Interesting times for the European Union’s Growth and Stability Pact, according to an Economist story that touches on a disagreement between Dan Drezner and I. Over the last couple of years, big member states such as France and Germany have been flouting the terms of the Pact, which is supposedly binding. It’s looked as though they were going to escape any punishment for doing this.
Dan has argued here and here that the shambles over the Growth and Stability Pact provides evidence that the EU is just a standard supranational organization: i.e. that it’s under the control of its member states. In Dan’s words:
Neither the European Commission nor the European Council seems prepared to punish France for defecting. In other words, at present the European Union, for all of its supranational characteristics, remains an ordinary international organization.
I’ve argued here and here that Dan’s wrong - the real evidence that the EU is not the mere plaything of its more powerful member states can be found in the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has succeeded in effectively ensuring the primacy of EU law over the law of the member states, which is not something that you would expect if the European Union were a simple international organization. Even big member states such as France and Germany, have complied with ECJ rulings that went against their interests.
On Thursday, the European Commission took an action in the ECJ against the member states (the Council of Ministers) for violating the terms of the Growth and Stability Pact. The Economist describes this as perhaps the most important ruling that the ECJ will ever make. So, what does this say about the nature of the EU? More immediately, what’s likely to happen?
It seems to me that there are three plausible outcomes.
(1) The ECJ rules against the member states, but the more powerful member states refuse to accept the ruling, and aren’t punished
If this happens, it’s strong (and perhaps overwhelming) evidence that Dan is correct. It would show that when the ECJ makes a ruling on a subject that is of vital importance to big member states, the big member states will refuse to comply and get away with it. It would suggest that the EU’s legal framework will only be implemented when it matches the broad preferences of powerful member states. People like Walter Mattli, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Karen Alter, Alec Stone (and, rather less prominently, I), who’ve argued that EU law is binding on powerful member states, will suddenly have a lot of explaining to do.
(2) The ECJ rules against the member states, and the more powerful member states accept the ruling
This would be strong evidence that I (and the more distinguished scholars whom I rely on) am right. In a matter that touches directly on the vital economic interests of large member states, these member states will subject themselves, however grudgingly, to the power of EU law. If this happens, expect a sudden resurgence of academic interest among IR scholars in the niceties of the EU legal system.
(3) The ECJ finds some way to duck the issue, on procedural or technical grounds
Sadly for international relations scholars, this is much the most likely outcome - and the most ambiguous from the point of view of the theories that Dan and I are interested in. On the one hand, Dan could very reasonably argue that this result would show that the ECJ is not prepared to take the member states head-on, when there is a clear clash of interest, in which the court is likely to come out second best. On the other, I (and people who share my position), could point to the rather particular circumstances that the ECJ faces in this case at this time. The proposed European Constitution, which is now in limbo, proposes in Article 10.1 that
The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’s Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it , shall have primacy over the laws of the Member States.
This clause has received very little debate, perhaps because it simply ratifies in formal terms the standing legal doctrines of the ECJ, and (more or less) the various court systems of the member states. But if it is adopted by the member states, it will provide the ECJ with a cast-iron guarantee of judicial supremacy, and the considerable legal and political influence that goes along with that. The last thing that the ECJ wants at the moment is a large-scale political controversy over its role and competences, which might cause the member states to have second thoughts. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the ECJ will kick this case into the high grass, but will become much more activist when and if the Constitution is finally accepted and ratified. At that stage, there wouldn’t be much that the member states could do about it (they need unanimity to reverse Constitutional changes), and the ECJ would have carte blanche to assume a more prominent role. This isn’t good news if you think that courts shouldn’t be in the business of making politics.
Let’s hope Drezner is right. A suprastate run, essentially, by Central Bankers is a nightmare. The inability of the EU to show any flexibility about state spending — especially at a time of worldwide deflation, one that seems to be ending with the fall of the dollar — has materially hurt France and Germany. It’s defenders call it a corrective — which is like saying castration is a birth control method. Having prepared for inflation for the past 12 years, the EU economists might celebrate their prescience as the bill comes due for America’s super-large deficits. But that is just foolishness, showing that a stopped clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, the court will rule against France and Germany, and they will defy the court. A triumph for democracy against a judiciary that represents the interests of a very narrow technocratic elite.
Between Drezner and ME—your mother overcorrected you.
Or maybe the mothers and their dutiful children have changed our grammar and the cause is lost.
Ummm … nope. Not that I don’t make occasional mistakes (and I’m very grateful to be corrected when I do) but my understanding is that “between [another] and I” is perfectly acceptable English, if perhaps a little Latinate and archaic. It’s the “between [another] and me” folks who are the newcomers and interlopers, to be fended off at all costs ;)
Point 2 is already happening in the field of corporate taxation, where considerable amounts of anti-avoidance measures and various reliefs have been ruled to discriminate unfairly between companies resident in the EU-member country, and those resident in the rest of the EU.
Something like 90% of tax cases going before the ECJ have gone in the taxpayers’ favour, going off the top of my head.
A fourth option might also be likely: the ECJ rules in favor of the member states in the case at hand, but establishes some general principle of law that suits development of supranationalism in the long run. It just seems that, given the attention and (related) stakes, it will be hard for the ECJ to duck the case, though it would probably rather do so.
Preposition “between” takes the dative case.
“Me,” not “I”
On the whole, though, your analysis is excellent.
Henry, I think you and Dan will be able to have this debate for a long time. The US Supreme Court is often loathe to directly confront the executive, and the practical details of judicial supremacy are still sometimes contested, 210 years into the republic’s run. (An untraceable Jackson quote has sprung to mind, “Mr. Madison [or similar] has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!”) Thus even if an EU Constitution codifies the primacy of Union law, the struggles of actually implementing that supremacy will give you both fodder for the debate.
What make you thing that courts aren’t in the business of making politics every day?
Finally, why does “between” take an object with the plural (between us) and not with a multiple singular (between Dan and I)? Color me puzzled on that one.
Doug,
That’s “Mr. Marshall,” but as you say, the quote is allegedly apocryphal. Still, it certainly does illustrate the relative weakness of the judiciary.
I’m finding the whole EU process fascinating. Many of the struggles of the US, from more than 200 years ago (small vs. big states in the propsed constitution, the role of judges, etc.) are playing out before our very eyes. Personally, I’m expecting (and hoping for) the collapse of the EU, but then again, many Europeans expected and hoped for the collapse of the American Republic…
On the burning and controversial ‘between’ question, my grammar texts suggest that the more common modern usage does indeed take the dative, but that there’s a strong minority position (taken by Shakespeare for one) that there should be two nominatives when there’s an ‘I’ involved.
Doug - sure, courts are always making politics - the question is how much politics, and under what sorts of restraints.
Joe - nice to see someone who really knows about this stuff commenting. Everyone else - if you really want to understand the effects of the Treaty texts and ECJ on day-to-day politics in the EU, you’re going to have to read Joe’s forthcoming book from Cambridge U P. It’s a major contribution to the field.
I’m surprised at you. “Between” takes an accusative pronoun. “…between Dan Drezner and me.”
Mr. Lyman, I’m curious: Why do you want the EU to collapse?
Please, those people you named above (and lots of others besides) are the ones who know, certainly not I (or is that ‘me’?).
”[…]are the ones who know, certainly not I (or is that ‘me’?).”
Not being a native English user, I am not aware of most idomatical trait of the languge, but I feel that both “me” and “I” are acceptabre in this position.
However “The people who know[s]is me.” seems better.
Randy,
That’s a question with a very, very long answer. And this isn’t my blog, so and I don’t want to hijack it.
But broadly, because I think the EU is destructive of individual liberty and has no corresponding benefits to the people whose liberty is being attacked. Note that I differentiate between an economic union, which is a great idea, and the political one, which seems to serve no pupose other than consolidating power for the few.
The EU is no more destructive of individual liberty than any other state. What is more, it is an enhancer of the political liberties of all EU citizen. The EU allows us at least to have an aggregate effect that no European individual country can have. Now nationalists who have dellusion of greatness, and no reasonable policy, may feel that when they cannot impose their politics it is bad, but that is not so straightforward.
DSW
Oops I did it again! - Brittney Spears TGP thumbnail gallery we live together welivetogether little trouble maker joey jenna big naturals in the vip latina hardcore movies solo video girl
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review