IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Contemporary European constitution-making: constrained or reflexive?

Listed author(s):
  • John Erik Fossum
Registered author(s):

    The overarching question that informs this chapter is whether the Laeken process (after the Laeken Declaration of 2001 that gave the Convention its mandate) has managed to come up with a solution to the EUs legitimacy deficit. My focus here is on the Convention and I seek to establish which legitimation strategy the Convention exercise is reflective of. In the chapter I present and evaluate the Convention exercise in relation to four legitimation strategies. The strategies are all based on deliberative theory, but vary with regard to the deliberative virtues that they privilege, i.e., epistemic, transformative, and moral. Each strategy is developed so as to yield a diagnosis of the EUs legitimacy deficit, which serves as a focal-point for assessing the purpose of the reform; a depiction of how the strategy envisages the reform body and the reform process; and a characterization of the constitutional nature of the output. I find that the Convention was able to tap the virtues of democratic deliberation to an unprecedented degree in EU constitution-making, and the draft also moved the process of constitutionalization forwards, as it holds numerous provisions that will strengthen the EUs democratic quality. The EU has adopted an approach to constitution-making that has become increasingly reflexive, although its gradualist approach is still embedded in a framework with strong built-in safeguards for member states, so that the results are curious mixtures. Reflexivity constrained is the most appropriate label for this. This article has later been published in E. O. Eriksen Making the European Polity. Reflexive integration in the EU London: Routledge (2005) See Reprint

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by ARENA in its series ARENA Working Papers with number 4.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 01 Feb 2005
    Handle: RePEc:erp:arenax:p0004
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:arenax:p0004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sindre Eikrem Hervig)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.