Integration and Fundamental Rights in Europe



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.


Primary Sources

  1. C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECLI:EU:C:1963:1Google Scholar
  2. C-327/91 France v Commission EU:C:1994:305Google Scholar
  3. C-425/13 Commission v Parliament (EU-Australia Trading Emissions Agreement) EU:C:2015:483Google Scholar
  4. C-6/64 Costa Flaminio Costa v Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) ECLI:EU:C:1964:66Google Scholar
  5. 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, 4-12Google Scholar
  6. Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe Official Journal C 169, 18/07/2003 P. 0001 – 0105Google Scholar
  7. European Union, EU Pioneers, Accessed 23 Mar 2020
  8. Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Avbeli M, Komarek J (2012) Constitutional pluralism in Europe and Beyond. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Avbelj M (2018) The European Union under transnational law – a pluralist appraisal. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakardjieva Engelbrekt A, Groussot A (2019) The future of Europe political and legal integration beyond Brexit. Hart Publishing, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 881–900Google Scholar
  5. Banakar R (2003) Merging law and sociology. Galda & Wilch, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Banakar R (2009) Power, culture and method in comparative law. Int J Law Context 5(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banakar R (2011) Having one’s cake and eating it: the paradox of contextualisation in socio-legal research. Int J Law Context 7(4):487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bañkowski Z, Christodoulidis E (1998) The European Union as an essentially contested project. Eur Law J 4(4):341–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell J (1995) English law and French law – not so different? Curr Leg Probl 48(2):63–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):130–139Google Scholar
  12. 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):1033–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bumke C, Voßkuhle A (2019) German constitutional law: introduction, cases, and principles. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):1531–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cahillane L, Schweppe J (eds) (2019) Case studies in legal research methodologies: reflections on theory and practice. Clarus Press, DublinGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 3–70Google Scholar
  17. Casadesus-Masanell R, Spulber D (2010) Agency revisited. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 10-082Google Scholar
  18. 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 79–111Google Scholar
  19. Corrias L (2017) The empty place of European power: contested democracy and the technocratic threat. Eur Law J 23(6):482–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costello C (2016) The human rights of migrants and refugees in European Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Croxton D (1999) The peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the origins of sovereignty. Int History Rev 21(3):569–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cutler AC (2001) Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy. Rev Int Stud 27(2):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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):21–36Google Scholar
  24. 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):961–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 189–249Google Scholar
  26. Dawson M, De Witte F (2016) From balance to conflict: a new constitution for the EU. Eur Law J 22(2):204–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eisenstadt SN (ed) (1968) Max Weber on Charisma and institution building. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Feenan D (2013) Exploring the ‘Socio’ of socio-legal studies. In: Feenan D (ed) Exploring the ‘Socio’ of socio-legal studies. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fenichel Pitkin H (1987) The idea of constitution. J Leg Educ 37(2):167–169Google Scholar
  31. Friedman L (1977) Law and society: an introduction. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 231–344Google Scholar
  33. Galligan D (2006) Law in modern society. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geoffrey S (2009) Interdisciplinarity and the authority paradigm: should law be taken seriously by scientists and social scientists? J Law Soc 36(4):431–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 90–122Google Scholar
  36. 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 103–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. 2018-26Google Scholar
  38. Harris DR (1983) The development of socio-legal studies in the United Kingdom. Leg Stud 3(3):315–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. Accessed 23 Mar 2020
  40. 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 199–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayman PA, Williams J (2006) Westphalian sovereignty: rights, intervention, meaning and context. Global Soc 20(4):521–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) (2010) Mixed agreements revisited – the EU and its member states in the World. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Multi-level governance and European Integration. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  44. Hooghe L, Marks G (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European Integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. Br J Polit Sci 39(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaklic K (2014) Constitutional pluralism in the EU. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Joerges C, Glinski C (eds) (2017) The European crisis and the transformation of transnational governance: authoritarian managerialism versus democratic governance. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Joerges C, Sand I-J, Teubner G (2004) Transnational governance and constitutionalism. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Kalyvas A (2008) Democracy and the politics of the extraordinary-Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Kamba WJ (1974) Comparative law: a theoretical framework. Int Comp Law Q 23(3):485–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Läufer T (1994) Zur Künftigen Verfassung der Europäischen Union - Notwendigkeit einer offenen Debatte. Integration 17(4):204–214Google Scholar
  51. Legrand P (1996) How to compare now. Leg Stud 16(2):232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Majone G (1998) Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: the question of standards. Eur Law J 4(1):5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mattei U (1998) The issue of European civil codification and legal scholarship: biases, strategies and developments. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 21:883–902Google Scholar
  54. May T (1997) Social research: issues, methods and process, 2nd edn. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  55. McMeel G (2000) The philosophical foundations of the law of agency. Law Q Rev 116:387–411Google Scholar
  56. Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E (eds) (2010) Encyclopaedia of case study research. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  57. 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):595–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moravcsik A (2005) The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy. J Eur Public Policy 12(2):349–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 3–8Google Scholar
  60. Munday R (2016) Agency: law and principles, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Osiander A (2001) Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian Myth. Int Organ 55(2):251–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. 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 74–102Google Scholar
  64. Post R (2000) Democratic constitutionalism and cultural heterogeneity. Aust J Legal Philos 25(2):185–204Google Scholar
  65. Pratt J, Zeckhauser R (eds) (1991) Principals and agents: the structure of business. Harvard Business School Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. 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 639–660Google Scholar
  67. Roach K (2005) Common law bills of rights as dialogue between courts and legislatures. Univ Toronto Law J 55(3):733–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ross S (1973) The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. Am Econ Rev 63(2):134–139Google Scholar
  69. Rowley J (2002) Using case studies in research. Manage Res News 25(1):16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Runciman WG (ed) (1991) Max Weber: selections in translation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. Sadurski W (2012) Constitutionalism and the enlargement of Europe. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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 461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scharpf F (2009) Legitimacy in multilevel European polity. Eur Polit Sci Rev 1(2):173–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shaw J (2000) Process and constitutional discourse in the European Union. J Law Soc 27(1):4–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Siedentop L (2001) Democracy in Europe. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  76. Thatcher M, Stone Sweet A (2002) Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West Eur Polit 25(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tully J (1995) Strange multiplicity: constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vauchez A (2010) The transnational politics of judicialization: Van Gend en Loos and the Making of EU polity. Eur Law J 16(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vaughan-Williams N (2015) Europe’s border crisis: biopolitical security and beyond. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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):519–538Google Scholar
  81. Walker N (1996) European constitutionalism and European integration. Public Law:266–290Google Scholar
  82. Weber M (1958) The three types of legitimate rule. Berkeley Publ Soc Inst 4(1):1–11Google Scholar
  83. Weber M (1980) [1922] Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft: Grundriss Der Verstehenden Soziologie. 5th revised edn. Mohr Siebek, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  84. Weiler JHH (1991) The transformation of Europe. Yale Law J 100(8):2403–2483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wheeler S, Thomas P (2002) Socio-legal studies. In: Hayton DJ (ed) Law’s future(s). Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  86. Wohlfahrt C (2015) Die Vermutung Unmittelbarer Wirkung des Unionsrechts. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  87. Yeh JR, Chang W-C (2008) The emergence of transnational constitutionalism: its features, challenges and solutions. Penn State Int Law Rev 1(4):89–124Google Scholar
  88. Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Brunel Law SchoolBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations