European Union citizenship (Political Science)

Limits to the Legitimacy Function of EU Citizenship: The Nationality of Member States

by Carlos Closa

Paper delivered at the Fourth Biennial International Conference of the European Community Studies Association, Charleston, South Carolina May 11-14 1995

This paper explores whether the citizenship of the Union may become an autonomous source for Union legitimacy by... more This paper explores whether the citizenship of the Union may become an autonomous source for Union legitimacy by focussing on two issues. Firstly, it seems that some Union citizenship rights, particularly the rights to freely move and reside within the EU, do establish legitimacy basis for the EU. That is, the praxis of such rights may create a substrate of acceptance of European Union. Political rights, though, are the essential citizenship right therefore it is necessary to determine to which extent the political participation afforded by ELcitizenship establishes a legitimacy channel autonomous from nationality. On the catalogue of rights included by the Treaty on European Union, the legitimacy deficit in the concept and implementing elements of political rights created by their reliance on nationality will be examined (II). Secondly, the difficulties to develop social rights or redistributive entitlements, on the other hand, mean that citizenship of the Union will not substitute the individuals perception of material belonging around nationality (III). In either case, it seems evident that the traditional attachement of citizenship (as a status of rights) to the idea of nation provides legitimacy grounds for the development of certain rights which constitute the essence of citizenship. If citizenship is built up as a set of rights without no reference to the community identity contained in the idea of nationality, there will be a lack of legitimacy to include certain rights. Anticipating the conclusion (IV), a concept of citizenship that goes further than the mere harmonization of certain secondary political rights seems to require the previous development of forms of pan-Union identity if it is to avoid legitimacy deficits. The reasoning will comence establishing a conceptual difference between citizenship and nation as two different ways of relating individuals to public power in their legitimacy function (I).

Dealing with the Past: Memory and European Integration

by Carlos Closa

NYU Jean Monnet Centre Working Papers 2011/01

Memory has become an object of dispute in the EU. Different groups and states do not have a full convergence of views... more Memory has become an object of dispute in the EU. Different groups and states do not have a full convergence of views and this raises the question as to whether the EU should or should not be involved. A pluralist conception of justice would argue that the recognition of memory is not excluded as a form of justice. Adopting this view, this paper argues that the recognition of memory can be addressed at the EU level if the different components of justice are allocated to the proper spheres (recognition, retribution and recognition) and levels (national and European).

The Fox and the Raven: The European Union and Hungary Renegotiate the Margins of 'Europe'

by József Böröcz

Education for citizenship: mainstreaming the fight against racism?

by Audrey Osler

European Journal of Education,2002, 37 (2): 143-159 co-authroed with H Starkey

Citizen participation and the Lisbon Treaty: a legal perspective

by Francesco Maiani

Studies in Public Policy 484

How to “bring the [European] Union closer to its citizens” is a vexed and vital problem of European integration. ... more How to “bring the [European] Union closer to its citizens” is a vexed and vital problem of European integration.  Article 11 TEU on participatory democracy, recently introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, is meant to be part of the solution.  The EU Economic and Social Committee has gone so far as to define this provision “a milestone on the road to a people’s Europe that is real and feasible”.  This appears to be an overly optimistic assessment – partly because art. 11 relies heavily on the involvement of civil society organisations, which political science literature suggests is conceptually and/or practically irrelevant to citizen involvement; partly because it largely formalizes participatory practices that have been in existence for years without cognizable effects on citizen participation; and partly because even its most innovative element – the European citizens’ initiative (ECI) – does not bring significant changes to the Union’s constitutional arrangements in terms of redistributing decision-making power.  In addition to that, secondary legislation places significant hurdles on the submission of ECIs and might prevent or delay their becoming a standard democratic practice.  This is not to say that art. 11 TEU has no potential at all.  Its insertion in the Treaty might provide impetus to rethink and develop past participatory practices, such as horizontal civil dialogue.  Moreover, the effects of “popular input” in the form of ECIs on EU institutional dynamics is as yet unknown – and perhaps not negligible, to judge from the keen interest that the European Parliament and other bodies have demonstrated in “appropriating” it as a political asset.  Finally, art. 11 raises the stakes of the Union’s democratic challenge and might pressure EU institutions to make full use of its potential.  Or, if eventually proved inadequate, art. 11 might constitute a constitutional experiment on the way to meaningful forms of direct democracy at EU level.