Advertisement

The EU Democratic Governance in Francisco Lucas Pires’ Thought and Its Enduring Topicality

  • Cristina FasoneEmail author
Chapter
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter reflects on the idea of democratic governance proposed by Francisco Lucas Pires along three dimensions that look especially significant in his vision of Europe: democratic governance in terms of representative democracy and traditional institutional tools; democratic governance as participatory democracy which complements and supports the role performed by representative institutions; democratic governance as a civilising force on the market with more socially oriented policies. These different though complementary understandings of democratic governance are briefly analysed here in the current EU framework, 20 years after the first publication of this seminal book by Francisco Lucas Pires.

Keywords

Democratic Governance EU Representative Democracy EU Civil Society Social Europe Francisco Lucas Pires 

References

  1. Avbelj M (2017) What Future for the European Union? Discussion Paper SP IV 2017–802, Center for Global Constitutionalism, WBZ—Berlin Social Science Center.Google Scholar
  2. Barber N (2005) The Limited Modesty of Subsidiarity. European Law Journal, Vol. 11, 308–325.Google Scholar
  3. Bartl M (2015) The Way We Do Europe: Subsidiarity and the Substantive Democratic Deficit. European Law Journal, Vol. 21, 23–43.Google Scholar
  4. Council of Ministers of the EU (2016) Council’s Rules of Procedure and comments on Council’s Rules of Procedure, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/publications/council-rules-procedure-comments/ Accessed January 2019.
  5. Cuesta-López V (2012) A Comparative Approach to the Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 13, 257–69.Google Scholar
  6. Curtin D (2014) Challenging Executive Dominance in European Democracy. Modern Law Review, Vol. 77, 1–32.Google Scholar
  7. Dawson M (2018) Evaluating Juncker’s Political Commission: The Right Idea in the Wrong Hands? VerfBlog, 2018/9/10, https://verfassungsblog.de/evaluating-junckers-political-commission-the-right-idea-in-the-wrong-hands/ Accessed January 2019.
  8. De Búrca G (2018) Is EU Supranational Governance a Challenge to Liberal Constitutionalism? The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 85, 337–67.Google Scholar
  9. De Búrca G, Scott, J (2006) Introduction. New Governance, Law and Constitutionalism. In: De Búrca G, Scott J (eds) Law and New Governance in the EU and the US. Hart Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. De Wilde P (2012) Why the Early Warning Mechanism does not alleviate the democratic deficit. OPAL Online Paper, No. 6, University of Maastricht, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  11. Dougan M (2011) What are we to make of the citizens’ initiative? Common Market Law Review, Vol. 48, 1807–1848.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (1997) Agenda 2000. For a Stronger and Wider Union. COM (97) 2000, 15 July 1997.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (2001) European Governance: A White Paper. COM (2001) 428, 25 July 2001.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2017) White Paper on the future of Europe. COM(2017)2025, 1 March 2017.Google Scholar
  15. Fabbrini S (2015) The European Union and the Puzzle of Parliamentary Government. Journal of European Integration, Vol. 37, 571–86.Google Scholar
  16. Fabbrini S (2017) Which Democracy for a Union of States? A Comparative Perspective of the European Union. Global Policy, Vol. 8, 14–22.Google Scholar
  17. Fasone C, Lupo N (2018) The Union Budget and the Budgetary Procedure. In: Schütze R, Tridimas T (eds) Oxford Principles of European Union Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 809–46.Google Scholar
  18. Føllesdal A (1998) Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 6, 190–218.Google Scholar
  19. Fromage D, Van der Brink T (eds) (2018) National parliaments, the European Parliament and the democratic legitimation of the European Union economic governance – Special Issue. Journal of European Integration, Vol. 40.Google Scholar
  20. Giubboni S (2017) Appunti e disappunti sul pilastro europeo dei diritti sociali. Quaderni costituzionali, Vol. 4, p. 953–86.Google Scholar
  21. Goldoni M (2016) Politicising EU lawmaking? The Spitzenkandidaten Experiment as a cautionary tale. European Law Journal, Vol. 22, 279–95.Google Scholar
  22. Héritier A, Lehmkuhl D (2008) Introduction: The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 28, 1–17.Google Scholar
  23. Hooghe L, Marks G (2009) A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, 1–23.Google Scholar
  24. Hooghe L, Marks G (2018) Cleavage Theory Meets Europe’s Crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the Transnational Cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 25, 109–135.Google Scholar
  25. Joerges C (2008) Integration through de-legalisation? European Law Review, Vol. 33, 213–237.Google Scholar
  26. Joerges C (2012) The European Economic Constitution in Crisis: Between ‘State of Exception’ and ‘Constitutional Moment’. In: Maduro M et al. (eds) The Democratic Governance of the Euro. RSCAS Policy Papers, RSCAS PP 2012/08, EUI, Florence.Google Scholar
  27. Klüver H (2013) Lobbying as a Collective Enterprise: Winners and Losers of Policy Formulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 20, 59–76.Google Scholar
  28. Kohler-Koch B, Quittkat C (2010) De-Mystification of Participatory Democracy: EU Governance and Civil Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Kreppel A (2012) The normalization of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 19, 635–45.Google Scholar
  30. Lindseth P (2010) Power and legitimacy. Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Lupo N (2018) The Commission’s Power to Withdraw Legislative Proposals and its ‘Parliamentarisation’. Between Technical and Political Grounds. European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 14, 311–31.Google Scholar
  32. Maduro M (2010) Passion and Reason in European Integration, FCE 3/10 Forum Constitutionis Europae. Humboldt University, Walter Hallstein-Institut Für Europäisches Verfassungsrecht, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Mair P (2007) Political Opposition and the European Union. Government and Opposition, Vol. 42, 1–17.Google Scholar
  34. Maurer A, Wessels W (eds) (2001) National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe. Losers or Latecomers? Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  35. Menéndez A (2017) The Crisis of Law and the European Crises: From the Social and Democratic Rechtsstaat to the Consolidating State of (Pseudo)technocratic Governance. Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 44, 56–78.Google Scholar
  36. Merkel A (2010) Speech by Federal Chancellor of Germany at the opening ceremony of the 61st academic year of the College of Europe, Bruges, 2 November.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolaïdis K (2004) The New Constitution as European ‘Demoi-cracy’? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 7, 76–93.Google Scholar
  38. Rosanvallon P (2010) Counter-democracy. Politics in the Age of Distrust (transl. Goldhammer A). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Sabel C F, Zietlin J (2008) Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the European Union. European Law Journal, Vol. 14, 271–327.Google Scholar
  40. Saurugger S (2008) Interest Groups and Democracy in the European Union. West European Politics, Vol. 31, 1274–91.Google Scholar
  41. Scharpf F W (1999) Governing Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  42. Scharpf F W (2001) European Governance: Common Concerns vs. The Challenge of Diversity. In: Joerges C et al. (eds) Mountain or Molehill: Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance. Jean Monnet Working Paper 6/01 NYU, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Schiek D (2007) Private Rule-making and the European Governance: Issues of Legitimacy. European Law Review, Vol. 32, 443–466.Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt V A (2006) Democracy in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  45. Schmidt V A (2013) Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’. Political Studies, Vol. 61, 2–22.Google Scholar
  46. Schmidt V A (2018) Rethinking EU Governance: From ‘Old’ to ‘New’ Approaches to Who Steers Integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 53, 1544–61.Google Scholar
  47. Schütze R (2015) European Union Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. Weiler J H H (2001) The Commission as Euro-Skeptic: A Task Oriented Commission for a Project-Based Union: A Comment on the First Version of the White Paper. In: Joerges C et al. (eds) Mountain or Molehill: Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance. Jean Monnet Working Paper 6/01 NYU, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Weiler J H H (2012) Europe In Crisis—On ‘Political Messianism’, ‘Legitimacy’ And The ‘Rule of Law’. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, December, 248–68.Google Scholar
  50. Wessels W, Rozenberg O (2013) Democratic Control in the Member States of the European Council and the Eurozone Summits. Study for AFCO. European Parliament, PE 474.392.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceLUISS Guido CarliRomeItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of LawNicolaus Copernicus UniversityToruńPoland

Personalised recommendations