No abstract

The article maps new developments in the interdisciplinary research field of European civil society. From the angle of the reconstitution of democracy in the EU, it reviews recent contributions from political science, sociology and law. All share the concern with the pervading empowerment of the institutions of European multi-level governance. But each approaches the question of the democratizing and legitimizing potential of civil society beyond the state from a different vantage point, indicating competing conceptions of European civil society that draw on deliberative, participatory or representative democratic norms. It is argued that the EU-constitutional experience has sharpened the ambivalence between top down activating or ''partnership'' approaches vs. bottom up mobilizing or ''social constituency'' approaches to the construction of European civil society. These new tensions in the concept of a European civil society are currently manifested in the upholding of its civic-cosmopolitan promises and a more nuanced view of its contentious role against uncivil practices.

What lessons can be drawn from the failure of the 'Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe' to gain legitimacy? The introductory article presents the analytical framework, empirical data and methods employed by an international research team at the University of Bremen to explore this question. First, it sets out the framework used in this study to examine the patterns and dynamics of political conflict on European integration in the context of EU constitutional politics. Second, it describes the construction of the empirical data set which includes 7,378 articles from 31 print media, all of which cover the political debates in six new and old member states during Constitutional Treaty ratification, rejection and reflection (October 2004 -October 2005. Third, methodologically speaking, it outlines the quantitative and qualitative methods of political discourse analysis that reflect a special focus on argumentation and justification, transnational discursive interaction and inclusion/exclusion. Finally, a number of comparative findings are highlighted that correct popular misconceptions about why the TCE failed and help to determine to what degree text, process and context are to blame for this.

No abstract

No abstract