About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 Eur. L.J. 1 (2002)

handle is hein.journals/eurlj8 and id is 1 raw text is: European Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 1-18. ( Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JK, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA Mind the Gap: Law and New Approaches to Governance in the European Union Joanne Scott* and David M. Trubek** I Introduction This issue of the European Law Journal deals with the emergence of a series of new approaches to governance in the European Union. These issues were discussed at a workshop on 'Law and New Approaches to Governance in Europe' which we organised. The workshop was held in Madison, Wisconsin in May 2001 and was co-sponsored by the European Union Center of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the ELJ. Seven of the participants in that workshop developed papers that deal with one or more dimension of the new governance phenomenon. In this introduction, we seek to define the concept of new governance, suggest reasons for its emergence, assess the reaction of the European Court and Commission to these developments, and identify some of the conceptual issues this phenomenon presents for legal and political theory. II What Mechanisms Should be Considered 'New Governance' A A Baseline for comparison-the 'Classic' Community Method In order to understand new governance, we must have a baseline from which to depart. For our purposes, we will define new governance as any major departure from the classic 'Community Method' (CCM). The notion of the Community Method is highlighted by the Commission in its recent White Paper on Governance.' It is, the Commission tells us, premised upon the Commission's exclusive right of legislative initiative, and the legislative (and budgetary) powers of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Qualified majority voting is identified by the Commission as an essential element in ensuring the effectiveness of this method, and the European Court as central in guaranteeing respect for the rule of law. On this basis Article 251 EC laying down the co-decision procedure might be seen as constituting an embodi- ment of the CCM. Alongside the issue of the identity of institutional players, and that of voting procedures in Council, additional features might be cited as closely *Clare College, Trinity Lane, Cambridge CB2 ITL, UK. E-mail: js359@cam.ac.uk **Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 975 Bascom Mall, Madison WI 53706, USA. E-mail: dmtrubek@facstaff.wisc.edu. We would like to thank the Madison workshop participants for their very useful oral and written comments. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the European Union Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. I COM(2001) 428 final, European Governance A White Paper, p. 8.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most