Debating Europe's Justice Deficit: The EU, Swabian Housewives, Rawls, and Ryanair

Abstract

This edited working paper proposes a new way of appraising the process of European integration, taking the notion of Justice as a starting point. With a number of contributions from the leading theorists of EU integration as well as younger scholars and practitioners of European law, it adopts a multi-faceted approach to what the editors branded as a possible "justice deficit" in Europe, looking at procedural as well as substantive elements of justice, also connecting justice with legitimacy, democracy, the rule of law, and other key principles of European law. Taking justice seriously is no doubt an indispensable element of any mature constitutional system. In starting the debate on justice in the EU context and immediately involving a number of leading scholars into the debate, the working paper aims at bridging an important gap in our theorising of European integration and law by starting a wide exchange on the topic of key importance, which is the essence of Justice, informing the integration project in Europe.

The following scholars contributed to the debate: Daniel Augenstein, Richard Bellamy, Gráinne de Búrca, Daniela Caruso, Damian Chalmers, Gareth Davies, Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Oliver Gerstenberg, Jane Holder, Dimitry Kochenov, Damjan Kukovec, Mattias Kumm, Justine Lacroix, Antonia Layard, Carole Lyons, Agustín J. Menéndez, Jürgen Neyer, Danny Nicol, Fernanda Nicola, Jiri Priban, András Sajó, Robert Schütze, Joanne Scott, Suryapratim Roy, Stavros Tsakyrakis, Juri Viehoff, Neil Walker, Michael Wilkinson, Andrew Williams and Floris de Witte.

Keywords: EU Law, justice, legitimacy, justice deficit, democratic deficit, democracy, propostionality, justification, margin of appreciation, human rights, future of integration