Upcoming Presentation

By
On Tuesday the 29th of January at 2pm Gerd Koehler will present "The regionalist Challenge to Supranationalism" in Taylor Building Room D48. The following is a description of Gerd's essay by Jo Shaw:

The theme of the relations between the EU, the Member States and the regions is taken up again by Gerd Koehler. He identifies the risk that supranationalism, far from fostering regionalism, might also hinder its development. Taking a more EU-centric approach, Koehler submits the existing arrangements to a close legal analysis, identifying the difficulties for regions and substate nations when they raise claims to better representation and voice within the European Union political system.



And below is Gerd's summary of the issues. Comments are welcome.

The essay presents the inherent conflict between regionalism and the nature of the European Union as expressed in its structure. Both of the latter, nature and structure, have changed over time from an international to the current supranationalist organisation. Since the 1990s changes were also made in order to accommodate regionalism. The remaining nature of the Union as one of States, however, rather than an independent legal-political entity confines the EU to neutrality towards its Member States’ internal structure and relying on nationally determined territorial bodies. Therefore, regions have uneven powers and resources. This, in turn, hampers the existing regionalist features, thus facilitating centralisation arguments.

The essay examines the existing regionalist features in detail:

Amongst the decision-making institutions the Council is the one based on spatial representation. It is, however, the Member States through their central governments that are represented. The regionalist movement achieved that regional representatives may act on behalf of the whole state in the Council. However, this depends on respective national provisions. Furthermore, even where such provisions are in place they comprise an inherent bias towards representation of national rather than regional interests.

The Committee of the Regions was specifically created to represent regional interests on EU level. Yet, it plays an advisory role only. In addition, its composition of an abundance of structurally uneven interests from different local and regional levels weakens the Committee with regard to substantive decisions. This weakness leads some regions to pursue their interests through other, non-institutionalised channels.

Whilst the principle of subsidiarity was originally adopted in order to ‘bring the Union closer to its citizens’ and as such hoped to champion regionalism, it does not even mention the regional level in its present form. The amendments by the Lisbon ‘Reform Treaty’ refer to regions yet leave the decision-making obligations with the Member States. Circumstantial evidence suggests that in this scenario regional input is not sufficiently guaranteed. Especially in Member States without a regional Parliamentary Chamber, devolution of decision-making to the regional level is not guaranteed. The ensuing unevenness may raise concerns of inconsistent implementation, so that the subsidiarity principle would demand a central decision on either EU or Member State level.

Depending on their powers and resources under national law some regions successfully established non-institutionalised channels to influence decision-making. Again, this inherently provides for uneven regional representation. Institutionalised channels like the Committee of the Regions may thus be seen as representing a minority only. This weakens the committee and, incidentally, the weaker regions that do not have the power or resources to make representations in Brussels. Commission consultation appears to concentrate on stakeholders, thus excluding regional authorities as part of state structures.

A structural response to these deficiencies of the present regionalist approach would have to make regions more equal. Whilst the EU cannot interfere with the internal structure of its Member States, it could grant rights to regions directly.

Further details of our programme for the coming weeks will be posted soon.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Constitutional Right to Female Sexual Pleasure?

By
Although a right to “sexual pleasure” usually does not fare among traditional rights enshrined in constitutions, such a right was nevertheless proposed by a female member of the Ecuadorian parliament when debating a forthcoming new constitution. Reuters report that the idea behind the proposal was to facilitate gender equality and to avoid sexual violence. Ultimately, however, and in spite of this noble cause, the proposal failed.
Read more

Movie: HOT FUZZ

By
Image
On Wed, 7 th October at 7pm in Taylor A19 the Legal Research Society will present its first movie night of this academic year with a screening of the film HOT FUZZ, a British action comedy with a huge portion of irony and black humour about the bigotry, hypocrisy and intrigues set in an (superficially) idyllic small town in Britain… Synopsis Sgt Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a fiercely motivated and successful London copper who finds himself transferred to the sleepy town of Sandford . Almost everyone in this manicured little community seems to know and love each other. But if Sandford is a sleepy market town, it is home to some very real nightmares. Not that local coppers like loveable oaf Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) see anything suspicious about Sandford's absurd number of 'accidents'. Angel is no ordinary constable and launches an investigation, much to the amusement of his bumbling boss and his colleagues. Critics “Refreshingly British come
Read more

Head of State: Legal Debat About The UK's Election. Legal Research Society. 22 April 2010

By
Image
Head of State: Legal Discussion About The UK Election. Legal Research Society. 22 April 2010 There is a general feeling that the recent debate in Britain between the main party leaders was rather staid compared to the more theatrical style of the U.S Presidential debate on which it was modelled. Perhaps the British electorate would prefer the plain-spoken, tell-it-like-it-is politics of Chris Rock's prescient spoof of the U.S Presidential election. "Head of State" starts Chris Rock as an unlikely democratic for the presidency of the United State, who goes on to win over the electorate by shunning the political point-scoring and spin employed by other candidates and speaking forthrightly about issues that really concern people. Could such a tactic work for the political underdog in Britain. The screening of this sassy political satire was followed by a discussion of the recent and the forthcoming political debate in Britain, as well as the General Election that w
Read more