Abstract
This chapter deals with external horizontal differentiation through the case of the associated non-members. Specifically, it looks at the case of Norway as a party to the EEA Agreement, which provides access to the Single Market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The chapter examines the agreement and how sovereignty is transferred, and shows how the EEA members have voluntarily subjected themselves to the EU. Then the chapter takes a brief look at Switzerland and their bilateral arrangement with the EU. Although the EU allows access without membership, it does so on terms entirely determined by the EU. The EU thus dominates the associated non-members—it makes them ‘rule takers’, not rule makers. Therefore, this kind of differentiation leads to hegemony because of asymmetric power relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Or EC and EEC at that time, The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation which aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC).
- 3.
- 4.
Prior to the incorporation of EC Regulation No. 216/2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the implications for the Constitution were considered. The regulation authorises EASA to request the Commission to impose fines on national companies for breaches of the provisions of EASA rules. On 18 January 2010, the Legislation Department of the Norwegian Ministry of Justice concluded: ‘In principle, transferring the power to impose sanctions directly on Norwegian undertakings [to a body outside Norway] must be regarded as a considerable encroachment on Norway’s administrative authority. On the other hand, the transfer of powers in this case has limited substantive scope, in that it will only have an impact on undertakings that already have or later obtain certificates issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency. Currently, this only affects four Norwegian undertakings. Furthermore, it does not appear to be politically controversial to put further sanctions at the disposal of the European Aviation Safety Agency in addition to its already existing power to withdraw certificates. This would make it possible to respond in a more balanced and proportionate way to breaches of the rules, and would be beneficial for the Agency’s work on aviation safety. On this basis, we are inclined to conclude that, all in all, the transfer of powers set out in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 is not too much of an encroachment on constitutional powers, so that the Regulation can be incorporated into the EEA Agreement , provided that the Storting gives its consent in accordance with Article 26, second paragraph, of the Constitution. As mentioned initially, however, the Storting’s views on the constitutional assessment will be of importance in cases of doubt’ (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2012: 18).
- 5.
In the Schengen Area, there is no reservation/veto right. The Schengen Agreement simply ceases to exist for countries that do not incorporate it into national legislation. Here, however, Norway has been accorded observer status with a right to speak, but not a right to vote.
- 6.
Article 115 of the Norwegian Constitution (1814) reads: ‘In order to safeguard international peace and security or to promote the international rule of law and cooperation, the Storting may, by a three-fourths majority, consent that an international organisation to which Norway belongs or will belong shall have the right, within specified fields, to exercise powers which in accordance with this Constitution are normally vested in the authorities of the state, although not the power to alter this Constitution. For the Storting to grant such consent, at least two thirds of its Members shall be present, as required for proceedings for amending the Constitution. The provisions of this Article do not apply in cases of membership in an international organisation whose decisions only have application for Norway exclusively under international law.’
- 7.
However, Eivind Smith, professor at the Department of Public and International Law, Oslo University, has characterised the EEA Agreement as a constitutional catastrophe (Stortinget 1997: 37).
- 8.
In Norway, legislative authority is exercised by the Storting under Articles 49 and 75 of the Constitution. According to Art. 3, the government (‘executive power is vested in the King’) has executive power, whereas Articles 88 and 90 grant judicial power to the courts, with the Supreme Court as the highest authority (see Christopher Eriksen 2013: 379)
- 9.
See also Stavang (2002: 118ff.).
- 10.
The Norwegian Supreme Court has postponed one case while awaiting a decision in the The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) .
- 11.
- 12.
As the two-pillar system is in place, the rulings of the EFTA Court do not have direct effect on Norwegian law. They must be adopted by the Storting as well, as we have seen.
- 13.
Moreover, the EEA Agreement is increasingly perceived by the EU as a burden where the EU does not get enough in return. Within the EU, there is waning interest in maintaining it (European Commission 2012).
- 14.
This is in addition to its 1972 free trade agreement with the EEC.
References
Arnesen, Finn. 2004. EØS-reglenes betydning i norsk rett. In EØS law, Finn Arnesen, Sten Foyn, Olav Kolstad, Ole-Andreas Rognstad and Fredrik Sejersted, 2nd ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bull, Hedley. 2011. One Market, Two Courts; The Case Law of the EFTA Court. In Hope, Reluctance or Fear? The Democratic Consequences of Case Law of the European Court of Justice, ed. Flavia Carbonell, Augustin. J. Menéndez, and John Erik Fossum. ARENA Report 5/11, Oslo: ARENA.
EEA Act [EØS-loven]. 1992. Lov om gjennomføring I norsk rett av hoveddelen i avtale om det europeiske økonomiske samarbeidsområde (EØS). LOV-1992-11-27-109, nr. 23.
Eriksen, Christopher C. 2013. Den norske forfatningen og forholdet utenfor Norges grenser: Unntakstilstandenes eksterne dimensjoner. In Unntakstilstand og forfatning: Brudd og kontinuitet i konstitusjonell rett. Dag Michalsen Oslo: Pax.
Eriksen, Erik O. 2015. Despoiling Norwegian Democracy. In The European Union’s Non-members: Independence Under Hegemony?, ed. Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum. Abingdon: Routledge.
Eriksen, Erik O., and John Erik Fossum. 2015. The European Union’s Non-members: Independence Under Hegemony? London: Routledge.
Erla Maria Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland. 1997. Case E 9/97.
Esborg, Line. 2008. Det norske nei til EU. En studie av motstand som kulturell praksis [The Norwegian No to EU: Resistance as Cultural Practice]. Oslo: University of Oslo.
European Commission. 2012. Commission Staff Working Document: A Review of the Functioning of the European Economic Area. SWD (2012) Final, Brussels, 7 December.
Ferrera, Maurizio. 2014. Solidarity in Europe After the Crisis. Constellations 21 (2): 222–238.
Financial Mechanisms Office Brussels. 2017. Working Together for a Better Europe. 15 June. Brussels: Foreign Ministry of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Flaminio Costa v ENEL. 1964. Case 6/64, European Court Reports 585.
Fredriksen, Halvard H. 2015. The EEA and the Case Law of the CJEU: Incorporation Without Participation? In The European Union’s Non-members: Independence Under Hegemony?, ed. Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum. London: Routledge.
Gstöhl, Sieglinde. 2015. The European Union’s Different Neighbourhood Models. In The European Union’s Non-members: Independence Under Hegemony?, ed. Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum. London: Routledge.
Hegel, Georg. W.F. 1967 [1821]. Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Translated with notes by T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmøyvik, Eirik. 2015. Norway’s Constitutional Acrobatics Under the EEA Agreement. In The European Union’s Non-members: Independence Under Hegemony?, ed. Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum. London: Routledge.
Lavenex, Sandra, and Rene Schwok. 2015. The Nature of Switzerland’s Relationship with the EU. In The European Union’s Non-members: Independence Under Hegemony?, ed. Erik O. Eriksen and John Erik Fossum. London: Routledge.
Lord, Christopher. 2017. Differentiated Authority Relations in the EU. Paper Presented at ARENA Research in Progress Seminar, Oslo, Norway, 14 February 2017.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2012. The EEA Agreement and Norway’s Other Agreements with the EU. Meld. St. 5 (2012–2013) Report to the Storting (White Paper). https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/fc5aa7428fd04f23af2a251d1c8c6710/en-gb/pdfs/stm201220130005000engpdfs.pdf. Accessed on 15 May 2017.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2016. EØS-håndboken [The EEA Handbook]. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/europapolitikk/eu_eos_handbok2016.pdf. Accessed on 10 May 2017.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2017. Norges økonomiske bidrag [Norway’s Financial Contribution]. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/europapolitikk/tema-norge-eu/okonomiske-bidrag/id684932/. Accessed on 2 May 2017.
Official Norwegian Report (NOU). 2012. Outside and Inside: Norway’s Agreements with the EU. Delivered to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 January.
Respons Analyse. 2017. Internasjonalt samarbeid og EU. Landsomfattende omnibus. 14 August. http://www.europabevegelsen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Internasjonalt-samarbeid-Norge-og-EU.pdf. Accessed on 28 November 2018.
Ringdal, Kristen. 1995. Velgernes Argumenter. In Brussel midt imot – folkeavstemningen om EU, ed. Anders Todal Jenssen and Henry Valen. Oslo: AdNotam Gyldendal.
Sjursen, H. 2008. Fra bremsekloss til medløper: Norge i EUs utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 25 (4): 323–335.
Standing Committee on the EFTA States. 2013. The Basic Features of the EEA Agreement: Note by Subcommittee V. 1 July. http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/eea/1112099_basic_features_of_the_EEA_Agreement.pdf. Accessed on 7 December 2018.
Stavang, Per. 2002. Parlamentarisme og folkestyre: Utvalde statsrettslege emne, 4 utgave. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Stortinget [Norwegian Parliament]. 1997. Innstilling fra utenrikskomiteen om samtykke til ratifikasjon av samarbeidsavtale av 19. desember 1996 mellom partene i Schengen-avtalen og Schengen-konvensjonen, og Island og Norge om avskaffelse av personkontroll på de felles grenser. Innst. S. nr 229 (1996–1997), Hearing, 30 May 1997. https://www.stortinget.no/nn/Saker-og-publikasjonar/publikasjonar/Innstillingar/Stortinget/1996-1997/inns-199697-229/?lvl=0. Accessed on 15 May 2017.
The Norwegian Constitution. 1814. The Kingdom of Norway’s Constitution. https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/english/constitutionenglish.pdf. Accessed on 28 November 2018.
Tovias, Alfred. 2006. Exploring the “Pros” and “Cons” of Swiss and Norwegian Models of Relations with the European Union: What Can Israel Learn from the Experiences of These Two Countries? Cooperation and Conflict 4 (2): 203–222.
Vahl, Marius, and Nina Grolimund. 2006. Integration Without Membership: Switzerland’s Bilateral Agreements with the European Union. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eriksen, E.O. (2019). Hegemony Through Self-Inflicted Subservience. In: Contesting Political Differentiation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11698-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11698-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11697-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11698-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)