Category: Events

On Monday, April 11th, we hosted a panel discussion on the topic of European governance during the Eurozone Crisis. The speakers included: Vivien SCHMIDT, Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration and Founding Director of BU’s Center for the Study of Europe; Laszlo ANDOR, Professor of European Economic Governance at the Institute for European Studies of the ULB and Former EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; Mario TELO, Professor of International Relations at the Université Libre de Bruxelles – ULB and at the LUISS Guido Carli di Roma, Emeritus President of the Institute for European Studies of the ULB and Member of the Belgian Royal Academy. The panel was moderated by Daniela Caruso, Jean Monnet Professor of European Law and Boston University Professor of Law.

The event began with an introduction of the panelists by Professor Caruso. Vivien Schmidt then gave her presentation, beginning with a theorization of the roles and of democratic legitimacy in the Eurozone Crisis, particularly in the context of Horizon 2020. She discussed how the Eurozone Crisis was not just the problem of economic of political issues, but instead the broader issue of legitimacy, explaining how “institution actors responded by governing by the rules, and ruling by the numbers.” Rather than responding to the crisis with deep integration policies such as mutualization of debt and Eurobonds, Schmidt explained how EU actors instead doubled down on the rules. She talked about how EU institutional actors began to reinterpret the rules with incremental changes, raising the question “how have EU institutional actors managed to bend or even break legally binding rules while retaining legitimacy through the Eurozone Crisis?” She broke down the necessary levels of building, coordinating, and communications regard the reinterpretations of legitimacy, and explained the different intensities in the crisis: the “fast burning” times of doubling down of rules and interest based decision making versus “slow burning” crisis when there is an ability to dig out and formulate new solutions.

Schmidt then turned toward the question of output and inputs within European studies literature regarding the effectiveness of EU institutional actor policies. She explained that output is the technological non-major actors with technical know-how and economic principles to reinforce legitimacy versus major political actors focusing on the ideas, interest, and values of the elites and the perception and normative principles of the citizens. Input was described as politics, in terms of citizen participation and governmental responses to the demands of the general public. Schmidt explained how input could be distinguished at the national and EU levels, as national input is focused on the government working for the people (leader to participation) while the EU level, various institutional actors link different sources of legitimacy. Schmidt then described the tradeoff between input and output, defining the “black box of governance” as the accountability, transparency, inclusion, accessibility, and ethicacy that institutional actors claim. Schmidt said “I call all of this ‘throughput’. Unfortunately throughput doesn’t work,” adding, “governing by the rules, ruling by the numbers did not work. Throughput did not necessarily provide good output,” and she identified unemployment, deflation, and low growth as the resulting failures of the Eurozone Crisis in this failed tradeoff assumption.

Schmidt then claimed that this situation is what caused the “reinterpretation of rules by self”, as the EU institutional actors only later realized that they had inadvertently trapped themselves in the rules they originally created, so they then go back looking for flexibility under the premise of “they say one thing, do another”. She gave the example of how the European Central Bank was completely redone but claimed its actions were “within its mandate” with the goal that “credibility [would lead] to stability” and continually claiming “we are following the rules” while the mandate was radically reinterpreted. She compared the actions of the European Central Bank to the European Commission, who continually denied changes and derogations to the rules, asking “whether the European Central Bank is the hero or ogre of the crisis?” and whether the Commission members are “the Ayatollahs or austerity?” or “ministers of moderation?”. Schmidt concluded by describing how democratization faces problems of legitimacy, focused on input, muddling through, and resulting in insufficient output.

The next panelist to speak was Laszlo Andor, who spoke about American economists in the late 1990s, who critiqued the Maasricht Treaty and the concept of the Eurozone. Andor described how some Americans predicted a future economic crash and even began theorizing a potential solution to save European economies similar to the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s. He then addressed the Eurozone Crisis, citing the importance of American aid – both direct and indirect – which has been channeled to Europe through institutions such as the IMF in recent years. Andor discussed how the concept of austerity was the center of conversations relating to the Eurozone Crisis, but how the tones of these discussions were dominated by critiques and questions surrounding the definition of austerity. Andor explained how austerity has multiple definitions and is overall both a outcome (of fiscal, monetary, and other policies) and an input (to the extent that in 2011-12 political parties were advocating responsibility and prioritizing stability through deficit limitations) within the institutional structure.

Continuing, Andor defined austerity as the situation when “governments are cutting expenditures, especially wages, but have sacrifices of real economics.” He claimed that, in times of adversity or economic downturn, institutions implement fiscal consolidation instead of economic expansionary policy. He critiqued this definition for being too narrow, as it exempts monetary policy. Andor explained that the problem facing Europe is not whether or not it can recover from the ‘philosophy of austerity, but instead faces the problem that the overall architecture of the Maastricht Treaty is better for consolidation rather than growth. He then delved into the question of whether Maastricht needs to be modified or whether the Maasrticht Treaty needs to work through its intellectual failings, claiming that austerity can work in a small open economy but, when applied across multiple unique economies simultaneously, austerity can be counteractive and drain economies. Andor concluded by stating, “the EU is just too polarized, just too vulnerable and, as a result, [is] potentially facing the next economic downturn without the monetary system being repaired or prepared for it.”

The final panelist to speak, Mario Telo, began by identifying the three major challenges facing the U.S. and EU. The first named was the post-Cold War multipolar power structure and the resulting complex global governance which faces new threats that negatively interplay and tremendously affect the Eurozone Crisis. The second problem of enduring global economic uncertainties, after almost a decade of crisis, has been demonstrated by the unsatisfactory growth in the U.S. and EU when compared to the growth rates of the BRICS nations. Finally, Telo identified the challenge of deepening social consequences and the resulting domestic troubles facing Western liberal democracy, specifically citing the rise of populism, “what I call ‘authoritarian temptation’ on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Telo explained how the U.S. has more resources to cope with such issues as a Federal State, versus the EU which is a collection of states. He continued by citing differences between the U.S. and EU in terms of available budgets, ability to attract international investors, and the varying political challenges. For example, Telo described how the U.S. democracy is facing extreme polarization but can cope with these issues by channeling populist sentiments between the state and national levels, while the EU faces multiple independent anti-democratic movements in several Member States. He continued by explaining how Europe, while living through 6 years of economic downturn, has faced multiple other other crises simultaneously: the question of policy (e.g. Brexit, secessionist movements), the refugee emergency, and instability on the Eastern and Southern border given the rise of Islamic terrorism.

Telo discussed his worries regarding the fragility of the Eurozone, specifically its ability to cope with new global clash due to growing international debt, calling for a renewed intensity and prudence in the evaluation of EU policy. He then described the importance of German leadership in leading quantitative easing, adding that there is now a divide in whether a shift back from ultra-liberal economic policy toward the more traditional Keynesian policy is necessary. Telo stated that the parallels being drawn between todays crisis and that of the 30s are “not appropriated,” continuing by explaining how Keynesian economics aided in the under consumption, overproduction problems of the interwar period, but how currently the Eurozone needs new innovative policies. He described that the unequal distribution of debt has brought into question the mix of European policy and public goods, in addition to the role of Germany.

Addressing the emerging future of the EU, Telo identified two major questions Europe must face: what economic policy going forward and how do we democratize the Eurozone? He explained the recent steps backs “after the three democratization waves” and how populist leaders have made their admiration of Vladimir Putin evident in their critiques of the European democratic structure. Telo warned that “manipulation of fears can go very far,” bringing attention to the question of future European democracy in the face of national, protectionist, and authoritarian right wing movements across Europe. He then called for a new proposal for democratization of the Eurozone and new reforms for economic governance focused on national budgetary policy and centralization by the European Parliament to improve both democratization and participating in decision making. He describes the option of creating an annual assembly of national parliaments when the Member States would come together to address major issues focusing on coordination and cooperation, in addition to the establishment of a distinct Eurozone budget and the formation of a European Parliament committee dedicated to the Eurozone, based on his ideal of an EU centered upon a “concentric circle” of institutional architecture.

Prof. Caruso, who moderated the session, opened up for questions from the audience, including further explanation of the European Central Banks violations of its mandate and its potential contribution to the rise of populist movements, the question of who decides the extremity of flexibility and reinterpretations of rules, and the shifting dialogue of the European Commission from “stability is a prerequisite for jobs and growth” toward an emphasis on “jobs and growth are a prerequisite for stability”? While each panelist was given the time to address the questions posed by the audience, Vivien Schmidt asked, “what if we change our idea of EU and Eurozone governance to be less hierarchical, and instead more coordinated, more decent?” continuing by describing the possible model of the European Central Bank setting targets and Member States being given independent goals in the search for a solution to the Eurozone Crisis. Telo ended the discussion with a call to action for Europeans to address the challenges originally faced by Montesquieu, concluding: “without representation of the people and international power, the European project is condemned.”

This activity acknowledges the support of the H2020 RIA research project ENLIGHTEN – European Legitimacy in Governing through Hard Times: the role of European Networks European Commission Project Number: 649456

The Harvard Italian Law Association presents: Italian Constitutional Justice in Global Context. The conference will feature Justice Marta Cartabia as keynote speaker: she is the current vice-President of the Italian Constitutional Court and has also been one of the potential nominees during the Italian Presidential elections. She will present the co-authored book “Italian Constitutional Justice in Global Context” (OUP, 2016), the first book providing an international examination of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) in English.

As HILA’s honorary President, she has agreed to deliver a speech together with Prof. V. Barsotti (University of Florence), Prof. A. Simoncini (University of Florence), Prof. P. Carrozza (Notre Dame). Together, they will discuss about the distinctive structure, institutional dimensions, and well-developed jurisprudence of the ItCC. At the same time, they will also address the development, character, and importance of the ItCC’s jurisprudence in the larger arc of global judicial dialog.

Date: March 29

Time: 8:00 am - 5:00 pm

Venue: WCC 1010
1585 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138

+ Google Map

Just a reminder to all network members attending the AALS Annual Meeting this week in New York: the European Law Section of the AALS will host a panel on "Human Rights at the Margins: The Refugee Crisis and Other Emergencies in a Transatlantic Perspective," which will take place on Saturday, January 9, 2016, from 8:30-10:15 am (room location in the conference program). More details on the panel are below.

* * *

Human Rights at the Margins: The Refugee Crisis and Other Emergencies in a Transatlantic Perspective

Saturday, January 9, 2016, 8:30-10:15 am

Moderated by Section Chair Daniela Caruso (BU), the panel will include Iris Goldner Lang (Zagreb), Daniel Halberstam (Michigan), Steve Peers (Essex), and Gráinne de Búrca (NYU) (discussant).

The refugee crisis in the Mediterranean has been rightly identified as the most serious legal and political challenge currently facing Europe. The crisis calls into question the legal architecture of the Euorpean Union and tests the limits of policy coordination among the Member States. It calls as well for a reassessment of human rights and classical immigration law as frames for handling structural predicaments in the Global South. The purpose of this panel, co-sponsored by the AALS Sections on International Human Rights and International Law, is to engage US and EU legal scholars in a discussion of ongoing legal responses to the Mediterranean crisis and similar emergencies, with the goal of identifying limitations and possibilities in federal, supranational, or international entities called to the rescue of the lost at sea.

* * *

In addition, there will be a section business meeting following the panel, as well as a section lunch at 12:30 pm (RSVP by Tuesday, January 5, to Daniela Caruso, who can provide further details). On the agenda of the business meeting will be the appointment of new Executive Committee members, the selection of a topic for next year’s program, and a discussion of blog-based initiatives. The section lunch will follow the panel on "Comparative Perspectives on Privacy Law," co-organized by the Section on Comparative Law and the Section on Defamation and Privacy Law, which section members may also wish to attend.

Re-blogged from europeuslaw EU law and policy blog.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a controversial proposed trade agreement that has garnered much of the world’s attention. If passed, the TPP would unite the United States, China, Japan and other Pacific Rim nations in a common free-trade environment.

Less discussed, however, is a parallel high-profile transnational trade agreement being examined as an alternative—the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. If passed, the TTIP would represent the largest economic relationship in the world by connecting the United States and the European Union in a standardized trade and investment environment.

On October 8th, Ambassador David O’Sullivan, Head of the EU Delegation to the United States, gave a keynote speech at Boston University's Center for the Study of Europe on TTIP negotiations and the context in which they take place, based on his direct involvement in these talks. Speaking from his extensive background in economics and his substantial knowledge of EU social and employment policy as a diplomat, O’Sullivan spoke in favor of the TTIP.

“Trade is a better creator of wealth than anything else,” O’Sullivan explained. “No country in history has gone from poverty to wealth without trade.” Speaking specifically to the benefits of strengthening the trade environment between the United States and the European Union, O’Sullivan pointed out that the two bodies are undoubtedly intertwined—between them, they account for nearly half of the global GDP. “We are each more heavily invested in each other than either of us is in anyone else. American companies make more money in profit from Belgium than they do from China,” remarked O’Sullivan.

Not only did O’Sullivan highlight potential benefits from the agreement, he also addressed some of the concerns posed about lowering regulatory standards and compromises to health and safety. “When looking at trade agreements like the TTIP, of course there will be human and social consequences, and established economic actors will be disrupted. But trying to stop trade will make people poorer,” argued O’Sullivan.

Following O’Sullivan’s keynote speech were Dr. Tereza Novotna, a BU alum and a FNRS post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for European Studies at the Université libre de Bruxelles, and Prof. Roberto Dominguez of Suffolk University, who both discussed the geopolitical and broader context of the TTIP. Novotna’s presentation, “EU Institutions, Member States and TTIP Negotiations: The Balance of Power,” focused on the fact that although TTIP is in fact an economic agreement and will be judged on its economic merit, it is also a political and geopolitical agreement that has many more significant effects beyond the economics. “It, in a way, puts transatlantic relations back on the agenda of both sides of the Atlantic,” explains Novotna. Novotna claims that TTIP is especially important for the europeans, who were quite worried about the United States pivoting and trading with Asia (under the TPP). These worries stemmed from “security reasons and economic reasons,” as Novotna explains, but the most important impact of TTIP in transatlantic geopolitics would be uniting the European Union and the United States.

Professor Dominguez’s talk titled, “Implications of TTIP for the Wider World: Views from Latin America,” presented three general assumptions made about international trade negotiations in general based on the surveillance of those negotiations over time. The first assumption that Dominguez presents is that global trade negotiations have reached a stalemate, and that stalemate was made worse by the 2008 financial crisis. Assuming this stalemate to be true, it is also true that there is an alternative. “That alternative is mega-negotiations,” explains Dominguez—including the TTIP. The second assumption was that free trade reproduces economic growth. Since this is a generally observed trend, Dominguez argues that the debate comes about surrounding how to send messages of that growth to the public. “The growth will come,” says Dominguez, “but it is also true that there will be problems with jobs and job losses, and that’s where the debate starts.” The third assumption is that economic actors are not waiting for the conclusion of negotiations. “They are already acting in many different ways,” claims Dominguez, “from civil society to multinational companies.”

The second panel of conversationalists included Professor Michelle Egan of American University, Professor Fernanda Nicola of American University, and Professor Kaija Schilde of Boston University’s own Pardee School of Global Studies, discussing trade implications, sectors, and issues. Professor Egan’s talk was titled “Reframing Regulatory Cooperation under TTIP,” and focused on placing TTIP in context. Egan explains how times have changed in terms of trade agreements. “Earlier trade agreements were asymmetric, between a larger and a smaller trade partner.” Now, however, we are witnessing the emergence of mega trade agreements like TPP and TTIP. Egan also mentions that expectations are high for trade—when designing trade policies, we have grown to expect these policies to balance three main goals, efficiency, legitimacy, and political expediency.

Professor Schilde’s talk, “Possibilities for and Challenges to Defense Markets,” claims that TTIP would have positive externalities for the transatlantic relationship. Schilde goes on to express that she believes TTIP will never include defense markets, even if there is logic and a rationale about why it should. “In contrast to many other globalizing sectors,” explains Schilde, “there has been increasing interdependence between defense industries and their governments especially on the United States side, but increasingly on the European side.” This interdependency only intensifies over time, and also intensifies during economic downturns, leading Schilde to conclude that defense capability planning, specifically research and development, costs have been outsourced to industries.

Bringing legal expertise to the table, Professor Fernanda Nicola’s talk, “Transformative ISDS: The Constitutional Dimension of Investor-State Arbitration,” touched upon the controversial relationship between TTIP and the ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement). The ISDS is a neutral international arbitration procedure that aims to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflict. Recently, the European Parliament adopted a resolution supporting TTIP, but only under the condition that the current investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism be replaced by another system.

Daniela Caruso brilliantly closed the conversation with remarks about justice. Directly expounding upon and challenging ambassador O’Sullivan’s talk, Caruso highlighted and stressed the importance for justice in TTIP negotiations. While O’Sullivan’s argument was that TTIP negotiations are a truly, nicely democratic process as open as possible, Caruso explained that, through the talks of all the panelists, it is much more complicated than that. Caruso points to the apparent simplicity of O’Sullivan’s language. “If you hear the ambassador speak, rationality is on one side of the commission, and on the other side, we have fear and anxiety. This is just too simple to be true.” Caruso urged the audience to take apart his vision of rationality and democracy and drew our attention to the production of knowledge. “Three quarters of the Czech don’t know what TTIP is, but yet, they’re the country who least opposes it.” Caruso also provides input from her law background in talking about democratic justice. “Often what looks like democracy, what looks like thick input, is actually very thin input. And that’s not what I would call democracy.” Caruso also explains that O’Sullivan’s idea that waiting before taking action isn’t a reliable option. “Waiting for the problem to surface before worrying about it simply doesn’t work in a democracy,” details Caruso. “You have to raise the possibility of problems even before the problems are fully documented or you will not document them. In fact, by the time you document them, the harm will be done.”

Caruso likens this to TTIP by explaining how, while the European Union and the United States will profit, others will suffer and be forced to devise their own strategies. “There is no mechanism of compensation that is built within the TTIP which considers the externalities that TTIP is going to generate on other countries.” Caruso points to Africa, naming Libya, Morocco, and Algeria (who was tremendously hit by the trade deviation effects of setting up the European Union). “Worrying about them through trade will not just be a gesture of altruism,” says Caruso. “It should be part and parcel of setting up a deal that will for sure generate predictable examples of trade deviation.” Lastly, Caruso tackles the common language that the EU and the U.S. have embraced about balancing and proportionality. “The way we mention justice is that yes, of course we will consider the interest of trade, but there will be many other counter interests that will be on the table at any point of these conversations, and they will balance [justice]. We think we have given enough homage to the other interests. Balancing is the beginning of the discussion, not the conclusion.” Caruso’s powerful call for justice may have capped off the Center for the Study of Europe’s panel discussion in the Castle, but she also provided listeners with enough thought-provoking challenges to ensure the conversation will continue.

By Toria Rainey ‘18. Re-blogged from the Center for the Study of Europe.