competences 72 3. THE MAASTRICHT TREATY IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS 73 3.1. France 73 3.1.1. Constitutionality 74 3.1.2. Codecision 76 3.1.3. Integovernmentalism 78 3.1.4. Subsidiarity 79 3.2. Britain 81 3.2.1. Codecision 82 3.2.2. Intergovernmentalism 84 3.2.3. Subsidiarity 87 3.3. Portugal 87 3.3.1. Codecision 88 iv Table of Contents 3.3.2. Intergovernmentalism 91 3.3.3. Subsidiarity 91 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 92 CHAPTER 5 FINALE THE LISBON TREATY: NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS ANCHORED IN THE UNION 95 1. CALIBRATING INTERPARLIAMENTARISM ACROSS LEVELS 95 2. THE POWERS OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS UNDER THE LISBON TREATY 97 3. GENERIC EUROPEAN FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS 100 3.1. Good functioning of the Union 100 3.2. Democratic principles of the Union 101 4. SUBSIDIARITY GUARDIANSHIP 102 4.1. Early warning mechanism 102 4.1.1. Scope and method of application 102 4.1.2. Procedural aspects 103 4.1.3. Constitutional value 107 4.2. Late warning mechanism 109 4.3. The Barroso initiative 110 4.3.1. Origins, definition and characteristics 110 4.3.2. Modes of national parliamentary participation 112 A. Differences 112 B. Similarities 113 4.3.3. Effects 113 5. THE LISBON TREATY IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS 115 5.1. FRANCE 116 5.1.1. Constitutionality 116 5.1.2. Subsidiarity 119 5.1.3. Good functioning of the Union 122 5.1.4. Extension of codecision 123 5.2. BRITAIN 125 5.2.1. Subsidiarity 126 5.2.2. Good functioning of the Union 130 5.2.3. Extension of codecision 131 5.3. PORTUGAL 136 5.3.1. Subsidiarity 137 5.3.2. Good functioning of the Union 138 5.3.3. Extension of codecision 140 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS 141 v Table of Contents PART II – COMPETENCES EUROPEAN SCRUTINY AFTER LISBON: LOCKED AND LOADED 1. OBJECTIVES 147 2. METHOD 148 2.1. Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 149 2.1.1.