Advertisement

Between Compliance and Particularism

Member State Interests and European Union Law
  • Marton VarjuEmail author
  • Veronika Czina
Chapter

Abstract

The European Union was brought to life by its Member States with a view to meeting certain local needs and responding to particular national interests. The process of integration as well as the fate of individual polices have continued to be directly influenced by the interests brought by the Member States to the European arena and negotiated among them. From this perspective, European integration serves as a vehicle for the promotion of the particular interests of individual Member States. However, membership in the EU has proved to be different from the participation States in other international organisations. The Member States are bound under constitutional principles to act loyal to the objectives of integration and cooperate sincerely with the Union institutions and the other Member States. They have imposed on themselves general and detailed binding legal obligations and established a multi-layered system for the effective enforcement of those obligations. Thus, the achievement of the common objectives pursued in the Union, and with that the realisation of the corresponding national interests of the Member States, depends on Member State conduct being brought under frameworks of compliance.

References

  1. Azoulai, L. (2013). The European Court of Justice and the duty to respect sensitive national interests. In B. De Witte et al. (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice (pp. 167–187). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard, C. (2000). Flexibility and social policy. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU: From uniformity to flexibility? (pp. 197–216). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard, C. (2009). Derogations, justifications and the four freedoms: Is state interest really protected? In C. Barnard & O. Odudu (Eds.), The outer limits of European law (pp. 273–305). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bartolini, S. (2005). Restructuring Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blauberger, M., & Schmidt, S. K. (2017). The European Court of Justice and its political impact. West European Politics, 40, 907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunse, S., Nicolaïdis, K., & Magnette, P. (2005). Is the Commission the small Member States’ friend? Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Studies (SIEPS). No. 9.Google Scholar
  7. Clift, B. (2013). Economic patriotism, the clash of capitalisms, and state aid in the European Union. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 13, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clift, B., & Woll, C. (2012). Economic patriotism: Reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copeland, P. (2012). EU enlargement, the clash of capitalisms and the European Social Model. Comparative European Politics, 10, 476–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig, P. (2012). Competence and Member State autonomy: Casualty, consequence and legitimacy. In H. Micklitz & B. De Witte (Eds.), The ECJ and the autonomy of the Member States (pp. 11–34). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  11. Dashwood, A. (1998). States in the European Union. European Law Review, 23, 201–216.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, G. (2016). Free movement, the quality of life and the myth that the Court balances interests. In P. Koutrakos, N. Nic Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law (pp. 218–239). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. de Búrca, G. (2000). Differentiation within the core: The case of the common market. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU: From uniformity to flexibility? (pp. 133–172). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. de Búrca, G. (2005). Rethinking law in neofunctionalist theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 310–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Búrca, G., & Scott, J. (2000). Introduction. In G. de Búrca & J. Scott (Eds.), Constitutional change in the EU: From uniformity to flexibility? (pp. 1–8). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Dehousse, R. (1997). European integration and the nation state. In M. Rhodes et al. (Eds.), Developments in West European politics (pp. 37–54). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dimitrakopoulos, D. G., & Kassim, H. (2004). Deciding the future of the European Union: Preference formation and Treaty reform. Comparative European Politics, 2, 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eriksen, E. O. (2014). The normativity of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garret, G. (1992). International cooperation and institutional choice: The European Community’s internal market. International Organisation, 41, 533–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grøn, C. H., & Wivel, A. (2011). Maximizing influence in the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: From small state policy to smart state strategy. Journal of European Integration, 33, 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or obsolete: The fate of the nation state and the case of Western Europe. Daedalus, 95, 892–915.Google Scholar
  22. Jakobsen, P. V. (2009). Small states, big influence: The overlooked Nordic influence on the civilian ESDP. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaupa, C. (2013). Maybe not activist enough? On the Court’s alleged neoliberal bias in its recent labor cases. In B. De Witte et al. (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice (pp. 56–75). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kronsell, A. (2002). Can small states influence EU norms? Insights from Sweden’s participation in the field of environmental politics. Scandinavian Studies, 74, 287–304.Google Scholar
  25. Mancini, F. (1989). The making of a constitution for Europe. Common Market Law Review, 26, 595–614.Google Scholar
  26. Mattli, W. (1999). The logic of regional integration: Europe and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milward, A. (2000). The European rescue of the nation-state. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Milward, A., & Sørensen, V. (1994). Interdependence or integration? A national choice. In A. Milward et al. (Eds.), The frontier of national sovereignty: History and theory, 1945–1991 (pp. 1–32). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moravcsik, A. (1999). The choice for Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Panke, D. (2010). Small states in the European Union: Structural disadvantages in EU policy-making and counter-strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17, 799–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Panke, D. (2011). Small states in EU negotiations: Political dwarfs or power-brokers? Cooperation and Conflict, 46, 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Panke, D. (2012). Being small in a big Union: Punching above their weights? How small states prevailed in the vodka and the pesticides cases. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pastore, G. (2013). Small new Member States in the EU foreign policy: Towards ‘small state smart strategy’. Baltic Journal of Political Science, 2, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwarze, J. (2013). Die Abwägung von Zielen der europäischen Integration und mitgliedstaatliche Interessen in der Rechtssprechung des EUGH. Europarecht, 48, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shaw, J. (1996). European Union studies in crisis? Towards a new dynamic. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snell, J. (2016). Economic justifications and the role of the state. In P. Koutrakos, N. Nic Shuibhne, & P. Syrpis (Eds.), Exceptions from EU free movement law (pp. 12–31). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Stein, E. (1981). Lawyers, judges and the making of a transnational constitution. American Journal of International Law, 75, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thorallsson, B. (2000). The role of small states in the European Union. Abingdon: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Walker, N. (2011). The place of European law. In J. H. H. Weiler & G. de Búrca (Eds.), The worlds of European constitutionalism (pp. 57–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations