A Constitution of Social Governance for the European Union

his chapter considers the EU’s socio-economic constitution under the lens of humaneness. It argues that the EU’s unique socio-economic constitution demands equilibrium of socio-economic integration instead of widening the gap between economic integration at EU levels and social integration at national levels. While the EU lacks the legislative competences to achieve this equilibrium, the constitutional principle still prevails. Indeed, the EU competences reflect its own values as well as the socio-economic constitutions of its constituent Member States. These frequently do not allow for total state-governance of social spheres such as working life, education, care or other social services. Instead, societal actors are given scope to (co-)govern these spheres at national levels. Accordingly, the apparent tension between the EU’s socio-economic values and principles and its limited competences in the social policy field can be resolved through a dynamic interpretation of the EU Treaties towards a “constitution of social governance”. This interpretation reads the Treaties as authorising governance by societal actors. The chapter connects the idea of humanness to the ideals of social governance at EU level and proposes two options for practical application of the concept. These are rules for trans-national labour markets based on European collective labour agreements and a European higher education sector developed by agreements between universities.

A Changing UK in a Changing Europe: The UK State between European Union and Devolution

Two issues currently dominate the UK's constitutional landscape: the UK's membership of the European Union (EU) on the one hand; and the unsettled constitutional settlements between the UK and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the other. This article considers these two issues in concert. It stresses the distinct relationships between the EU and the devolved territories within the UK—concerning both devolved and non-devolved policy areas—highlighting the salience of a devolved perspective in any consideration of UK–EU relations. Despite its importance, sensitivity to this has been lacking. The article explores the implications of a ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ outcome on the future of the internal territorial dynamics within the UK. While there are too many unknowns to be certain of anything, that there will be knock-on effects is, however, beyond doubt.

European Union Cross-Border Cooperation as Conflict Transformation:Potential and Limits

Cross-border cooperation as conflict transformation provides a potential strategy for the European Union (EU) to help realise its founding peacebuilding objective. A wealth of cross-border cooperation activity sponsored by the EU spans a quarter of a century. Although the conflict transformation capacity of that cooperation is questionable in some border regions there is evidence to suggest that it has delivered peacebuilding dividends in other border regions. However, EU cross-border cooperation as conflict transformation faces a number of significant twenty-first century challenges including: ghost borders of the communal imagination; EU external border securitization; perceptions of EU and Russian empire-building; and the Mediterranean transmigrant/refugee crisis. It is argued that these challenges pose significant obstacles to EU cross-border cooperation as conflict transformation and undermine the peacebuilding objective of European integration.

Triggering employee voice under the European Information and Consultation Directive: A non-union case study

The transposition of the 2002/14/EC Directive, establishing a general framework for information and consultation (I&C), has proven contentious in largely voluntarist systems of employment regulation. Receiving particular criticism is the employee ‘opt-in’ mechanism as a means to access I&C rights. For non-union employees in particular, the ability and potential to negotiate rights for I&C is widely seen to be problematic. This article uniquely examines the opt-in mechanism in the context of non-unionism, considering how non-union employers respond to non-union employees invoking their legislative rights to I&C. Drawing upon a case study conducted over four years in a large non-union multinational, the evidence shows how the opt-in and negotiation process function to the advantage of the employer rather than the intended regulatory impact to advance employee rights

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific step (risk assessment), and ends with a political decision-making step (risk management); and in the United States (US) it starts with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision-making step. We investigated trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU (traders in these commodities). Results show that from 1996-2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion-time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time: Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998-2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

European Union Biomedical Research Law and Policy and Citizen Science

In this chapter I focus on the EU's emerging biomedical research law and policy and examine the development of citizen science in this setting. The chapter argues that while what the analysis reveals might not be specific to the EU, attention to this organisation underlines important but often overlooked aspects of citizen science. That is, citizen science is (being) made less about promoting substantive involvement by citizens in the fashioning of biomedical trajectories and their empowerment as participants that pursue aims defined by themselves rather than others. Instead citizen science is underpinned by a more longstanding EU level approach to participation in science-based issues that sees it being harnessed, shaped and directed towards supporting the production and legitimation of organisational identity and sociotechnical order (in this case the EU’s). Within biomedical research law and policy citizen science might therefore be expected to support market-optimised biomedical futures and a dynamic internal market and economy. Citizen science is thereby implicated in the delineation of the boundaries of responsibility and accountability (and blame) for the (non-)realisation of public health priorities and objectives. In this way law and policy on participation and citizen science might support current research trajectories that do not serve all health needs.