Soft Law in the <scp>E</scp>uropean <scp>U</scp>nion—The Changing Nature of <scp>EU</scp> Law

Terpan, Fabien

doi:10.1111/eulj.12090

Cited by 122 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although here an argument is given to Member States, it is still not explained how better implementation will occur; also, the Member States' efforts and their efforts to step them up are taken for granted. 22 This idea is confirmed by the existence of numerous litigation cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (see [20] for a full list of such cases until 2013).…”

Section: Implicit Materials Premises As Shared Starting Points?mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Most often, the effectiveness of soft law instruments is the consequence of the arguments employed to convince an addressee of the necessity of changing policies. Notably, it is by now generally recognized [3,20,22] that these instruments produce practical effects due to their argumentation in which positions are taken with regard to a future course of action which is then supported by arguments.…”

Section: Eu Recommendations As Steering Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other authors [2,14] define them as involving binding norms with a soft dimension. Others [22] combine the two views in an attempt at doing justice to all types of obligations which can be distinguished for soft law instruments, as well as the rights that the actors involved can enjoy. This last view seems to us particularly useful for interpreting the argumentation at the heart of the recommendations.…”

Section: Evading the Burden Of Proof In European Union Soft Law… 85mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Terpan [22] provides a comprehensive mapping of the types of obligations imposed by EU soft law instruments by envisaging a continuum running from nonlegal positions (in which no legal obligations are imposed) to legally binding and judicially controlled obligations (such as those imposed by case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union). This nuanced view in which various levels of legal obligations are envisaged, ''helps describe with precision the different ways of adopting and enforcing norms in the EU'' [22: 72].…”

Section: Evading the Burden Of Proof In European Union Soft Law… 85mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, this does not imply that a positive consequence for the EU will necessarily have a positive impact on each and every Member State; conflicts of interests are likely to occur in some cases. 22 In this sense, the positive consequences mentioned in argument 1.1a might not be felt as such by the Member States that are asked to accept a recommendation. Also in this case, an evasion of the burden of Footnote 20 continued they are showing how a state of affairs (children being more at risk than the rest of the population) contradicts an agreed upon principle (protection of the rights of the child, etc.).…”

Section: Implicit Materials Premises As Shared Starting Points?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations

Andone

Greco

2017

Int J Semiot Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union is making increased efforts to find simpler and more effective ways to function adequately in the eyes of its citizens by using 'soft law' instruments such as recommendations. Although they have no legally binding force, recommendations have practical and legal effects occurring partly due to their normative content in which a course of action is prescribed and further supported by arguments intended to persuade the addressees of a political position. Although recommendations function as persuasive instruments due to their argumentation, the characteristics of argumentation and how it is employed to convince the addressee to comply with certain measures have not been investigated at all. The main goal of the paper is to explain how arguments are used by the European Commission when recommending Member States to follow a new course of action. First, we will unravel the justificatory reasons employed by the Commission in order to make Member States comply with new measures and we will show how these reasons are combined into an argumentative pattern (van Eemeren in Argumentation 30(1): 1-23, 2016; J Argum Context 6(1): 2017). This pattern basically prescribes a course of action to Member States, which is further supported by arguments in which the necessity and advantages of following the proposed course of action are justified. Second, we will explain how and why the way in which the arguments are combined in this complex pattern could be potentially persuasive for the Member States despite the legally non-binding character of recommendations. We will show that the European Commission tries to persuade the Member States to take new measures by evading the burden of proof imposed by the legislative framework. At a more specific level of analysis, we will delve into the implicit premises in the argumentation, which enable us to identify cases of evasion of the burden of proof

show abstract

Section: Implicit Materials Premises As Shared Starting Points?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Eu Recommendations As Steering Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evading the Burden Of Proof In European Union Soft Law… 85mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evading the Burden Of Proof In European Union Soft Law… 85mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implicit Materials Premises As Shared Starting Points?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations

Andone

Greco

2017

Int J Semiot Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Painful invisibilities: Roll management or ‘off‐rolling’ and professional identity

Done

Knowler

2019

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Off-rolling' is widely defined as the illegal removal of students from a school roll, unlike permanent exclusion, which involves sanctioned formal procedures. It is a practice that brings very different logics, political agendas, governmental imperatives and the associated matter of school leader professional identity into sharp relief. Deviant professional identities have already been discursively constituted, despite the current lack of research into the motivation of senior school leaders who engage in 'off-rolling'. This article draws on Foucault to explore tensions between a political standards and an inclusion agenda, and to consider how the professional identities of senior school leaders are shaped such that 'off-rolling' becomes possible. It is suggested that chronic underfunding of the inclusion agenda has combined with what England's Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) now describes as an over-emphasis on academic performance to create unsustainable pressures on many senior school leaders. The descriptor 'contextual roll management' may therefore be more appropriate. The moral outrage which accompanies public and political discourse around 'off-rolling' is theorised with reference to Apple, Ball and Popkewitz. Such moral indignation distracts attention from the wider socio-political and economic context within which schools are now required to deliver academic progress and inclusion. We conclude the article by outlining key empirical questions that have yet to be addressed.

show abstract

Norm collisions in European Union sectoral governance during the COVID‐19 pandemic: How the European Commission reconfigures norms in crises

Felder,

Stockmann

2023

Contemporary European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the COVID‐19 pandemic has incited the collision of norms in sectoral European Union (EU) governance and provided an open juncture for the European Commission to engage in norm reconfiguration. Herewith, the paper expands the conceptual scope of EU‐related norm research, which by focussing on the diffusion of norms within and beyond the EU has largely omitted dynamic perspectives on norms so far. We combine International Relations norm research with EU governance literature to scrutinise the normative underpinnings of the immediate crisis response within Commission sectoral strategies and working programs. Empirically, the paper focuses on the higher education and transport sectors, which have been particularly impacted by the COVID‐19 crisis and targeted by the EU crisis response. The interpretative‐qualitative analysis uncovers COVID‐19‐related collisions within the ideational constellation of EU governance and shows that the European Commission has engaged in different reconfiguration practices, potentially altering the norm constellation in the investigated sectoral governance areas.

show abstract

Soft Law in the European Union—The Changing Nature of EU Law

Cited by 122 publications

References 11 publications

Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations

Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations

Painful invisibilities: Roll management or ‘off‐rolling’ and professional identity

Norm collisions in European Union sectoral governance during the COVID‐19 pandemic: How the European Commission reconfigures norms in crises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About