Рус Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 2065,   Articles in work: 293 Declined articles: 786 
Library

Back to contents

International Law and International Organizations
Reference:

Integrative subsidiarity as the principle of making better decisions: theoretical prerequisites and practical possibilities (on the example of experience of the European Union)
Pimenova Oxana

PhD in Law

Head of the department, Apparatus of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

117148, Russia, Moscow, Marshaka Savitskogo Street 24

oxana_krasnova@mail.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 

Abstract.

This article examines subsidiarity as the practical approach towards making better decisions within the systems of multilevel social control. Following the special procedure aimed at substantiating the need for decision making, the concerned parties are able not only express their argument, but also reach a consensus regarding the best one. The author appeals to the concept of integrative subsidiarity, which implies that in effective solution of social problems there is no point of restraining or benefiting the interference of one level of control into another; only parity interaction of concerned parties leads to making better, epistemologically substantiated solutions, based on the irresistible force of the most eloquent argument. The author conducts the analysis of three “yellow cards”, initiated within the framework of subsidiary control mechanism, which was introduced to the EU management practice for the first time. Special attention is given to the factors that helped reaching a consensus with the EU Commission regarding subsidiary objections. Using the method of historical discourse-analysis, the author determines the nature of the principle of subsidiarity its evolutionary trends, and views this nature contextually, from the perspective of suitability for solving particular issues. Although the subsidiary control mechanism does not empower the national parliaments to influence the final legislative solution of the European Union, the practical value of the mechanism is fairly high. Under certain circumstances, the subsidiary control mechanism can be an effective tool not only for the interinstitutional dialogue, but also for the responsible participation of member-states (through their national parliaments) and the European Union itself (through EU Commission) in making better legislative decisions.

Keywords: national parliaments, inter-institutional dialogue, European Union, subsidiarity control mechanism, responsible participation, mediating structure, system of multi-level management, integrative subsidiarity, green card, consensus

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0633.2019.1.28570

Article was received:

03-01-2019


Review date:

09-01-2019


Publish date:

01-05-2019


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Neuhaus R., Berger P. To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy / Mark Gerson (ed.). The Essential Neoconservative Reader. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1996. P. 215.
2.
Rauscher A. Institutions of Social Organization: Family, Private Property, State / David A. Boileau (ed.). Principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 1998. P. 81.
3.
Fort Timothy L. The First Man and the Company Man: The Common Good, Transcendence, and Mediating Institutions // American Business Law Journal. 1999. Vol. 36. Issue 3. P. 391 – 395.
4.
Durham W., Dushku Al. Traditionalism, Secularism, and the Transformative Dimensions of Religious Institutions // BYU Law Review. 1993. Vol. 1993. Issue 2. P. 421 – 463.
5.
Verstraeten J. Solidarity and Subsidiarity / David A. Boileau (ed.). Principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 1998. P. 133 – 135.
6.
Crosson F. Catholic Social Teaching and American Society / David A. Boileau (ed.). Principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 1998. P. 170.
7.
McGovern A. Entitlements and Catholic Social Teachings // Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. 1997. Vol. 11. Issue 2. P. 450 – 460.
8.
Schütze R. From Dual to Cooperative Federalism: the Changing Structure of European Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. P. 250.
9.
Davies G. Subsidiarity: The Wrong Idea, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time // Common Market Law Review. 2006. Vol. 43. Issue 1. P. 63.
10.
Estella A. The EU Principle of Subsidiarity and its Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. P. 81.
11.
Golub J. Sovereignty and Subsidiarity in EU Environmental Policy // Political Studies. 1996. Vol. 44. Issue 4. P. 702.
12.
Silecchia Lucia A. On Doing Justice and Walking Humbly with God: Catholic Social Thought on Law as a Tool for Building Justice // Catholic University Law Review. 1997. Vol. 46. Issue 4. P. 1183.
13.
Langan J. The Catholic Vision of World Affairs // Orbis. 1998. Vol. 42. Issue 2. R. 251.
14.
Marquardt Paul D. Subsidiarity and Sovereignty in the European Union // Fordham International Law Journal. 1994. Vol. 18. R. 628 – 629.
15.
Canavan F. The Popes and the Economy // Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. 1997. Vol. 11. Issue 2. R. 437.
16.
Breton A., Sassone A., Fraschini A. Decentralization and Subsidiarity: Toward a Theoretical Reconciliation // International Journal of Law and Economics. 1998. Vol. 19. R. 21.
17.
Lenaerts K., Nuffel P. European Union Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011. P. 134.
18.
Estlund Cynthia L. Working Together: The Workplace, Civil Society, and the Law // The Georgetown Law Journal. 2000. Vol. 89. R. 70.
19.
McUsic Molly S., Selmi M. Postmodern Unions: Identity Politics in the Workplace // Iowa Law Review. 1997. Vol. 82. R. 1368 – 1369.
20.
McCann Dennis P. Toward a Theology of the Corporation / Oliver F. Williams & John W. Houck (eds.). Catholic Social Thought and the New World Order: Building on One Hundred Years. University of Notre Dame Press. 1993. P. 329 – 343.
21.
Vischer Robert K. Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance: Beyond Devolution // Indiana Law Review. 2001. Vol. 35. Issue 103. R. 142.
22.
Butler Stuart M. Practical Principles / Michael Novak (ed.). To Empower People: from State to Civil Society. American Enterprise Institute. 1996. P. 117.
23.
Risse T. Let's Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics // International Organization. 2000. Vol. 54. Issue 1. R. 1-39.
24.
Cooper I. Is the Early Warning Mechanism a Legal or a Political Procedure? Three Questions and a Typology / A. Cornell and M. Goldoni (eds.). National and Regional Parliaments in the EU-Legislative Procedure Post-Lisbon. London: Hart. 2017. R. 18 – 48.
25.
European Commission. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. COM (2012). 130 final. 21 March 2012.
26.
European Commission. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. COM (2013). 534 final. 17 July 2013.
27.
European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. COM (2016). 128 final. 8 March 2016.
28.
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the National Parliaments on the Proposal for a Directive amending the Posting of Workers Directive, with regard to the Principle of Subsidiarity, in accordance with Protocol 2. COM (2016). 505 final. 20 July 2016.
29.
Bartl M. The Way We Do Europe: Subsidiarity and the Substantive Democratic Deficit // European Law Journal. 2015. Vol. 21. Issue 1. R. 24.
30.
European Commission. Annual Report on Subsidiarity and Proportionality, COM (2013). 566 final. 30 July 2013. R. 7.
31.
European Commission. «A Citizen’s» Agenda: Delivering Results for Europe. COM (2006). 211 final. 10 May 2006.
32.
Cooper I. A «Virtual Third Chamber» for the European Union? National Parliaments after the Treaty of Lisbon // West European Politics. 2012. Vol. 35. Issue 3. R. 441 – 465.
33.
Kiiver P. The Early-Warning System for the Principle of Subsidiarity: Constitutional Theory and Empirical Reality. Abingdon: Routledge. 2012. R. 76.
34.
Fasone C. Competing Concepts of Subsidiarity in the Early Warning Mechanism: LUISS Guido Carli School of Government Working Paper. SOG-WP4/2013. 2013. R. 20. URL: http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2243503 (data obrashcheniya 14.01. 2017).
35.
Peters J. National Parliaments and Subsidiarity: Think Twice // European Constitutional Law Review. 2005. Vol. 1. R. 68 – 71.
36.
Cooper I. The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU // Journal Common Market Studies. 2006. Vol. 44. Issue 2. R. 302 – 304.
37.
Jancic D. The Barroso Initiative: Window Dressing or Democracy Boost? // Utrecht Law Review. 2012. Vol. 8. R. 81.
38.
Horsley T. Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing Pieces in the Subsidiarity Jigsaw? // Journal Common Market Studies. 2012. Vol. 50. R. 268.
39.
Fasone C., Fromage D. From Veto Players to Agenda-setters? National Parliaments and their «Green Card» to the European Commission // Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 2016. Vol. 23. Issue 2. R. 294 – 316.