The Timeliness of Direct Democracy in the EU—The Example of Nuclear Energy in the EU and the Institutionalisation of the European Citizens’ Initiative in the Lisbon Treaty
Author(s)
Christian Joerges*
Affiliation(s)
Faculty of Law, Centre of European Law and Politics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Faculty of Law, Centre of European Law and Politics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
ABSTRACT
The catastrophic nuclear incident in Fukushima in March 2011 has shocked Europe. Its impact was particularly strong in Germany with its decade-old anti-nuclear movements. Political and technological re-orientations were initiated in that country without considering at any depth the potential of European law and politics to control or obstruct such moves. Somewhat paradoxically, the Euratom Treaty of 1957 and also the new Treaty of Lisbon confirm the right of each Member State to decide upon the use of nuclear energy autonomously. This means that European citizens remain exposed to the risks of that technology until the highly unlikely consent of all Member States to abstain from its further use. That constellation poses a dilemma for democracy because it implies that each political decision taken within parts of the Union exerts external pan-European effects. The article considers the chances for an inclusive democratic process which would lead to a legitimated European decision. It examines the possibilities offered by the new European Citizens Initiative which the Lisbon Treaty has institutionalized in its Article 12 and concludes that this instrument could indeed be used to instigate a European-wide debate which may eventually lead to pertinent changes in the Treaties.
The catastrophic nuclear incident in Fukushima in March 2011 has shocked Europe. Its impact was particularly strong in Germany with its decade-old anti-nuclear movements. Political and technological re-orientations were initiated in that country without considering at any depth the potential of European law and politics to control or obstruct such moves. Somewhat paradoxically, the Euratom Treaty of 1957 and also the new Treaty of Lisbon confirm the right of each Member State to decide upon the use of nuclear energy autonomously. This means that European citizens remain exposed to the risks of that technology until the highly unlikely consent of all Member States to abstain from its further use. That constellation poses a dilemma for democracy because it implies that each political decision taken within parts of the Union exerts external pan-European effects. The article considers the chances for an inclusive democratic process which would lead to a legitimated European decision. It examines the possibilities offered by the new European Citizens Initiative which the Lisbon Treaty has institutionalized in its Article 12 and concludes that this instrument could indeed be used to instigate a European-wide debate which may eventually lead to pertinent changes in the Treaties.
KEYWORDS
Euratom Treaty; European Democratic Deficit; European Citizens Initiative; Treaty of Lisbon
Euratom Treaty; European Democratic Deficit; European Citizens Initiative; Treaty of Lisbon
Cite this paper
C. Joerges, "The Timeliness of Direct Democracy in the EU—The Example of Nuclear Energy in the EU and the Institutionalisation of the European Citizens’ Initiative in the Lisbon Treaty," Beijing Law Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.4236/blr.2012.31001.
C. Joerges, "The Timeliness of Direct Democracy in the EU—The Example of Nuclear Energy in the EU and the Institutionalisation of the European Citizens’ Initiative in the Lisbon Treaty," Beijing Law Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.4236/blr.2012.31001.
References
[1] R. Forst, “Transnational Justice and Democracy,” 2011. http.//ww.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_1112.pdf?fileitem?5456467 [2] J. Bohman, “Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 135-152. [3] J. Habermas, “Does the Constitutionalization of Interna- tional Law Still Have a Chance?” In: J. Habermas, Ed., The Divided West, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 113-193. [4] S. Wolf, “Euratom, the European Court of Justice and the Limits of Nuclear Integration in Europe,” German Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1637-1657. [5] R. Sauter, “EU-Agenda-Setting und Europ?ische Energiepo- litik: Das ‘EU-Nuklearpaket’,” ?sterreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2009, pp. 453- 463. [6] P. Kautracos, “Case Annotations,” Common Market Law Review, Vol. 41, 2004, pp. 191-208. [7] C. Trüe, “EU-Kompetenzen für Energierecht, Gesundheitss- chutz und Umweltschutz nach dem Verfassungsentwurf,” Juristenzeitung, Vol. 59, No. 15-16, 2004, pp. 779-791. [8] B. Wegener, “Die Kündigung des Vertrages zur Gründ- ung der Europ?ischen Atomgemeinschaft (EURATOM),” 2007. http://www.gruene-bundestag.de/cms/archiv/dokbin/170/170871.reader_euratom_gutachten_im_auftrag_der.pdf [9] R. Dehousse, “Constitutional Reform in the European Community: Are there Alternatives to the Majoritarian Avenue?” West European Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1995, pp. 118-136. doi:10.1080/01402389508425094 [10] M. Krajewski, “Legal Framework of a European Citizens’ Initiative for a European Right to Water,” Bremen-Erlangen, on file with author, 2010. [11] U. Di Fabio, “Der Ausstieg aus der Wirtschaftlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie: Europarechtliche und Verfas- sungsrechtliche Vorgaben,” Carl Heymanns Verlag, Co- logne, 1999. [12] Th. F. Cusack, “A Tale of Two Treaties: An Assessment of the Euratom Treaty in Relation to the EC Treaty,” Common Market Law Review, Vol. 40, 2003, pp. 117-142. [13] S. Wolf, “Zur Zukunft des Euratom-Vertrags,” integra- tion, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2006, pp. 297-302. [14] C. Joerges, “Unity in Diversity as Europe’s Vocation and Conflitcs Law as Europe’s Constitutional Form,” 2010. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id?=1723249.
[1] R. Forst, “Transnational Justice and Democracy,” 2011. http.//ww.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_1112.pdf?fileitem?5456467 [2] J. Bohman, “Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 135-152. [3] J. Habermas, “Does the Constitutionalization of Interna- tional Law Still Have a Chance?” In: J. Habermas, Ed., The Divided West, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 113-193. [4] S. Wolf, “Euratom, the European Court of Justice and the Limits of Nuclear Integration in Europe,” German Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 8, 2011, pp. 1637-1657. [5] R. Sauter, “EU-Agenda-Setting und Europ?ische Energiepo- litik: Das ‘EU-Nuklearpaket’,” ?sterreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2009, pp. 453- 463. [6] P. Kautracos, “Case Annotations,” Common Market Law Review, Vol. 41, 2004, pp. 191-208. [7] C. Trüe, “EU-Kompetenzen für Energierecht, Gesundheitss- chutz und Umweltschutz nach dem Verfassungsentwurf,” Juristenzeitung, Vol. 59, No. 15-16, 2004, pp. 779-791. [8] B. Wegener, “Die Kündigung des Vertrages zur Gründ- ung der Europ?ischen Atomgemeinschaft (EURATOM),” 2007. http://www.gruene-bundestag.de/cms/archiv/dokbin/170/170871.reader_euratom_gutachten_im_auftrag_der.pdf [9] R. Dehousse, “Constitutional Reform in the European Community: Are there Alternatives to the Majoritarian Avenue?” West European Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1995, pp. 118-136. doi:10.1080/01402389508425094 [10] M. Krajewski, “Legal Framework of a European Citizens’ Initiative for a European Right to Water,” Bremen-Erlangen, on file with author, 2010. [11] U. Di Fabio, “Der Ausstieg aus der Wirtschaftlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie: Europarechtliche und Verfas- sungsrechtliche Vorgaben,” Carl Heymanns Verlag, Co- logne, 1999. [12] Th. F. Cusack, “A Tale of Two Treaties: An Assessment of the Euratom Treaty in Relation to the EC Treaty,” Common Market Law Review, Vol. 40, 2003, pp. 117-142. [13] S. Wolf, “Zur Zukunft des Euratom-Vertrags,” integra- tion, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2006, pp. 297-302. [14] C. Joerges, “Unity in Diversity as Europe’s Vocation and Conflitcs Law as Europe’s Constitutional Form,” 2010. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id?=1723249.