Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Democracy in Europe pp 63–95Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

What Should Be Democratized? The Peculiarity of Democracy in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 516 Accesses

Part of the book series: The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy ((PSTCD))

Abstract

What are the criteria to judge the democratic quality of the European Union? Is it possible to reconcile our democratic criteria with the intense, extensive complexity of a polity such as the European Union? In order to answer these questions appropriately, it is helpful to begin with the acknowledgement that we do not have an acceptable theory of democracy for anything more complex than nation states. That is why we must develop a political taxonomy that does not sacrifice the complexity of the European Union to the comfort of our well-established concepts. If we do not take into account the EU’s principal democratic innovations it is not possible to criticize its democratic weaknesses. As I will show, this lack of attention to the integration process is what makes certain attempts to exert national control over the democraticity of Communitarian decisions questionable.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abromeit, Heidrun. 1998. Ein Vorschlag zur Demokratisierung des Europäischen Entscheidungssystems. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 39 (1): 80–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Gunnar. 2005. The Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict Between Right and Right in Which There Is No Praetor. European Law Review 30 (1): 42–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich, and Edgar Grande. 2004. Das kosmopolitische Europa. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, Arthur. 1998. Ansatzpunkte für ein europafähigen Demokratiekonzept. In Regieren in entgrentzten Räumen, ed. Beate Kohler-Koch, 345–367. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Compounded Representation in EU-Multi Level Governance. In Linking EU and National Governance, ed. Beate Kohler-Koch, 81–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, James. 2007. Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, Mark. 1998. The Quest of Responsability: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert. 2001. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert, and Edward Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diez, Thomas. 1996. Postmoderne und europäische Integration. Die Dominanz des Staatsmodells, die Verantwortung degenüber dem Anderen und die Konstruktion eines alternativen Horizonts. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3 (2): 255–281, 256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, John D., and Mark A. Pollack. 2001. Centralization and Its Discontents: The Rythms of Federalism in the United States and the European Union. In The Federal Vision. Legitimacy and Levels of Governnce in the United States and the European Union, ed. Kalipso Nicolaïdis and Robert Howse, 73–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini, Sergio. 2007. Compound Democracies. Why the United States and Europe Are Becoming Similar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fossum, John Erik, and Agustín José Menéndez. 2011. The Constitution’s Gift. A Constitutional Theory for a Democratic European Union. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius, Claudio, and Ulrich K. Jauss. 2012. Die Zukunft der Europäische Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsworthy, Jeffrey. 2003. The Debate About Soveignty in the United States: A Historical and Comparative Perspective. In Sovereignty in Transition. Essays in European Law, ed. Neil Walker, 87–114. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Die Postnationale Konstellation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam, Daniel. 2012. Systems and Institutional Pluralism. In Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, ed. Matej Avbelj and Jan Komárek, 85–125. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1972 [1787]. Federalist Papers. Ed. Benjamin Fletcher Wright. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höreth, Marcus. 1998. The Trilemma of Legitimacy—Multilevel Governance in the EU and the Problem of Democracy. ZEI Discussion Paper C11. http://www.zei.de/zei_deutsch/publikation/publ_zeic_dp.htm.

  • Hürrelmann, Achim. 2007. Multilevel Legitimacy: Conceptualizing Legitimacy. Relationships Between the EU and National Democracies. In Democratic Dilemmas of Multilevel Governance. Legitimacy, Representation and Accountability in the European Union, ed. Joan DeBardeleben and Achim Hurrelmann, 17–37. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Innerarity, Daniel. 2012. The Future and Its Enemies. In Defense of Political Hope. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jachtenfuchs, Markus, and Beate Kohler-Koch. 1996. Regieren in dynamischen Mehebenensystem. In Europäische Integration, ed. Markus Jachtenfuchs and Beate Kohler-Koch, 15–45. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, Christian. 1996. Taking the Law Seriously: On Political Science and the Role of Law in the Process of European Integration. European Law Journal, 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jörke, Dirk. 2009. Die Dehnbarkeit der Demokratie im Spiegel der amerikanische Ritifizierungsdebatte. In Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft, Soziale Welt. ed. Hauke Brunkhorst, Sonderband 18, 451–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm, Mattias. 2002. The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism. Modern Law Review 65: 317–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Supremacy Before and After the Constitutional Treaty. European Law Journal 11 (3): 262–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. How Does EU Law Fit into Public Law? In Political Theory of the European Union, ed. Jürgen Neyer and Antjie Wiener, 111–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leca, Jean. 2009. The Empire Strikes Back! An Uncanny View of the European Union: Part I—Do We Need a Theory of the European Union? Government and Opposition 44: 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, Koen. 1990. Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism. American Journal of Comparative Law 38: 205–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindseth, Peter L. 1999. Democratic Legitimacy and the Administrative Character of Supranationalism: The Example of the European Community. Columbia Law Review 99 (3): 628–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Power and Legitimacy. Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, Christopher, and Paul Magnette. 2004. E Pluribus Unum? Creative Disagreement About Legitimacy in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (1): 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, Christopher, and Johannes Pollak. 2010. The EU’s Many Representative Modes: Colluding? Cohering? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe-Wolff, Gertrude. 2010. Europäisches und nationales Verfassungsrecht. Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 60: 246–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, Peter. 2005. The Leadership in an Enlarged European Union: The European Council, the Presidency and the Commission. Brussels: EuroComment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1994. Europa als Problem des Weltgesellschaft. Berliner Debate 2: 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, Neil. 1995. The Maastricht Urteil: Sovereignty Now. European Law Journal 259–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the ‘European Commonwealth. Law and Philosophy 16 (4): 331–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro, Miguel P. 1998. We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action. In Sovereignty in Transition: Essays in European Law, ed. Neil Walker, 3–32. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Three Claims of Constitutional Pluralism. In Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, ed. Matej Avbelj and Jan Komárek, 67–84. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, Giandomenico. 2005. Dilemas of European Integration: The Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Europe as the Would-Be World Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, Gary, and Liesbet Hooghe. 2004. Contrasting Visions of Multi-level Governance. In Multi-level Governance, ed. Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Middelaar, Luuk. 2012. Le passage à l’Europe. Histoire d’un commencement. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Ronald B. 1996. Compliance Theory: An Overview. In Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law, ed. J. Cameron, J. Werksman, and P. Roderick. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, Franz. 1980. Die Herrschaft des Gesetzes. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyer, Jürgen. 2003. Discourse and Order in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (4): 687–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaïdis, Kalypso. 2003. Our European Demoi-cracy: Is this Constitution a Third Way for Europe? In Whose Europe? National Models and the Constitution of the European Union, ed. K. Nicolaïdis and S. Weatherill, 137–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. The Idea of European Demoicracy. In Philosophical Foundations of EU Law, ed. J. Dickson and P. Eleftheriadis, 247–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaïdis, Kalipso, and Robert Howse, eds. 2001. The Federal Vision. Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2007. Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance. European Law Journal 13: 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1996. Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (1): 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2008. La Légitimité démocratique. Impartialité, réflexivité, proximité. Paris: Le Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1969. Considérations sur le Gouvernement de Pologne. OEuvres complètes III: 970–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, Theodor. 1996. The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order. Harvard International Law Journal 37 (2): 389–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, Philippe. 2001. What Is There to Legitimise in the European Union. Jean Monnet Working Paper no 6/01, Symposium: Responses to the European Commission’s White Paper on Governance, Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, Robert. 2012. Federalism as Constitutional Pluralism: ‘Letter from America’. In Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, ed. Matej Avbelj and Jan Komárek, 185–211. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwengel, Hermann. 1999. Globalisierung mit europäischem Gesicht. Der Kampf um die politische Form der Zukunft. Berlin: Aufbau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sester, Peter. 2013. Status und Zukunft der Währungsunion. In Europa als Rechtsgemeinschaft – Währungsunion und Schuldenkrise, ed. Thomas Möllers and Franz-Christoph Zeitler, 175–200. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Jo, and Antje Wiener. 1998. The Paradox of the ‘European Polity’. In State of the European Union 5: Risks, Reforms, Resistance, and Revival, ed. M.G. Cowles and M. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key. Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, Helen. 1994. Theory and Practice in European Integration. In Economic and Political Integration in Europe: Internal Dynamics and Global Context, ed. S. Bulmer and A. Scott. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, Joseph H.H. 1995. Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision. European Law Journal 1 (3): 282–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, Joseph H.H., and Ulrich R. Haltern. 1996. The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order—Through the Looking Glass. Harvard International Law Journal 37 (2): 411–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Antje. 2008. The Invisible Constitution of Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesner, Claudia, Kari Palonen, and Tapani Turkka, eds. 2011. Parliament and Europe. Rethorical and Conceptual Studies on Their Contemporary Connections. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Ernest. 2000. Constitutional Avoidance, Resistance Norms, and the Preservation of Judicial Review. Texas Law Review 78: 1549–1614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zetterquist, Ola. 2012. Out with the New, in with the Old—Neo-Roman Constitutional Thought and the Enigma of Constitutional Pluralism in the EU. In Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, ed. Matej Avbelj and Jan Komárek, 213–229. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, Michael. 2005. Law and Compliance at Different Levels. In Law and Governance in Postnational Europe. Compliance Beyond the Nation-State, ed. M. Zürn and C. Joerges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Basque Country, Donostia, Spain

    Daniel Innerarity

Authors
  1. Daniel Innerarity
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Innerarity, D. (2018). What Should Be Democratized? The Peculiarity of Democracy in Europe. In: Democracy in Europe. The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72197-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation