Tesi etd-10272022-231041
Link copiato negli appunti
Tipo di tesi
Corso Ordinario Ciclo Unico 5 Anni
Autore
CANDUZZI, SARA
URN
etd-10272022-231041
Titolo
Was EU sovereignty there all along? Uncovering the explanatory and normative potential of a contested concept
Struttura
Cl. Sc. Sociali - Giurisprudenza
Corso di studi
SCIENZE GIURIDICHE - SCIENZE GIURIDICHE
Commissione
relatore Prof. DI MARTINO, ALBERTO
Presidente Prof. MARTINICO, GIUSEPPE
Relatore Prof. CHITI, EDOARDO
Membro Prof. COMANDE', GIOVANNI
Membro Prof. ROSSI, EMANUELE
Membro Prof. MORGANTE, GAETANA
Membro Prof.ssa GAGLIARDI, MARIA
Membro Prof.ssa SGANGA, CATERINA
Presidente Prof. MARTINICO, GIUSEPPE
Relatore Prof. CHITI, EDOARDO
Membro Prof. COMANDE', GIOVANNI
Membro Prof. ROSSI, EMANUELE
Membro Prof. MORGANTE, GAETANA
Membro Prof.ssa GAGLIARDI, MARIA
Membro Prof.ssa SGANGA, CATERINA
Parole chiave
- autonomy
- EU
- Sovereignty
Data inizio appello
01/12/2022;
Disponibilità
parziale
Riassunto analitico
In the past, EU institutions have been quite reluctant to adopt the language of sovereignty in the EU constitutional space. Moreover, even in those rare occasions in which sovereignty was mentioned, this concept has been considered to be a key characteristic of the Member States rather than the EU. Against this tendency, however, in the last few years the notion of EU sovereignty has been increasingly invoked by several EU actors, fuelling a renovated academic interest for the study of sovereignty beyond the State. Building on this emerging literature, this paper rejects the possibility that a similar development in the EU might be regarded as a mere theoretical and definitional issue with no analytical value, and it proceeds to assess the explanatory and normative potential of the concept of EU sovereignty.
To do so, we need to draw a clearer picture of what the EU in general and EU institutions mean when they speak of EU sovereignty. That is why, the first section of this work aims to highlight the connections between the newly renovated discourse on EU sovereignty and the long-standing debate on the autonomy of the EU. This analysis suggests that scholars may draw on the very same material and theoretical frameworks developed in the study of autonomy to shed some light on the way in which the Union interprets the notion of EU sovereignty. More specifically, from a study of EU sovereignty in the light of autonomy it emerges that what the EU means by “EU sovereignty” varies greatly according to whether this concept is invoked in the EU’s inward or outward-facing constitution.
This finding constitutes the premise for investigating both the descriptive and normative value of the EU’s discourse on EU sovereignty, which are the focus of section two and three respectively.
In section two, in fact, it is argued that interpreting the notion of EU sovereignty through autonomy brings about this concept’s ability to generate useful insights on the EU’s current perception of its own constitutional development, of its more pressing existential challenges, current strategies, and priorities for the future. This feature of the discourse on EU sovereignty is particularly relevant, as it allows academics to identify, select, and draw attention towards those constitutional issues that the Union itself considers to be the most important and urgent for the EU.
Finally, the third and last section deals with the prescriptive dimension of EU sovereignty, showing how, from the EU’s perspective, this concept does not only help identifying significant issues for the Union, but it also and most importantly performs the task of establishing and recommending both legal and political solutions to address them. It will be argued that this aspect of the EU sovereignty discourse is the most problematic one, for two main reasons: first, it is likely to test and stretch the limits of the EU’s constitution and its fundamental values; secondly, it prevents the EU from imagining and developing more appropriate and effective legal tools to manage interdependence with other legal orders.
To do so, we need to draw a clearer picture of what the EU in general and EU institutions mean when they speak of EU sovereignty. That is why, the first section of this work aims to highlight the connections between the newly renovated discourse on EU sovereignty and the long-standing debate on the autonomy of the EU. This analysis suggests that scholars may draw on the very same material and theoretical frameworks developed in the study of autonomy to shed some light on the way in which the Union interprets the notion of EU sovereignty. More specifically, from a study of EU sovereignty in the light of autonomy it emerges that what the EU means by “EU sovereignty” varies greatly according to whether this concept is invoked in the EU’s inward or outward-facing constitution.
This finding constitutes the premise for investigating both the descriptive and normative value of the EU’s discourse on EU sovereignty, which are the focus of section two and three respectively.
In section two, in fact, it is argued that interpreting the notion of EU sovereignty through autonomy brings about this concept’s ability to generate useful insights on the EU’s current perception of its own constitutional development, of its more pressing existential challenges, current strategies, and priorities for the future. This feature of the discourse on EU sovereignty is particularly relevant, as it allows academics to identify, select, and draw attention towards those constitutional issues that the Union itself considers to be the most important and urgent for the EU.
Finally, the third and last section deals with the prescriptive dimension of EU sovereignty, showing how, from the EU’s perspective, this concept does not only help identifying significant issues for the Union, but it also and most importantly performs the task of establishing and recommending both legal and political solutions to address them. It will be argued that this aspect of the EU sovereignty discourse is the most problematic one, for two main reasons: first, it is likely to test and stretch the limits of the EU’s constitution and its fundamental values; secondly, it prevents the EU from imagining and developing more appropriate and effective legal tools to manage interdependence with other legal orders.
File
| Nome file | Dimensione |
|---|---|
Ci sono 1 file riservati su richiesta dell'autore. |
|