This volume examines the role of law in increasing the legitimacy of European decision-making by structuring and facilitating diverse forms of participation, representation and deliberation. The important role of interest groups in the current debates over the legitimacy of the European Union is examined.

Smismans gathers a fine selection of papers. The book gains particular authority from its interdisciplinary approach. Ulrike Ehling, European Law Journal This book explores the concept of civil society , which over recent years has been revived and introduced into the institutional debate within the EU. Significantly, EU institutions themselves have made reference to civil society and, on an academic plane, it has been argued that the debate on the legitimacy of European governance should value the role of civil society organisations. Bringing together lawyers and political scientists, the book studies the role of civil society organisations in the multi-level context of European governance. Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance bridges the distance between normative suggestions, legal instruments and empirical analysis. Providing original contributions to the research on European governance, this book will appeal to all scholars and students with an interest in European integration and European institutions.

A succession of crises has marked the last decade of European integration, leading to disorientation among integration scholars. Older frameworks for understanding have been challenged, while the outlines of new ones are only now beginning to emerge. This book looks to history to provide a more durable explanation of the nature and legitimacy of European governance going forward. Through detailed examination of certain fundamental but often overlooked elements in EU history, Peter Lindseth describes the convergence of European integration around the 'postwar constitutional settlement of administrative governance.' 'Administrative' here does not mean 'non-political' or 'technical'-it means that supranational regulatory authority should properly be seen as 'delegated' from national constitutional bodies. As such, supranational policymaking has relied to a significant degree on forms of oversight by national executives, legislatures, and judiciaries, following models of 'mediated legitimation' first developed in the administrative state and then translated into the European context. These national mechanisms developed specifically to overcome the core disconnect in European integration-between exercises of otherwise autonomous supranational regulatory 'power,' on the one hand, and the persistence of the nation-state as the primary source of democratic and constitutional 'legitimacy' in the European system, on the other. It has been through recourse to the legitimating structures and normative principles of the postwar constitutional settlement, this study shows, that European public law has sought to reconcile 'Europe' and the nation-state for more than fifty years.

Article 226 EC is the central mechanism of enforcement in the EC Treaty, and has remained unchanged since the original Treaty of Rome. It provides the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, with a broad power of policing Member States’ conduct. Article 226 has been traditionally characterised as an arena of secretive negotiation focused on the sole function of effective enforcement. This study seeks to move beyond this approach by characterising Article 226 as a multi-functional mechanism within the Treaty. It does this by examining the central mechanism of enforcement through the normative lenses of legitimacy, good administration and good governance. Centralised Enforcement, Legitimacy and Good Governance in the EU is interdisciplinary in nature, examining law in its political context. It focuses on how the institutions interact and react to competing policy pressures, and explores the tensions that lie at the heart of legitimacy in the actions of public actors by engaging with concepts such as democracy, legitimacy and good administration. Scholars and policy-makers whose work explores Article 226 will find this work especially relevant. It will also appeal to those who are interested in enforcement and regulation in the international/EU arena, as well as those whose work considers concepts such as good governance, legitimacy, and accountability in the EU. It is also relevant to scholars engaged in the study of institutions and processes of interaction and change.

The Federal Vision is about the complex and changing relationship between levels of governance within the United States and the European Union. Based on a transatlantic dialogue between scholars concerned about modes of governance on both sides, it is a collective attempt at analysing the ramifications of the legitimacy crisis in our multi-layered democracies, and possible remedies. Starting from a focus on the current policy debatea over devolution and subsidiarity, the book engages the reader in to the broader tension of comparartive federalism. Its authors believe that in spite of the fundamental differences between them, both the EU and the US are in the process of re-defining a federal vision for the 21st century. This book represents an important new contribution to the study of Federalism and European integration, which seeks to bridge the divide between the two. It also bridges the traditional divide between technical, legal or regulatory discussions of federal governance and philosophical debates over questions of belonging and multiple identities. It is a multi-disciplinary project, bringing together historians, political scientists and theorists, legal scholars, sociologists and political economists. It includes both innovative analysis and prescriptions on how to reshape the federal contract in the US and the EU. It includes introductions to the history of federalism in the US and the EU, the current debates over devolution and subsidarity, the legal framework of federalism and theories of regulatory federalism, as well as innovative approaches to the application of network analysis, principal-agent models, institutionalist analysis, and political theories of citizenship to the federal context. The introduction and conclusion by the editors draws out cross-cutting themes and lessons from the thinking together of the EU and US experiences, and suggest how a federal vision could be freed from the hierarchical paradigm of the federal state and articulated around concepts of mutal tolerence and empowerment.

This book's principal aim is to critically address the institutional and substantive legal issues resulting from European enlargement, chiefly those relating to the legal foundations on which the enlarged Union is being built. The accession of new Member States creates the potential for a stronger and more powerful Europe. Realising this potential, however, will depend on the ability of the EU to develop functional and effective governance structures, both at the European level and at the level of the individual Member States. While the acquis communautaire will ensure that formal laws in the new Member States will be aligned with those of existing members, the question remains as to how effective institutions will be in implementing changes, and what effects the imposed changes will have on the legitimacy of the new legal framework. This book, containing the work of leading scholars in law and social sciences, examines the current and future legal framework for EU governance, and the role that new members will - or will not - play in the creation of that framework, paying particular attention to the specific challenges membership in the EU poses to the acceding states of Central and Eastern Europe. It is a book which will contribute to and influence debates over constitutionalism and legal harmonisation in the EU.

This 2005 book argues that Europeanization and globalization have led to ever-more intensive legalization at transnational level. What accounts for compliance beyond the nation-state? The authors tackle this question by comparing compliance with regulations that have been formulated in a very similar way at different levels of governance. They test compliance with rules at the national level, at the regional level (EU), and at a global level (WTO), finding that in fact the EU has higher levels of compliance than both international and national rules. The authors argue that this is because the EU has a higher level of legalization, combined with effective monitoring mechanisms and sanctions. In this respect it seems that the European Union has indeed achieved a high level of legalization and compliance, though the authors add that this achievement does not settle the related queries with the legitimacy of transnational governance and law.