Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Social Dilemma of European Integration

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay examines the problems that many scholars raise when referring to the EU’s chances of implementing a true, original and effective social model, capable of renewing the Welfare State model developed after the Second World War. The analysis is conducted in the light of the process of ‘constitutionalisation’ in the European Union and of the Lisbon Treaty. Following a constructive approach, the author examines the current debate among European public actors on this issue, with particular emphasis on the ‘advanced enforcement’ of the Nice Bill of Rights evident in the jurisprudence of the European Courts as well as in recently published European Commission documents on ‘flexicurity’.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. C. Joerges, “Democracy and European Integration: A Legacy of Tensions, a Reconceptualisation and Recent Conflicts”, presented at the Conference on “Europe and the Challenges of the XXI Century on the Eve of the Portuguese Presidency of the EU”, June 2007, and published in this volume.

  2. Art. 6.1 of the new Treaty expressly provides that the norms of the Charter will have the same legal value of those contained in the Treaties. It seems that the Exemption Protocol of the UK and Poland from their application of certain conditions will, in reality, only be adopted by the former; in any event its real effect is doubtful, since the Charter of Nice has been employed by the two supranational Courts, on one hand, while on the other, the rules of the Charter are in many cases recalled together with those of the ECHR, to which the UK has given a ‘quasi-constitutional’ role.

  3. G. Bisogni, G. Bronzini and V. Piccone, “I giudici e la Carta dei diritti dell’Unione europea” (Taranto, 2005); G. Bronzini and V. Piccone, eds, “La Carta e le Corti” (Taranto, 2006); G. Bronzini and V. Piccone “L’efficacia anticipata della Carta di Nizza: ius receptum?”, in I diritti dell’uomo 2007 (2). The three relevant decisions of the ECJ applying the Charter are those of June 27, 2006 (Parliament v. Council); of 13 March 2007 (Unibet) and of 3 May 2007 (on the European Arrest Warrant). The Court in Strasbourg has also applied the provisions of the Charter, qualifying them as ‘community law’ and has even taken their ‘explanations’ into consideration: see the decisions of 11 January 2007 (Anheuser-Busch v. Portugal), and of 19 April 2007 (Vilho Eskelinen vs. Finland). It must be recalled that, incredibly, the ECHR in Strasbourg has anticipated the ECJ in Luxembourg in applying the Charter – in 2002 the Goodwin case, brought on an Art. 9 question on the right to marry and set up a family, resulted in the non-discriminatory protection of transsexuals.

  4. Especially important here are the decisions on time contracts in the public sector: see the decisions of Adeneler of 4 June 2006 – C-212/2004; Marrosu and Sardino and Vassallo of 7 September 2006 – C-53\2004 and C-180\2004; and the more recent Del Cerro Alonso decision of 13 September 2007 – C-307/2005 on the principle of non-discrimination, which resulted in the affirmation of a horizontal effect of European norms. See also B. Caruso and S. Sciarra “Flexicurity and Security in Temporary Work: A Comparative and European Debate”, in Working Paper (WP) int. Massimo D’Antona (2007) 56; P. Saracini, “Flexicurity e lavoro a termine: problematiche attuali e prospettive”, in L. Zoppoli, ed, “Flexicurity e tutele del lavoro tipico e atipico”, in WP Massimo D’Antona int. (2007) 57; S. Sciarra, “Il lavoro a tempo determinato nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia europea. Un tassello nella ‘modernizzazione’ del diritto del lavoro”, in WP Massimo D’Antona (2007) 52.

  5. See the two decisions of the Court of First Instance T-47/03 and T-327/03 of June 2007, which quash decisions to seize the assets of people suspected of terrorism, as well as the decision C-117/2007 of October 11, 2007 which states the need, even in this matter, to verify the respect of fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

  6. Court of First Instance, 17 September 2007 – T -201\2007.

  7. The two documents may be read on the site www.europeanrights.eu.

  8. On these ‘roots’ see C. Joerges, P. Blocker and C. Engert, eds., “Confronting Memories: European ‘bitter experiences’ and the constitutional process”, German Law Journal (2005), 2 & 3, and D. Augenstein, ed., “European integration in the Shadow of Europe’s Darker Pasts”; see also C. Joerges “Working Through Bitter Experiences Towards Constitutionalism. A Critique of the Disregard for History in European Constitutional Theory”, EUI Working Paper (2005) 15, and C. Joerges, “Working Through ‘Bitter Experiences’ Towards a Purified European Identity: A Critique on the Disregard for History in European Constitutional Theory and Practice”, as well as the reply by Dario Castiglione “Comment on Joerges: Are Those Who Forget The Past Doomed to Repeat its Mistakes”, both in E. O. Eriksen, C. Joerges and F. Rödl, eds., “Law and Democracy in the Post-National Union”, Arena report (2006), 1.

  9. C. Joerges, “Che cosa resta della Costituzione sociale europea?”, Rivista critica del diritto privato 1 (2005).

  10. Ibid.

  11. This idea displays a certain similarity to the noted thesis of Fritz Scharpf on the separation between ‘output’ democracy (supranational area) and ‘input’ democracy (national area); see F.W. Scharpf, “Governare l’Europa”, Bologna (1997).

  12. C. Joerges, supra n. 9.

  13. G. Bronzini and V. Piccone, “Il diritto di sciopero nelle recenti conclusioni degli Avvocati generali”, in Rivista critica di diritto del lavoro (2007), 3; C. Joerges, “Democracy and European integration; a legacy of tensions”, supra n. 2; V.U. Carabelli, “Tutela dei lavoratori e libertà di prestazione dei servizi nella UE”, in Rivista giur. del lav. e della prev. soc. (2007) 1; M.V. Ballestrero, “Europa dei mercati e promozione dei diritti”, in WP Massimo D’ Antona (2007), 55; G. Orlandini, “Diritto di sciopero, azioni collettive transnazionali e mercato interno dei servizi: nuovi dilemmi e nuovi scenari per il diritto europeo”, in WP (2006), 45. On freedom of circulation of workers and on the relations among this and other ‘communitarian freedoms’, see S. Giubboni and G. Orlandini, “La libera circolazione dei lavoratori nell’UE”, Bologna (2007); A. Lo Faro, “Turisti e vagabondi. Riflessioni sulla mobilità internazionale dei lavoratori nell’impresa senza confine”, Lavoro e diritto (2005), 437 ff.

  14. B. Bergusson, “The Trade Union Movement and the European Union: the Judgement Day”, European Law Journal 3, (2007), 279 ff.

  15. Note that the OMC comprises the setting of standards and the development of best practice transfer between national administrations in areas, such as social policy, where Union competences do not exist or are shared between the member states and the Union. As is widely known, if we consider the 15-State EU, the least virtuous country is Italy; in the 25-State EU Italy’s position is better only than that of Poland and Malta. For the second Italian report, see: http://www.governo.it/GovernoInforma/Dossier/strategia_lisbona_rapporto/PNR_ultimo.pdf (on the Lisbon Strategy of October 2007).

  16. B. Caruso, “Sistemi contrattuali e regolazione legislativa in europa”, Giorn. Dir. lav. e rel. ind. (2006), 4.

  17. The agreement may be read on the site www.europeanrights.eu; see also S. Smismans, “The European Social Dialogue between Constitutional and Labour Law”, European Law Review 32/3 (2007), 341 ff.

  18. This Fund should be financed more substantially.

  19. See S. Giubboni, “Diritti e politiche nella ‘crisi europea’”, in WP int. Massimo D’Antona (2004), 30; T. Sakellaropulos, “Social federalism, Subsidiarity and Open Method of Coordination”, in WP int. Massimo D’Antona (2005), 56; S. Giubboni, “Social Rights and Market Freedoms in the European Constitution: A Labour Law Perspective” (Cambridge, 2006); see also the monographic issue of the review Lavoro e diritto on “Federalismo e diritti del lavoro” (2001), 3.

  20. On this classification see the Commission document of June 2007 “Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity”, available on www.europeanrights.eu, and the preparatory document of the experts’ group appointed by the Commission and presided over by T. Wilthagen, “Flexicurity Pathways. Turning Hurdles into Stepping Stones” of June 2007, available from the reports edited by C. Massimiani for the site labourweb.

  21. On the old Project for a Constitutional Treaty see: G. Bronzini, “The European Social Model and the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union”, in C. Joerges, B. Stråth and P. Wagner, eds., “The Economy as a Polity: the Political Constitution of Contemporary Capitalism” (London, 2005), and G. Bronzini, ‘”L’Europe des droits aprés la Convention”, Multitudes (2003), 14.

  22. G. Majone, Regulating Europe (London, 1996).

  23. G. Majone, “Deficit democratico, istituzioni non maggioritarie ed il paradosso della integrazione europea”, Stato e mercato (2003), 1; A. Moravcsik, “What We Can Learn From the Collapse of the Constitutional Project?” Politische Vierteljahreschrift (2006), 47, 219 ff.

  24. C. Joerges, “Integration through de-legislation? An irritated hecker”, Governance paper (2007), 3; Y. Papadopoulos, “Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance”, European Law Journal, 4 (2007); A. Benz, “Accountable Multilevel Governance by the Open Method of Coordination?” European Law Journal 13/4 (2007).

  25. The document sent by some Ministries for Labour, including the Italian, can be read on the site www.europeanrights.eu.

  26. The European Parliament has expressed its view through an ‘open’ resolution of 11 July 2007, which can be read at www.europeanrights.eu For a report on the documents sent to the Commission and for the preparatory phases of the Green paper see the two dossiers edited by C. Massimiani for the website labourweb of the University of Catania.

  27. For a more precise analysis of the document see G. Bronzini, “12 noterelle sul green paper” Rivista critica di diritto del lavoro (2007), 1; G. Bronzini, “Il Green paper sulla modernizzazione del diritto del lavoro: un sasso nello stagno?”, Quale Stato (2007), 1–2.

  28. A. Supiot, Il futuro del diritto del lavoro, (Roma, 2003); on this perspective see also G. Bronzini, “Generalizzare i diritti, non la subordinazione”, Democrazia e diritto (2005), 3.

  29. These are the words of the document drafted by Italian experts on Labour law and sent to the Commission in the framework of the European discussion forum on the Green paper “I giuslavoristi e il Libro Verde Modernizzare il diritto del lavoro per rispondere alle sfide del XX secolo. Una valutazione critica e propositiva”, available on the site www.europeanrights.eu together with the ‘Medel’ document sent by the European Association of Judges and Prosecutors. The European Parliament also criticised, in the resolution of last July, the lack of references to some of the rules of the Charter, especially that prohibiting unjustified dismissal. On this issue see L. Zoppoli, ed, “Flexicurity e tutele del lavoro tipico e atipico”, supra n. 4.

  30. The preparatory documents of the Commission of experts may be read on the website of the EES, along with the resume of the meetings with representatives of civil society.

  31. It must be emphasised how this document refers to the Charter of Nice on the topic of flexicurity, even it is only in a single footnote. See also the document by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation), “Varieties of Flexicurity: Reflections on Key Elements of Flexicurity and Security” of 21 March 2007, available on the site labourweb, and A. Bevort, M. Lallement and C.N. Drancourt, eds, “Flexicurité: la protection de l’emploi en dèbat”, Problèmes politiques et sociaux (Paris, 2006), 931; P. Garabiol, “Flexicurity: a European Revolution” in the newsletter Fondation R. Schumann Ottobre 2007; E. Pisano and M. Raitano, “Flexicurity”, Rivista delle politiche sociali (2007), 2.

  32. See G. Bronzini, “Flexicurity for all?” in FlexEuropa, newsletter of the CRS (Centro per la Riforma dello Stato), May 2007; see http://www.centroriformastato.it/crs/rubriche/flexeuropa, where it is possible to compare the numerous contributions to the ‘Green paper’; also, on the so-called Ghent-method in the management by workers’ unions of funds for fighting unemployment and financing proactive policies for labour, see S. Leonardi, “Sul Libro Verde”, Riv. Giur. del lav. (2007), 1.

  33. The debate goes back to the 1980s: see J. Habermas, Teoria dell’agire comunicativo (Bologna, 1986); for a contrary position see G. Teubner, ed., Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (Berlin, 1986) and G. Teubner, ed., Juridification of Social Spheres (Berlin, 1987); however, the topic of a new ‘self-regulated welfare’ has gone far beyond these approaches, linking itself to the topic of collective bargaining as alternative or integration of the law – see A. Lo Faro, Funzioni e finzioni della contrattazione collettiva comunitaria (Giuffrè, 1999).

  34. A. Supiot, “Il futuro del lavoro”, supra n. 14; A. Supiot, Critique du droit du travail (Paris, 1994).

  35. Ibid. As included in the 1999 report for the EC on the future of labour law in Europe.

  36. For a convincing argument for the inclusion of the school of equality in capabilities in labour law, especially in Europe, see B. Caruso, “Occupabilità, formazione e capability nei modelli giuridici di regolazione del mercato del lavoro”, Giornale dir. lav. rel. ind. (2007), 1; see also T. Treu, “Le regole sociali europee: quali innovazioni”, Europa e diritto privato (2004), 1.

  37. M. Castells, Volgere di millennio (Milan, 2003) and “Comunicazione, potere e contropotere nella network society”, Caffè Europa (2007).

  38. See the references in G. Allegri, “Reddito di esistenza e welfare post-statale” at http://www.centroriformastato.it/crs/rubriche/flexeuropa/allegri5, and “Quale flexicurity per le politiche sociali europee?” http://www.centroriformastato.it/crs/rubriche/flexeuropa/allegri4; G. Farrell, ed, Flexicurity. Flessibilità e welfare: una sfida da raccogliere (Bologna, 2006); M. Castells and P. Himanem, Società dell’informazione e welfare state (Napoli, 2006); A. Sartori “Il modello scandinavo di mercato del lavoro: note per una lettura in chiave comparata”, Riv. It. dir. lav. (2007), III, 480 ss. We do not consider the attempt by Anthony Giddens to include Great Britain among the countries which follow the flexicurity model to be fully convincing: see A. Giddens, “L’Europa nell’età globale” (Bari, 2007).

  39. See E. Szyszczak, “Experimental Governance: the Open Method of Coordination”, European Law Journal 12/4 (2006).

  40. S. Sciarra, “Fundamental Social Rights after Lisbon Agenda”, in G. De Burca and B. de Witte, eds, Social rights in Europe (Oxford, 2005); S. Giubboni, “Il primo dei diritti sociali. Riflessioni sul diritto al lavoro tra Costituzione italiana e ordinamento europeo”, in WP int. Massimo D’Antona (2006), 46.

  41. On the meaning of this mutation in the paradigm for the European Community of labour law experts, see B. Caruso, “Chances in the Workplace and the Dialogue of Labour Scholars in the Global Village”, in WP int. Massimo D’Antona (2007), 50.

  42. Concerning the cross fertilizing effect on every level (including those competences still reserved to Member States) deriving from the official recognition of the binding value of the Charter of Nice, see A. Knook, “The Court, the Charter and the Vertical Division of Powers in EU”, Common Market Law Review (2005), 385 ff., and G. Bronzini, “Il rilievo della carta di Nizza nella crisi del processo costituzionale europeo”, in VVAA ‘Per un’Europa costituzionale’ (Roma, 2006).

  43. B. Caruso, “Il diritto del lavoro tra hard law e soft law: nuove funzioni e nuove tecniche normative”, in WP int. Massimo D’Antoma int. (2005), 78, at http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/ricerca/wp/int/caruso_39-2005int.pdf page 4; see also B. Caruso, “Il diritto del lavoro nel tempo della sussidiarietà (le competenze territoriali nella governance multilivello)”, in VVAA ‘Diritto del lavoro. I nuovi problemi’ (Padova, 2005); D.M. Trubek and L.G. Trubek, “Hard and Soft Law in the Construction of Social Europe: the Role of the Open Method of Coordination”, European Law Journal 11 (2005).

  44. S. Sciarra, “La costituzionalizzazione dell’Europa sociale. Diritti fondamentali e procedure di soft law”, in WP int. Massimo D’Antona (2003), 24, at http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/ricerca/wp/int/sciarra_n16-2003int.pdf; S. Sciarra, “Norme imperative nazionali ed europee: le finalità del diritto del lavoro”, in WP Massimo D’Antona int. (2006), 44, at http://www.lex.unict.it/eurolabor/ricerca/wp/int/sciarra_n44-2006int.pdf; see also N. Bernard, “A New Governance Approach to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the EU”, in T. Hervey and J. Kenner, eds, “Economic and Social Rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Legal Perspective” (Oxford, 2003).

  45. The literature on the OMC is now endless, but some major titles are: M. Barbera, Nuove forme di regolazione: il metodo aperto di coordinamento delle politiche sociali (Milan, 2006); J. Zeitlin and M. Trubek, eds, Governing Work and Welfare in a New Economy: European and American experiments (Oxford, 2003) on the ‘regulatory’ dilemmas of the new governance; and G. De Burca and J. Scott, eds, Law and Governance in the EU and US (Oxford, 2006); G. De Burca, ed, EU Law and the Welfare State: in Search of Solidarity (Oxford, 2005); see also J. Cohen and C.H. Sabel, “L’Europa sociale vista dagli USA”, in Rivista delle politiche sociali (2004) 1; A. Lo Faro and A. Andronico, “Metodo aperto di coordinamento e diritti fondamentali; strumenti complementari o grammatiche differenti?”, Giorn. Dir. lav. rel ind. (2005), 4.

  46. See the issue on “Accountability in EU Multilevel Governance”, European Law Journal 13/4 (2007), as well as the numerous contributions of the European governance paper series in http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/: especially C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, “Promoting Accountability in Multi-level Governance: A Network Approach” (April 2006); J. Zeitlin, “Social Europe and Experimentalist Governance: Toward a New Constitutional Compromise?” (May 2005) and C. Joerges, “Integration through de-legislation”, supra n. 2; C.H. Sabel and J. Zeitlin, “Learning from Difference: the New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the European Union” (May 2007); as well as G. De Búrca and N. Walker, “Reconceiving Law and New Governance”, EUI Working papers (2007) 10; see also C. Offe and U.K. Preuss, “The Problem of Legitimacy in the European Union: is Democratisation the Answer?” in Conweb (2006), 6.

  47. There’s a notable continuity between this line of research and the other, more ‘Habermasian’ approach promoted by the ‘deliberative democracy’ schools around the Norwegian research center ‘Arena’, which have always attempted, in a neo-constitutional key, to value the ‘participative’ potentialities offered by the communitarian regulatory quadrilateral; see also the papers in their site and the new series of Recon. See also, “Special Issue on Law, Civil Society and Transitional Economic Governance” in European Law Journal (2003), 4, in particular E. Wilkinson, “Civil Society and the Re-imagination of European Constitutionalism”.

  48. G. de Búrca and N. Walzer, “Reconceiving…” supra n. 46.

  49. M. Blecher, “Law in Movement: Paradoxontology, Law and Social Movements” in J. Dine and A. Fagan, eds, Human Rights and Capitalism: a Multidisciplinary Perspective on Globalisation (Cheltenham, 2006).

  50. M. Wilkinson, ‘Between Constitutionalism and Democratic Experimentalism. New governance in the EU and the US’, Modern Law Review 4 (2007).

  51. On this topic see K. Auel, “Democratic Accountability and National Parliaments: Redefining the Impact of Parliamentary Scrutiny in EU Affairs”, European Law Journal 13/4 (2007).

  52. See S. Sciarra, “La costituzionalizzazione dell’Europa sociale…” supra n. 44; S. Sciarra, “Norme imperative nazionali ed europee…”, supra n. 44; D. Strazzeri, “Tra soft e hard law: prime riflessioni in favore della giustziabilità degli atti emanati nell’ambito dell’OMC”, in M. Barbera, “Nuove forme di regolazione sociale…” supra n. 45; in terms of a more direct relation between Court of Justice and European citizens, see “Au nom de qui? The European Court of Justice between Member States, Civil Society and Union Citizens”, European Law Journal 3 (2007).

  53. C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, “Promoting Accountability in Multilevel Governance: A Network Approach”, European Law Journal 4 (2007).

  54. On the role of social movements in the process of constitutionalisation of the Union see G. Bronzini, H. Friese, A. Negri and P. Wagner, eds, Europa, costituzione e movimenti sociali (Roma, 2003), in particular G. Allegri, “Oltre l’Europa convenzionale. I mille piani dei movimenti sociali nell’Europa politica”.

  55. Wilkinson also seems to agree that a link exists between federalist (and constitutional) hope and innovations of the new governance: ‘The perplexing question left ambiguously and tantalisingly open is whether a good deal of democratic experimentalism and new governance in the EU has been achieved in spite of the grander projects of constitutional design – which of course can be traced back to the Post-war II founding generation of European integrationists, to Jean Monnet and Altiero Spinelli, and more recently to the projects of Federico Mancini and Joschka Fischer – or in large part because of them. It is tempting to think the latter.’ See M. Wilkinson, “Between Constitutionalism…”, supra n. 50, at 700.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Appeal Courts Rome, Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe Bronzini

Authors
  1. Giuseppe Bronzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Bronzini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bronzini, G. The Social Dilemma of European Integration. Law Critique 19, 255–274 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-008-9030-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-008-9030-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation