Abstract
Globalisation, generally, and European integration, more specifically, have led to calls for the minimisation of legal diversity which can result in transaction costs and the lack of level-playing field for cross-border actors. One of the prevailing methods to achieve such level-playing field is legal harmonisation.
In the European Union in particular, harmonisation serves as a key tool for the integration of the internal market. The rationale behind such approach is that the European Union would be more appealing to external economic actors and investors if they only had to tackle one regime, instead of twenty-eight (one supranational and twenty-seven national) different ones. It is also argued that disparities between national legal systems create obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market by producing competitive advantages for some actors with cross-border activities and by deterring foreign investment. It is thus not surprising that legal harmonisation has been at the top of the European institutions since the creation of the European Union.
However, legal harmonisation is not without its challenges. Although on the one hand, integrationists argue that European integration has achieved seminar milestones since the inception of the European Union—Europe has enjoyed the longest period of peace in its history; the European Union is one of the world’s most prosperous marketplaces; one of the largest trading entities; and an important source and recipient of foreign direct investment—Eurosceptics have claimed, on the other hand, that European integration has weakened national sovereignties, resulted in a lack of accountability and transparency on behalf of the European institutions, and that it operates from a circle of out-of-touch technocratic elites.
These challenges have been exacerbated by the multi-faceted crisis which has been hitting the European Union for the last decade or so, contributing to a politicisation of European integration and an increasing Eurosceptic mobilisation across borders. One of the main issues with the rise in Euroscepticism is that it questions the legitimacy of the European Union and the authority of the European institutions. Member States are reluctant to embrace further integration, including by means of harmonisation, accused of being the product of private legislators, heavily influenced by lobbying groups seeking to promote their own economic interests and working in an environment of scant accountability. Further, in times of crises, Member States tend to fall back on state-centric solutions, rather than pursuing common, coordinated policies to tackle these crises.
The United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union in 2016, the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the energy crisis, mark the culmination of these tensions; the European Union is currently at a crossroads in the history of its integration. For the first time, it is witnessing direct disintegration. This chapter discusses the role that legal harmonisation can play in the convergence of legal systems in times of crises. It first determines whether harmonisation is desirable, before addressing the best approach in times of crises.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The word ‘harmonisation’ in this chapter is understood as a top-down method of legal approximation.
- 2.
Davis Cross and Ma (2015), p. 1056.
- 3.
- 4.
Platsas (2017), p. 2.
- 5.
Weatherill (2004), p. 633.
- 6.
For example, the American Heritage Dictionary (2021) defines sovereignty as ‘supremacy of authority’, ‘complete independence and self-government’ or ‘a territory existing as an independent state.’
- 7.
Sabine (1961), pp. 405–407.
- 8.
Hobbes (1651).
- 9.
Hooghe and Marks (2008), pp. 22–23.
- 10.
One of the most comprehensive definitions of sovereignty, which combines international and national aspects can be found in the Academic American Encyclopaedia, volume 18 (Grolier, Inc., 1989), p. 113: ‘a sovereign state is independent and free from all external control; enjoys full legal equality with other states; and has the power to enter into agreements with other nations, to exchange ambassadors, and to decide on war and peace… Although a sovereign state theoretically enjoys absolute freedom, its freedom is, in fact, often abridged by the need to coexist with other countries, as well as by treaties, international laws, and the strength of its military power.’
- 11.
Richardson (2000), p. 323.
- 12.
Higgins (1999), p. 82.
- 13.
- 14.
Von Bar (2002), p. 385.
- 15.
McCormack (2021), p. 31.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
Twinning (2000), p. 65.
- 18.
Lord Denning (1990), p. 48.
- 19.
Johnson (2020).
- 20.
Friedman (1989), p. 1579.
- 21.
Herzfeld (2005), p. 75.
- 22.
Dedek (2011).
- 23.
Montesquieu (1949).
- 24.
von Savigny (2013).
- 25.
Smits (2007), p. 1181.
- 26.
Weatherill (2004).
- 27.
Kahn-Freund (1974), p. 27.
- 28.
Sewell Jr. (1996), pp. 262–263.
- 29.
Liebowitz and Margolis (1995).
- 30.
Collins (2010), p. 147.
- 31.
Posner (2000), p. 573.
- 32.
La Porta et al. (2008), p. 308.
- 33.
Kahn-Freund (1974), p. 27.
- 34.
Legrand (2003b), p. 248.
- 35.
Ibid, p. 299.
- 36.
Legrand (1996).
- 37.
Teubner (1998), p. 12.
- 38.
Weatherill (2004), p. 647.
- 39.
Contrast with Sefton-Green (2012), p. 268.
- 40.
Halpern and Johnson (2014), p. 18.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
Chesterston (2007), p. 39.
- 43.
Halpern and Johnson (2014), pp. 18–19.
- 44.
Tiebout (1956).
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
Deakin (1999).
- 48.
Van den Bergh (2002), p. 267.
- 49.
Stephan (1999), p. 793.
- 50.
Weatherill (2004), p. 31.
- 51.
Davis Cross and Ma (2015), p. 1056.
- 52.
Monnet (1978), p. 417.
- 53.
- 54.
Webber (2019), p. 11.
- 55.
Parsons and Matthijs (2015), pp. 211; 223–224.
- 56.
Webber (2019), p. 12.
- 57.
Ibid, p. 13.
- 58.
Steinmeier (2017).
- 59.
Cotta and Isernia (2021), p. 12.
- 60.
Schmitter (1970).
- 61.
For an in-depth exploration of the two crises, see Schimmelfennig (2018).
- 62.
Genschel and Jachtenfuchs (2014).
- 63.
Debomy (2015), pp. 42–43.
- 64.
Ibid. pp. 15–16.
- 65.
Rittberger et al. (2017).
- 66.
Hall (2012), pp. 355, 358–359.
- 67.
Schimmelfennig (2015), pp. 185–187.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
Rittberger et al. (2017).
- 71.
Monnet (1978), p. 417.
- 72.
Ibid, p. 469.
- 73.
Ibid, p. 109.
- 74.
Barrett (2007), pp. 5–7.
- 75.
See Ghio et al. (2021).
- 76.
Rhinard (2019), p. 2.
- 77.
Joerges and Neyer (2006).
- 78.
Rhinard (2019).
- 79.
Ibid., p. 11.
- 80.
Boin et al. (2016), pp. 43–44.
- 81.
Gronvall (2001).
- 82.
Kamkhaji and Radaelli (2017).
- 83.
Boin et al. (2013).
- 84.
Rhinard (2019), p. 627.
- 85.
Boin et al. (2016).
- 86.
Bickerton et al. (2014).
- 87.
Ripoll-Servent (2017).
- 88.
Weatherill (2016), p. 418.
- 89.
Platsas (2017), p. viii.
- 90.
van Middelaar (2014).
References
Armour J (2005) Who should make corporate law: EC Legislation versus Regulatory Competition. European Corporate Governance Institute Law Paper 54/2005
Barrett S (2007) Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bebchuk L (1992) Federalism and the corporation: the desirable limits on state competition in corporate law. Harv Law Rev 105:1435–1510
Bickerton C et al (2014) The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the Post-Maastricht Era. J Common Mark Stud 53:703–722
Boin A et al (2013) The European Union as crisis manager: problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Boin A et al (2016) The politics of crisis management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Chesterston G (2007) Orthodoxy. Barnes and Noble, New York
Collins R (2010) The fundamental Holmes. A free speech chronicle and reader. Selections from the opinions, books, articles, speeches, letters, and other writings by and about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cotta M, Isernia P (2021) Introduction. The challenges to the European representation system – away from the “old normal”?’. In: Cotta M, Isernia P (eds) The EU through multiple crises. Representation and cohesion dilemmas for a “sui generis” polity. Routledge, London, pp 1–19
Davis Cross M, Ma X (2015) EU crises and integrational panic: the role of the media. J Eur Public Policy 22:1053–1070
Deakin S (1999) Two types of regulatory competition: competitive federalism versus reflexive harmonisation. A law and economics perspective on Centros. Cambridge Yearb Eur Legal Stud 2:231–260
Deakin S (2000) Regulatory competition versus Harmonisation in European company law. University of Cambridge ESRC Centre for Business Research Working Paper n. 163
Debomy D (2015) The EU, despite everything? European Public Opinion in the Face of the Crisis (2005–2015). Notre Europe, Paris
Dedek H (2011) Law as culture/rights as culture: Some historical thoughts on the “Western” legal tradition. Paper Presented at the Conference on European Legal Culture, University of Oxford (16 December 2011)
Enriques L, Gelter M (2006) Regulatory competition in European company law and creditor protection. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 7:417–453
Friedman L (1989) Law, lawyers and popular culture. Yale Law J 98:1579–1606
Genschel P, Jachtenfuchs M (2014) Introduction: beyond market regulation. Analysing the European integration of core state powers. In: Genschel P, Jachtenfuchs M (eds) Beyond the regulatory polity? The European integration of core state powers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–23
Ghio E (2022) Redefining harmonisation. Lessons from EU insolvency law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Ghio E et al (2021) Harmonising insolvency law in the EU: new thoughts on old ideas in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Insolv Rev 30:427–459
Gronvall J (2001) Mad cow disease: the role of experts and European crisis management. In: Rosenthal U et al (eds) Managing crises: threats, dilemmas, opportunities. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, pp 155–175
Hall P (2012) The economics and politics of the Euro crisis. German Polit 21:355–371
Halpern S, Johnson P (2014) Harmonising copyright law and dealing with dissonance: Aaframework for US and EU law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Herzfeld M (2005) Cultural intimacy: social poetics in the nation-state. Routledge, New York
Higgins R (1999) International law in a changing international system. Cambridge Law J 58:78–95
Hobbes T (1651) Leviathan. Penguin, United Kingdom
Hooghe L, Marks G (2008) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. Br J Polit Sci 39:1–23
Joerges C, Neyer J (2006) Deliberative supranationalism revisited. European University Institute Law Working Paper No. 2006/20
Johnson B (2020) European Union (Future Relationship) Bill. Hansard (30 December 2020)
Kahn-Freund O (1974) On uses and misuses of comparative law. Mod Law Rev 37:1–27
Kamkhaji J, Radaelli C (2017) Crisis, learning and policy change in the European Union. J Eur Public Policy 27:714–734
La Porta R et al (2008) The economic consequences of legal origins. J Econ Liter 46:285–332
Legrand P (1996) European legal systems are not converging. Int Comp Law Q 45:52–81
Legrand P (2002) On the unbrearable localness of the law: academic fallacies and unseasonable observations. Eur Rev Priv Law 61–76
Legrand P (2003a) The impossibility of legal transplants. Maastricht J 4:111–124
Legrand P (2003b) The same and the different. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds) Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 240–311
Liebowitz S, Margolis S (1995) Path dependence, lock-in and history. J Law, Econ Org 11:205–226
Lord Denning (1990) Introduction to the European Court of Justice: Judges or policy makers? Bruges Groupe, London
McCormack G (2011) Secured credit and the harmonisation of law: the UNCITRAL experience. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
McCormack G (2021) International organisations and the search for global insolvency standards. In: Omar P, Gant J (eds) Research handbook on corporate restructuring. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 17–39
Monnet J (1978) Memoirs. William Collins, London
Montesquieu C (1949) The spirit of the laws. Hafner Press, New York
Parsons C, Matthijs M (2015) European integration past, present, and future: moving forward through crisis? In: Matthijs M, Blyth M (eds) The future of the euro. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 210–232
Platsas A (2017) The harmonisation of national legal systems. Strategic models and factors. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Posner R (2000) Path-dependency, pragmatism and critique of history in adjudication and legal scholarship. Univ Chicago Law Rev 67:573–606
Rhinard M (2019) The crisification of policy-making in the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 55:616–633
Richardson J (2000) Sovereignty: EU experience and EU policy. Chicago J Int Law 1:323–326
Ripoll-Servent A (2017) The European parliament. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Rittberger B et al (2017) Explaining uneven integration trajectories: a comparison of the euro crisis and the refugee crisis. EUSA conference paper
Romano R (1993) The genius of american corporate law. AEI Press, Washington
Romano R (1998) Competition for state corporate law. In: Newman P (ed) The New Palgrave dictionary of economics and the law. Macmillan Reference Limited, London, pp 364–370
Sabine G (1961) A history of political theory. Rinehart and Winston, New York
Schimmelfennig F (2015) Liberal intergovernmentalism and the Euro area crisis. J Eur Public Policy 22:177–195
Schimmelfennig F (2018) European integration (theory) in times of crisis. A comparison of the euro and Schengen crises. J Eur Public Policy 25:969–989
Schmitter P (1970) A revised theory of regional integration. Int Org 24:836–868
Sefton-Green R (2012) French and English Crypto-nationalism and European private law: an exercise in sentiment and reason. Eur Rev Contr Law 8:260–276
Sewell W Jr (1996) Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. In: McDonald T (ed) The historic turn in the human sciences. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp 245–280
Smits J (2007) Law making in the European Union: on globalization and contract law in divergent legal cultures. Louisiana Law Rev 67:1181–1203
Steinmeier F-W (2017) Speech at the Formal sitting of the European Parliament, 4 April 2017 (Strasbourg), https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/EN/Frank-Walter-Steinmeier/Reden/2017/04/170404-Strasbourg.html?nn=9042654
Stephan P (1999) The futility of unification and harmonization in international commercial law. Virginia J Int Law 39:743–798
Teubner G (1998) Legal irritants: good faith in British Law or how unifying law ends up in new divergencies. Mod Law Rev 61:11–32
Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local public expenditures. J Polit Econ 64:416–424
Twinning W (2000) Comparative law and legal theory: the country and Western tradition. In: Edge I (ed) Comparative law in global perspective. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 21–76
Van den Bergh R (2002) Forced harmonisation of contract law in Europe: not to be continued. In: Grundmann S, Stuyck J (eds) An Academic Green Paper on European contract law. Kluwer Law International, New York, pp 245–264
van Middelaar L (2014) The crises in the Eurozone and Ukraine have heralded the “return of politics” to European integration. LSE European Politics and Policy Blog (21 May 2014), https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/05/21/the-crises-in-the-eurozone-and-ukraine-have-heralded-the-return-of-politics-to-european-integration/
Von Bar C (2002) From principles to codification: Prospects for European private law. Columbia J Eur Law 8:379–388
von Savigny F (2013) Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft. Old Verlag, Germany
Weatherill S (2004) Why object to the harmonization of private law by the EC? Eur Rev Priv Law 12:633–660
Weatherill S (2016) Law and values in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Webber D (2019) European disintegration? The politics of crisis in the European Union. Red Globe Press, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ghio, E. (2024). Harmonisation and European Integration in Times of Crisis. In: Ghio, E., Perlingeiro, R. (eds) Are Legal Systems Converging or Diverging?. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38180-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38180-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38179-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38180-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)