Abstract
The aim of this contribution is to investigate how viable criteria can be found for the optimal distribution of competences among the EU and the member states. The question of ‘who does what’ belongs to the most important questions one can ask in multilevel legal orders such as the European Union. It is a question that goes to the root of thinking about not only the foundations of European private law, but also of law in general in a globalising society. My starting point in discussing the issue is that the debate on distribution of competences in the EU should not be seen as merely a sign of Euro-scepticism. It would be wrong if the British and Dutch governments have the preconceived view that certain competences surely do not belong at the European level. But this is, unlike the reading of the German and French governments, not my interpretation of these initiatives. Cameron and Rutte seem to aim for an objective assessment of the question at which level a competence belongs. This is confirmed by the first six reports published as part of the British review of competences. These reports are rather positive and generally highlight the benefits of European integration for the UK.
Jan Smits holds the Chair of European Private Law at Maastricht University (Maastricht European Private Law Institute) and is research professor of Comparative Legal Studies at the University of Helsinki (Center of Excellence on the Foundations of European Law and Polity). This contribution is based on lectures given in Edinburgh (Society of Legal Scholars conference, 2 September 2013) and Lleida (24 October 2013). An amended version of this paper was published in Dutch in (2013) 19 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 213.
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.
D Cameron, EU Speech at Bloomberg (2013). A transcript of the speech is available at www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg.
- 2.
A referendum on the question ‘Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?’ should be held after the elections for the House of Commons in 2015 and before 2018. See draft European Union (Referendum) Act 2013 of 14 May 2013.
- 3.
See Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union, presented to Parliament, July 2012, Cm 8415 and www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences. The Review claims: ‘Now is the right time to take a critical and constructive look at exactly which competences lie with the EU, which lie with the UK, and whether it works in our national interest.’
- 4.
The 32 reports will become gradually available at www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences.
- 5.
Letter of Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, 21 June 2013, MIN-BUZA-2013.184321; Inventory EU-legislation for subsidiarity and proportionality—Dutch list points of action.
- 6.
Letter of Dutch Prime Minister Rutte and Minister of Foreign Affairs Timmermans of 29 January 2013, DIE-2013.5904.
- 7.
List of Sybrand Buma, MP. See J. Visser, ‘Buma: een sterk en zelfbewust Europa weet ook wat het niet moet doen’ (‘a strong and self-conscious Europe also knows what it must not do’), De Volkskrant 5 February 2013.
- 8.
See e.g. R Brownsword, H Micklitz et al., The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011).
- 9.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande rejected Cameron’s request to participate in the study. See George Parker, ‘Cameron snubbed over Brussels review’ Financial Times 1 April 2013.
- 10.
Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: report on The Single Market, 2013 (‘That integration has brought to the EU, and hence to the UK, in most if not all observers’ opinions, appreciable economic benefits’); report on Health, 2013 (‘Overall, based on the evidence submitted, stakeholders felt that the current balance of competence between the EU and the UK was considered to be broadly appropriate.’), available at www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences.
- 11.
See e.g. ‘Germany’s Chancellor Merkel urges EU political union’, BBC News Europe 7 June 2012.
- 12.
JM Barroso, ‘The speed of the European Union can no longer be the speed of the most reluctant member’, The Observer 13 November 2011.
- 13.
KNAW, Nederlandse wetenschapsagenda (Amsterdam, KNAW, 2011).
- 14.
See e.g. L Hooghe and G Marks, Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001); H Enderlein, S Wälti and M Zürn (eds), Handbook on Multi-level Governance (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011); W van Gerven and S Lierman, Algemeen deel 40 jaar later (Antwerpen, Kluwer, 2010).
- 15.
See e.g. W Wessels, ‘The Constitutional Treaty: Three Readings from a Fusion Perspective’ (2005) 43 Journal of Common Market Studies 11.
- 16.
See e.g. M de Visser, Network-Based Governance in EC Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2009).
- 17.
For an overview: A Benz and C Zimmer, ‘The EU’s competences: the “vertical” perspective on the multilevel system’, (2010) 5 Living Reviews in European Governance No. 1, www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2010-1.
- 18.
See B de Witte and G De Burca, ‘The delimitation of powers between the EU and its member states’ in A Arnull and D Wincott (eds), Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) 201.
- 19.
Cf. for example C Joerges, ‘Interactive adjudication in the Europeanisation process? A demanding perspective and a modest example’ (2000) 8 European Review of Private Law 1; JM Smits, ‘Plurality of Sources in European Private Law, or: How to Live with Legal Diversity?’ in R Brownsword et al (eds), The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011) 323.
- 20.
On all this: PP Craig and G De Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 5th edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011) 73 ff.
- 21.
In this sense also GA Bermann, ‘Taking subsidiarity seriously: federalism in the European Community and the United States’ (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review 331 and E Noam, ‘The Choice of Governmental Level in Regulation’ (1982) 35 Kyklos 278.
- 22.
P Craig, ‘Institutions, power, and institutional balance’ in P Craig and G De Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011) 41.
- 23.
A Estella de Noriega, The EU Principle of Subsidiarity and its Critique (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002).
- 24.
Bermann, ‘Taking subsidiarity seriously’, 335.
- 25.
F Easterbrook, ‘Federalism and European Business Law’ (1994) 14 International Review of Law and Economics 125, 126.
- 26.
Cf Case C-84/94 UK v Council [1996] ECR I-5755 and A Portuese, ‘The principle of subsidiarity as a principle of economic efficiency’ (2011) 17 Columbia Journal of European Law 231.
- 27.
Craig, ‘Institutions, power, and institutional balance’, 41.
- 28.
European Commission, Impact Assesment Guidelines, 15 January 2009, SEC (2009) 92.
- 29.
The ever-increasing use of impact assessments will surely contribute to a better application of subsidiarity. Cf. A Meuwese, Impact Assessment in European Union Lawmaking (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2008).
- 30.
Available through www.european-convention.eu.int/EN/bienvenue/bienvenue2352.html?lang=EN.
- 31.
Benz and Zimmer, ‘The EU’s competences’.
- 32.
WE Oates, ‘Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism’ (2005) 12 International Tax and Public Finance 349.
- 33.
A de Tocqueville, De la démocratie en Amérique (1835, edn Paris, Gallimard, 1961).
- 34.
G Brennan and JM Buchanan, The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980).
- 35.
FA Hayek, Der Wettbewerb als Entdeckungsverfahren (Kieler Vorträge N.S. 56, 1968).
- 36.
W Kerber, ‘European system of private laws: an economic perspective’ in F Cafaggi and H Muir-Watt (eds), Making European Private Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008) 64. See also R van den Bergh, ‘Private law in a globalising world: economic criteria for choosing the optimal regulatory level in a multilevel government system’ in M Faure and A van der Walt (eds), Globalization and Private Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2010) 57.
- 37.
Cf. FW Scharpf, ‘Notes towards a theory of multilevel governing in Europe’ (2001) 24 Scandinavian Political Studies 1.
- 38.
See e.g. P Salmon, ‘Assigning powers in the European Union in the light of yardstick competition among governments’ in MJ Holler et al (eds), Jahrbuch für Neue Politische Ökonomie (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 197.
- 39.
EF Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: a Study of Economics as if People Mattered (London, Blond & Briggs, 1973).
- 40.
Benz and Zimmer, ‘The EU’s competences’, 8.
- 41.
B Frey and R Eichenberger, The new democratic federalism for Europe: functional, overlapping and competing jurisdictions (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1999).
- 42.
D Treisman, The architecture of government: rethinking political decentralization (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007) 274.
- 43.
D Wildason, ‘Comment on “Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency and Macroeconomic Aspects” by Vito Tanzi’ in M Bruno and B Peskovic (eds), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics (Washington D.C., World Bank, 1996) 323; Estella, EU Principle of Subsidiarity; Portuese, ‘The principle of subsidiarity’.
- 44.
Cf. JAW van Zeben, Competence Allocation and Regulatory Functioning: A Study of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (PhD-thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2012) 22 ff.
- 45.
R Osterkamp and M Eller, ‘How decentralised is government activity?’ (2003) 1 Journal for Institutional Comparisons 32.
- 46.
J Bengoetxea, L Moral Soriano and N MacCormick, ‘Integration and integrity in the legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice’ in G De Búrca and J Weiler (eds), The European Court of Justice (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) 43.
- 47.
M Jachtenfuchs, T Diez and S Jung, ‘Which Europe? Conflicting Models of a Legitimate European Political Order’ (1998) 4 European Journal of International Relations 409.
- 48.
See on this ‘path dependence’ also B de Witte and A Thies, ‘Why Choose Europe? The Place of the European Union in the Architecture of International Legal Cooperation’ in S Blockmans et al (eds), The Legal Dimension of Global Governance: What Role for the EU? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 23.
- 49.
Dir 92/85/EC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, [1998] OJ L 348/1.
- 50.
Barroso, The Observer.
- 51.
J Habermas, ‘Bringing the Integration of Citizens into Line with the Integration of States’ (2012) 18 European Law Journal 485.
- 52.
Cf. G Majone, ‘Patterns of Post-national Europe: the Future of Integration after the Crisis of Monetary Union’ (unpublished paper presented at the conference Democracy and Law in Europe, University of Helsinki, 27–28 September 2012), who mentions ‘social and cultural cohesion, clear objectives, and great flexibility.’
- 53.
Cameron, EU Speech at Bloomberg: ‘Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.’
References
Barroso, JM, ‘The speed of the European Union can no longer be the speed of the most reluctant member’ (2011) The Observer 13/11/2011.
Bengoetxea, J, Moral Soriano, L and MacCormick, N, ‘Integration and integrity in the legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice’, in G De Búrca and J Weiler (eds), The European Court of Justice (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) 43.
Benz, A and Zimmer, C, ‘The EU’s competences: the “vertical” perspective on the multilevel system’ (2010) 5 Living Reviews in European Governance 1, www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2010–1.
Bermann, GA, ‘Taking subsidiarity seriously: federalism in the European Community and the United States’ (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review 331.
Brennan, G and Buchanan, JM, The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Brownsword, R and Micklitz, H-W et al. The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011).
Cameron, D, EU Speech at Bloomberg (2013), www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg.
Craig, PP and De Búrca, G, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 5th ed (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011).
Craig, P, ‘Institutions, power, and institutional balance’ in P Craig and G De Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd ed (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011) 41.
De Tocqueville, A, De la démocratie en Amérique (1835, ed Paris, Gallimard, 1961).
De Visser, M, Network-Based Governance in EC Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2009).
De Witte, B and de Burca, G, ‘The delimitation of powers between the EU and its member states’ in A Arnull and D Wincott (eds), Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) 201.
De Witte, B and Thies, A, ‘Why Choose Europe? The Place of the European Union in the Architecture of International Legal Cooperation’ in S Blockmans et al (eds), The Legal Dimension of Global Governance: What Role for the EU? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013) 23.
Easterbrook, F, ‘Federalism and European Business Law’ (1994) 14 International Review of Law and Economics 125.
Enderlein, H, Wälti, S and Zürn, M (eds), Handbook on Multi-level Governance (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011).
Estella de Noriega, A, The EU Principle of Subsidiarity and its Critique (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002).
Frey, B and Eichenberger, R, The new democratic federalism for Europe: functional, overlapping and competing jurisdictions (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1999).
Habermas, J, ‘Bringing the Integration of Citizens into Line with the Integration of States’ (2012) 18 European Law Journal 485.
Hayek, FA, Der Wettbewerb als Entdeckungsverfahren (Kiel, Kieler Vorträge N.S. 56, 1968).
Hooghe, L and Marks, G, Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).
Jachtenfuchs, M, Diez, T and Jung, S, ‘Which Europe? Conflicting Models of a Legitimate European Political Order’ (1998) 4 European Journal of International Relations 409.
Joerges, C, ‘Interactive adjudication in the Europeanisation process? A demanding perspective and a modest example’ (2000) 8 European Review of Private Law 1.
Kerber, W, ‘European system of private laws: an economic perspective’ in F Cafaggi and H Muir-Watt (eds), Making European Private Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2008) 64.
KNAW, Nederlandse wetenschapsagenda (Amsterdam, KNAW, 2011).
Majone, G, ‘Patters of Post-national Europe: the Future of Integration after the Crisis of Monetary Union’, unpublished paper presented at the conference Democracy and Law in Europe, University of Helsinki 27-28/9/2012.
Meuwese, A, Impact Assessment in European Union Lawmaking (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2008).
Noam, E, ‘The Choice of Governmental Level in Regulation’ (1982) 35 Kyklos 278.
Oates, WE, ‘Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism’ (2005) 12 International Tax and Public Finance 349.
Osterkamp, R and Eller, M, ‘How decentralised is government activity?’ (2003) 1 Journal for Institutional Comparisons 32.
Portuese, A, ‘The principle of subsidiarity as a principle of economic efficiency’ (2011) 17 Columbia Journal of European Law 231.
Salmon, P, ‘Assigning powers in the European Union in the light of yardstick competition among governments’ in MJ Holler et al (eds), Jahrbuch für Neue Politische Ökonomie (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 197.
Scharpf, FW, ‘Notes towards a theory of multilevel governing in Europe’ (2001) 24 Scandinavian Political Studies 1.
Schumacher, EF, Small is Beautiful: a Study of Economics as if People Mattered (London, Blond & Briggs, 1973).
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union, presented to Parliament, July 2012, Cm 8415.
Smits, JM, ‘Plurality of Sources in European Private Law, or: How to Live with Legal Diversity?’ in R Brownsword et al (eds), The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011) 323.
Treisman, D, The architecture of government: rethinking political decentralization (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Van den Bergh, R, ‘Private law in a globalising world: economic criteria for choosing the optimal regulatory level in a multilevel government system’ in M Faure and A van der Walt (eds), Globalization and Private Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2010) 57.
Van Gerven, W and Lierman, S, Algemeen deel 40 jaar later (Antwerpen, Kluwer, 2010).
Visser, J, ‘Buma: een sterk en zelfbewust Europa weet ook wat het niet moet doen’ (‘a strong and self-conscious Europe also knows what it must not do’) (2013) De Volkskrant 5/2/2013.
Wessels, W, ‘The Constitutional Treaty: Three Readings from a Fusion Perspective’ (2005) 43 Journal of Common Market Studies 11.
Wildason, D, ‘Comment on “Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency and Macroeconomic Aspects” by Vito Tanzi’ in M Bruno and B Peskovic (eds), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics (Washington D.C., World Bank, 1996) 323.
Van Zeben, JAW, Competence Allocation and Regulatory Functioning: A Study of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2012) 22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smits, J. (2014). Who Does What? On the Distribution of Competences Among the European Union and the Member States. In: Purnhagen, K., Rott, P. (eds) Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04902-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04903-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)