Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integration and Fundamental Rights in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe

  • 313 Accesses

Abstract

Every time there is the creation of a form of Union of States, a process of integration is put in motion. A sequence of crises and achievements characterises such a development, which in the case of the EU can be defined as Europeanisation/European integration. This monograph rethinks the path towards European integration, which is intended as ‘the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ (Article 1(2) Treaty of the European Union (TEU)). Challenges to this project have largely occurred due to tensions between the process of closer integration and the protection of nation-states’ sovereignty. Our major contribution is to offer a fresh look on integration, posing EU foundational legal values at its heart. These values are enshrined in Article 2 TEU, which states that ‘The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail’. We submit that, amongst the common values, fundamental/human rights constitute the drivers of European integration and should be at the core of all EU’s working and initiatives. Thus, to rethink the path towards Europeanisation, we propose to re-focus the attention on the ‘Integration Through Rights’ (ITRs) idea, which constitutes the backbone of this work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Frowein et al. (1986), p. 231.

  2. 2.

    The terms ‘Europeanisation’ and ‘European integration’ are used in our work as synonymises.

  3. 3.

    Article 1(2) of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) provides that: ‘This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.’

  4. 4.

    The terms ‘fundamental rights’ and ‘human rights’ are used in this work in an interchangeable fashion.

  5. 5.

    The concept was originally used by Mauro Cappelletti, who characterised Integration Through Law as ‘an inherently and proudly pluralistic product. See Cappelletti et al. (1986), p. v.

  6. 6.

    This book is grounded on findings collected during a theoretical and empirical project started in 2009. The first empirical phase was funded internally by Oxford Brookes University’s Social Sciences and Law School Strategy Fund in 2010 and involved interviews with judges and Advocates General of the Court of Justice of EU (CJEU). The second phase, which included interviews with policymakers at EU and CoE levels and the judges of the European Court of Human Rights, was externally funded by the British Academy (BA Small Research Grants scheme, SG 2011 Round, Ref No: SG110947).

  7. 7.

    Konrad Adenauer, Joseph Bech, Johan Beyen, Winston Churchill, Alcide De Gasperi, Walter Hallstein, Sicco Mansholt, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Paul-Henri Spaak and Altiero Spinelli are the 11 individuals that are regarded as the Founding Fathers of the European Union.

  8. 8.

    Weber (1958). See also Weber (1980), pp. 124 et seq.; Runciman (1991), p. 7.

  9. 9.

    See the chapter “The Concept of Agency in Making Policy on Fundamental Rights”, section “Making Law and Policy in the European Union”.

  10. 10.

    Eisenstadt (1968).

  11. 11.

    Kalyvas (2008), p. 6.

  12. 12.

    Siedentop (2001), pp. 1–2.

  13. 13.

    There is large literature on the democratic deficit. For a leading account of the issue linked to integration, see Majone (1998).

  14. 14.

    Article I-47 of the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

  15. 15.

    Roach (2005), p. 752.

  16. 16.

    Scharpf (2009), p. 181.

  17. 17.

    For an interesting account of the critical border and migration studies see Vaughan-Williams (2015), p. 5.

  18. 18.

    Hooghe and Marks (2001, 2009).

  19. 19.

    Cohen-Jonathan (1994), pp. 90–91.

  20. 20.

    Amongst others, see Osiander (2001), Croxton (1999), Cutler (2001) and Hayman and Williams (2006).

  21. 21.

    For further detail see Yeh and Chang (2008), p. 89; Goderis and Versteeg (2013), pp. 103–133; Joerges and Glinski (2017); Joerges et al. (2004).

  22. 22.

    Shaw (2000), p. 21.

  23. 23.

    Bañkowski and Christodoulidis (1998), p. 342.

  24. 24.

    Poiares Maduro (2003), p. 74.

  25. 25.

    In Solange I the German Constitutional Court held that the applicability of secondary Community law in the Federal Republic was subject to a fundamental rights review by the Bundesverfassungsgericht.

    Subsequently, in Solange II it changed its stance, declaring that it would no longer control the compatibility of Community law with German fundamental rights, ‘as long as the European Communities, and in particular the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, generally ensured an effective protection of fundamental rights’. Following some reservations expressed in a couple of subsequent cases, the same Court stated that its control would only apply if the EC protection of fundamental rights no longer functioned, a hypothesis that must not be evaluated in light of a single case, but of a wider perspective, revealing general structural deficits on the European level. Consequently, the applicant must prove that European law, and the judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, have fallen below the standard of protection requested by the ‘Solange II’ decision. For more detail, see Sadurski (2012) and Bumke and Voßkuhle (2019).

  26. 26.

    Jaklic (2014), p. 150.

  27. 27.

    Draft Revised Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as Appendix 1 in Final Report to the CDDH, 47+1 (2013) 008rev2, 10 June 2013, 4-12.

  28. 28.

    Opinion 2/13 2014, paras 167-169.

  29. 29.

    Weber (1958), pp. 1–11.

  30. 30.

    Cappelletti et al. (1986), p. 15.

  31. 31.

    See Avbeli and Komarek (2012) and Moravcsik (2005).

  32. 32.

    Frowein et al. (1986), p. 231.

  33. 33.

    Frowein et al. (1986).

  34. 34.

    For example, Costello (2016), p. 41; Avbelj (2018), p. 9.

  35. 35.

    Shaw (2000), p. 21.

  36. 36.

    Shaw (2000), p. 21.

  37. 37.

    Tully (1995), p. 30.

  38. 38.

    See Weber (1958). See also Weber (1980), p. 124ff; Runciman (1991), p. 7.

  39. 39.

    Weber (1980), pp. 124 et seq.; Runciman (1991), p. 7.

  40. 40.

    Weber (1980), pp. 124 et seq.; Runciman (1991).

  41. 41.

    Weber (1980), pp. 124 et seq.

  42. 42.

    See the visionary leaders that have inspired the creation of the European Union at EU Pioneers, https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/eu-pioneers_en.

  43. 43.

    Opinion 2/13 2014, para 194.

  44. 44.

    See Munday (2016); McMeel (2000); Schanze (1987).

  45. 45.

    C-6/64 Costa, para 593. See also C-26/62 van Gend & Loos.

  46. 46.

    Thatcher and Stone Sweet (2002), p. 6.

  47. 47.

    See Bandura (1986).

  48. 48.

    Special rules apply to the conclusion of exchange rate and monetary agreements which is governed by Article 219 TFEU, and to the agreements concluded in the area of Common Commercial Policy in so far as ‘special provisions’ are provided for in Article 207 TFEU.

  49. 49.

    C-425/13 Commission v Parliament, para. 62 and C-327/91 France v Commission, para. 28.

  50. 50.

    Thatcher and Stone Sweet (2002), p. 4.

  51. 51.

    See Mroczek and Little (2006), pp. 3–8.

  52. 52.

    Post (2000), p. 186; Fenichel Pitkin (1987), p. 168. See also Walker (1996), p. 266.

  53. 53.

    Dashwood (2018), p. 189. See also Hillion and Koutrakos (2010).

  54. 54.

    Among others, see Ross (1973), pp. 134–139; Pratt and Zeckhauser (1991); Casadesus-Masanell and Spulber (2010); Da Conceicão-Heldt and Meunier (2014), p. 963; Da Conceicão-Heldt (2013), p. 25; Hawkins and Jacoby (2006), p. 207; Börzel and Van Hüllen (2014).

  55. 55.

    See Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011).

  56. 56.

    Baldwin and Davis (2003), p. 881.

  57. 57.

    See Gerring (2007), pp. 90–122; Cahillane and Schweppe (2019); Harrison et al. (2017); Mills et al. (2010), p. xxxi.

  58. 58.

    Palmberger and Gingrich (2013).

  59. 59.

    May (1997), p. 187.

  60. 60.

    Feenan (2013), pp. 3–19.

  61. 61.

    Harris (1983), p. 315.

  62. 62.

    See Banakar (2011).

  63. 63.

    Wheeler and Thomas (2002), p. 271.

  64. 64.

    Galligan (2006), p. 108.

  65. 65.

    Geoffrey (2009), pp. 431–459.

  66. 66.

    Bell (2006), p. 130.

  67. 67.

    Banakar (2009), p. 82.

  68. 68.

    See Banakar (2003).

  69. 69.

    Mattei (1998), p. 883.

  70. 70.

    Friedman (1977), p. 7.

  71. 71.

    Bell (1995), p. 70.

  72. 72.

    Legrand (1996), p. 238.

  73. 73.

    Kamba (1974), p. 492.

  74. 74.

    Eisenhardt (1989), pp. 548–549.

  75. 75.

    Rowley (2002), p. 18. See also Yin (1994), p. 13.

  76. 76.

    Vauchez (2010), p. 6; Rasmussen (2010); Wohlfahrt (2015), p. 76; Byberg (2017).

  77. 77.

    Von Bogdandy (2016), pp. 527 et seq.; Läufer (1994).

  78. 78.

    Goldmann (2018).

  79. 79.

    Bakardjieva Engelbrekt and Groussot (2019), p. 1.

  80. 80.

    Corrias (2017), p. 493.

  81. 81.

    Dawson and De Witte (2016), p. 224.

  82. 82.

    Weiler (1991), p. 2479.

References

Primary Sources

  • C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECLI:EU:C:1963:1

    Google Scholar 

  • C-327/91 France v Commission EU:C:1994:305

    Google Scholar 

  • C-425/13 Commission v Parliament (EU-Australia Trading Emissions Agreement) EU:C:2015:483

    Google Scholar 

  • C-6/64 Costa Flaminio Costa v Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) ECLI:EU:C:1964:66

    Google Scholar 

  • Draft Revised Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as Appendix 1 in Final Report to the CDDH, 47+1 (2013) 008rev2, 10 June 2013, 4-12

    Google Scholar 

  • Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe Official Journal C 169, 18/07/2003 P. 0001 – 0105

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union, EU Pioneers, https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/eu-pioneers_en. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Sources

  • Avbeli M, Komarek J (2012) Constitutional pluralism in Europe and Beyond. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Avbelj M (2018) The European Union under transnational law – a pluralist appraisal. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakardjieva Engelbrekt A, Groussot A (2019) The future of Europe political and legal integration beyond Brexit. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin J, Davis G (2003) Empirical research in law. In: Tushnet M, Cane P (eds) The Oxford handbook of legal studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 881–900

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakar R (2003) Merging law and sociology. Galda & Wilch, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Banakar R (2009) Power, culture and method in comparative law. Int J Law Context 5(1):69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banakar R (2011) Having one’s cake and eating it: the paradox of contextualisation in socio-legal research. Int J Law Context 7(4):487–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Bañkowski Z, Christodoulidis E (1998) The European Union as an essentially contested project. Eur Law J 4(4):341–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell J (1995) English law and French law – not so different? Curr Leg Probl 48(2):63–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell J (2006) Chapter five: civil law tradition. In: Foster HDN, editor. A fresh start for comparative legal studies? A collective review of Patrick Glenn’s legal traditions of the World, 2nd ed. J Comp Law 1(1):130–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel T, Van Hüllen V (2014) One voice, one message, but conflicting goals: cohesiveness and consistency in the European neighbourhood policy. J Eur Public Policy 21(7):1033–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bumke C, Voßkuhle A (2019) German constitutional law: introduction, cases, and principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Byberg R (2017) The history of the integration through law project: creating the academic expression of a constitutional legal vision for Europe. German Law J 18(6):1531–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahillane L, Schweppe J (eds) (2019) Case studies in legal research methodologies: reflections on theory and practice. Clarus Press, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti M, Seccombe M, Weiler JHH (1986) Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience — a general introduction. In: Cappelletti M, Weiler JHH (eds) Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience, vol 1: methods, tools and institutions, Bk 1: a political, legal and economic overview. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 3–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell R, Spulber D (2010) Agency revisited. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 10-082

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Jonathan G (1994) Les Rapports Entre la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’homme et les Autres Traités Conclus par les Etats Parties. In: Lawson R, de Blois M (eds) The dynamics of the protection of human rights in Europe: essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, vol III. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 79–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrias L (2017) The empty place of European power: contested democracy and the technocratic threat. Eur Law J 23(6):482–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello C (2016) The human rights of migrants and refugees in European Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Croxton D (1999) The peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the origins of sovereignty. Int History Rev 21(3):569–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler AC (2001) Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy. Rev Int Stud 27(2):133–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Conceicão-Heldt E (2013) Do Agents “Run Amok”? Agency slack in the EU and US trade policy in the Doha round. J Comp Policy Anal 15(1):21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Conceicão-Heldt E, Meunier S (2014) Speaking with a single voice: internal cohesiveness and external effectiveness of the EU in global governance. J Eur Public Policy 21(7):961–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A (2018) EU acts and member state acts in the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of international agreements. In: Cremona M, Kilpatrick C (eds) EU legal acts – challenges and transformations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 189–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson M, De Witte F (2016) From balance to conflict: a new constitution for the EU. Eur Law J 22(2):204–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstadt SN (ed) (1968) Max Weber on Charisma and institution building. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenan D (2013) Exploring the ‘Socio’ of socio-legal studies. In: Feenan D (ed) Exploring the ‘Socio’ of socio-legal studies. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 3–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fenichel Pitkin H (1987) The idea of constitution. J Leg Educ 37(2):167–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman L (1977) Law and society: an introduction. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein JA, Schulhofer S, Shapiro M (1986) The protection of fundamental human rights as a vehicle of integration. In: Cappelletti M, Weiler JHH (eds) Integration through law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, vol 1: methods, tools and institutions, Bk 3: forces and potential for a European identity. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 231–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Galligan D (2006) Law in modern society. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geoffrey S (2009) Interdisciplinarity and the authority paradigm: should law be taken seriously by scientists and social scientists? J Law Soc 36(4):431–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring J (2007) The case study: what it is and what it does. In: Boix C, Stokes S (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 90–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Goderis BVG, Versteeg M (2013) Transnational constitutionalism: a conceptual framework. In: Galligan D, Versteeg M (eds) The social and political foundations of constitutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 103–133

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann M (2018) Hopes of progress: European integration in the history of international law. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2018-26

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris DR (1983) The development of socio-legal studies in the United Kingdom. Leg Stud 3(3):315–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison H, Birks M, Franklin R, Mills J (2017) Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol 18, no 1, Art 19. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1701195. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Hawkins D, Jacoby W (2006) How agents matter. In: Hawkins D, Lake D, Nielson D, Tierney M (eds) Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 199–228

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayman PA, Williams J (2006) Westphalian sovereignty: rights, intervention, meaning and context. Global Soc 20(4):521–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) (2010) Mixed agreements revisited – the EU and its member states in the World. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Multi-level governance and European Integration. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe L, Marks G (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European Integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. Br J Polit Sci 39(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaklic K (2014) Constitutional pluralism in the EU. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C, Glinski C (eds) (2017) The European crisis and the transformation of transnational governance: authoritarian managerialism versus democratic governance. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C, Sand I-J, Teubner G (2004) Transnational governance and constitutionalism. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyvas A (2008) Democracy and the politics of the extraordinary-Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamba WJ (1974) Comparative law: a theoretical framework. Int Comp Law Q 23(3):485–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Läufer T (1994) Zur Künftigen Verfassung der Europäischen Union - Notwendigkeit einer offenen Debatte. Integration 17(4):204–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1996) How to compare now. Leg Stud 16(2):232–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone G (1998) Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: the question of standards. Eur Law J 4(1):5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattei U (1998) The issue of European civil codification and legal scholarship: biases, strategies and developments. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 21:883–902

    Google Scholar 

  • May T (1997) Social research: issues, methods and process, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • McMeel G (2000) The philosophical foundations of the law of agency. Law Q Rev 116:387–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E (eds) (2010) Encyclopaedia of case study research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis S (2011) Reflections on the Architecture of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: the European judicial approach to fundamental rights. Eur Law J 17(5):595–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik A (2005) The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy. J Eur Public Policy 12(2):349–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mroczek D, Little T (2006) Theory and research in personality development at the beginning of the 21st century. In: Mroczek D, Little T (eds) Handbook of personality development. Psychology Press, New York, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Munday R (2016) Agency: law and principles, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiander A (2001) Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian Myth. Int Organ 55(2):251–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmberger M, Gingrich A (2013) Qualitative comparative practices: dimensions, cases and strategies. In: Flick U (ed) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiares Maduro M (2003) Europe and the constitution: what if this is as good as it gets? In: Weiler JHH, Wind M (eds) Rethinking European constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 74–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Post R (2000) Democratic constitutionalism and cultural heterogeneity. Aust J Legal Philos 25(2):185–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J, Zeckhauser R (eds) (1991) Principals and agents: the structure of business. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen M (2010) Constructing and deconstructing “Constitutional” European law: some reflections on how to study the history of European law. In: Koch H, HagelSørensen K, Haltern U (eds) Europe - the new legal realism. Djøf Publishing, Aarhus, pp 639–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach K (2005) Common law bills of rights as dialogue between courts and legislatures. Univ Toronto Law J 55(3):733–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross S (1973) The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. Am Econ Rev 63(2):134–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley J (2002) Using case studies in research. Manage Res News 25(1):16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runciman WG (ed) (1991) Max Weber: selections in translation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadurski W (2012) Constitutionalism and the enlargement of Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schanze E (1987) Contract, agency, and the delegation of decision making. In: Bamberg G, Spremann K (eds) Agency theory, information, and incentives. Springer, Berlin, pp 461–471

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf F (2009) Legitimacy in multilevel European polity. Eur Polit Sci Rev 1(2):173–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw J (2000) Process and constitutional discourse in the European Union. J Law Soc 27(1):4–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siedentop L (2001) Democracy in Europe. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher M, Stone Sweet A (2002) Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West Eur Polit 25(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tully J (1995) Strange multiplicity: constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vauchez A (2010) The transnational politics of judicialization: Van Gend en Loos and the Making of EU polity. Eur Law J 16(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan-Williams N (2015) Europe’s border crisis: biopolitical security and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A (2016) European law beyond ‘Ever closer union’: repositioning the concept, its thrust and the ECJ’s comparative methodology. Eur Law J 22(4):519–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker N (1996) European constitutionalism and European integration. Public Law:266–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1958) The three types of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publ Soc Inst 4(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1980) [1922] Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft: Grundriss Der Verstehenden Soziologie. 5th revised edn. Mohr Siebek, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (1991) The transformation of Europe. Yale Law J 100(8):2403–2483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler S, Thomas P (2002) Socio-legal studies. In: Hayton DJ (ed) Law’s future(s). Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlfahrt C (2015) Die Vermutung Unmittelbarer Wirkung des Unionsrechts. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh JR, Chang W-C (2008) The emergence of transnational constitutionalism: its features, challenges and solutions. Penn State Int Law Rev 1(4):89–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

    Sonia Morano-Foadi

  2. Brunel Law School, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK

    Stelios Andreadakis

Authors
  1. Sonia Morano-Foadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelios Andreadakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morano-Foadi, S., Andreadakis, S. (2020). Integration and Fundamental Rights in Europe. In: Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42366-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42367-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation