In This Issue

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12123
• Published date: 01 March 2015
• Author: Agustín José Menéndez
• Date: 01 March 2015

In This Issue

The Whig history of European integration has tended to assume both that the EU is

a ‘club’ of democratic states and that being a member of the EU necessarily results in

the strengthening of national democracy. But even a summary reading of the post-war

history of the states that formed the little Europe of six will throw serious doubts on

the extent to which the Whig narrative can be taken without a pinch of salt. Think

about the many violations of fundamental rights during the Algerian war, the obscure

episodes of collusion of state apparatuses with terrorist groups during the anni di

piombo, not unrelated to aborted coups d’état, the shamefully ugly face of colonialism

and post-colonialism, not to speak of the dark legacies of fascist legal theory. The rise

of ‘plébéiens de droit’ (à la Häider, Berlusconi, Orban or Le Pen) is the last episode

of a story that did not start yesterday and in which threats invariably come from

non-democratic forces, whether they claim to be right wing or left wing. This makes

exceedingly topical and interesting the question that Mueller poses in the opening

article of this issue, namely, Can there be a dictatorship within the EU? Mueller’s

institutional and substantive proposals are bound to be highly polemical, as well as

his (perhaps not fully un-Whig) assumption that there is more of a threat coming

from ‘illiberal’ democracy (à la Orban) than from authoritarian liberalism (à la

austerity). But the central question and the key issues raised in Müller’s article are

bound to remain with us in the foreseeable future.

While the interest in Euratom has constantly declined, Álvarez Verdugo’s article is a

good reminder that much can be contributed to the general debate on Union law from

what are widely (and wrongly) regarded as esoteric issues at the margins of the

European legal order. The story of the other stress tests, i.e. the tests of European

nuclear plants undertaken after the Fukushima nuclear accident, and the ensuing

attempts at changing European nuclear safety rules prove that sometimes more light

can be thrown from the margins than from the core of EU law. Three contributions to

this issue revolve around the potential of non-discrimination as a tool for the

realisation and protection of fundamental rights and liberties. Travis’ analysis of the

European legal regime of intersexuality combines careful attention to legal detail and

context with a powerful case for the constructive role of non-discrimination. Costa

Arcarazo finds that through non-discrimination, the Long Term Residence Directive

and the case-law of the European Court of Justice have resulted in the crystallisation of

a truly post-national status for permanent residents in the EU. Pearson revisits one of

the most passionately debated issues regarding free movement of workers, the system

of transfer of football players, and finds that the present arrangements are likely to fall

foul of Union law.

Van der Aa invites us to dig deeper into European criminal law from the standpoint

of the rights of victims after the sentence is rendered, that is, in the post-trial stage.

The author finds that European law is still open to the criticism of neglecting the

rights of victims, something for which lack of competence is no valid excuse. Last but

not least, Marxsen revisits ‘stakeholders’ consultations, one of the jewels in the crown

of participatory democracy. The author documents that business and industry organi-

sations dominate the consultative process, while the participation of citizens and

bs_bs_banner

European Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, March 2015, pp. 139–140.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA