![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Solidarity is an important idea behind European integration. The Lisbon Treaty advanced the understanding of the concept by establishing three dimensions: solidarity between member states, member states and individuals, and between generations. However, the knowledge about solidarity is incomplete and its conceptualization in the EU legal order needs to be further developed. This article aims at deepening the knowledge about solidarity in the EU by eliciting its rationales and scope of application. It will be concluded that solidarity is developed to different extent in different fields of law. It is most advanced in socio-economic law, but underdeveloped in areas of law that are new to the EU legal order: solidarity in the event of environmental disasters and solidarity with future generations. Reasons for the different depths of solidarity will be elicited, as well as possible means to overcome inhibitors to transnational solidarity.
Notes
1. See Borgmann-Prebil (2008, 328–50, 331 et subs), Somek (2007, 1–19, 19–26), Dougan (2005, 180–218, 128), and Guibboni (2007, 360–79).
2. The ECJ has confirmed the ‘fundamental status’ of EU citizenship in the EU legal order on many occasions (Grzelczyk C-184/99, paragraph 31, Baumbast C-413/99, paragraph 83; Bidar C-209/03, paragraph 31; Zambrano C-34/09, paragraph 41; further reference Borgmann-Prebil Citation2008, 328–50, 335 et subs.)
3. The academic literature has responded somewhat startled to the equalization of integration and time spent in the host Member State. Somek (Citation2007), 51, for example, calls this feature of European citizenship ‘disturbingly autistic’.
4. For criticism concerning the erosion of national protection standards in labour law: Micklitz (Citation2010) on Viking and Laval; concerning the danger of member states lowering their social security standards: Barnard (Citation2005b, 1481–3).
5. Also Giubboni (2010, 166–97, 194–5) concerning labour law; and Barnard (2010, 73–105, 105).
6. See Council Decision 2001/792/EC, recast Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Preamble (4), and other European disaster management mechanisms: Council Regulation 20002/2012/EC, Council Regulation 2001/381/EC, also: Council of the European Union. (Citation2005b).
7. Similarly, the EU does not have the competence to harmonize the different approaches to risk and threat assessment across the member states (European Organisation for Security. Citation2009, 8). This problem is rooted in the legal instruments themselves. The Solidarity Fund relates to the immediate recovery after a disaster occurred (Olsson et al. Citation2009, 96–7, 159); the CPM aims at strengthening the member states’ capacities for consequence management. Although the EU does engage in some prevention work (see for example Directive 2007/60/EC, http://www.effis.jrc.ec.europa), these activities remain fragmented and do not consider the broad spectrum of environmental interdependencies (further reference Barnier Citation2006; Commission Citation2008a, Citation2009c).
8. For a deeper analysis of the elements of distributive justice, see Finnis (1980, 165–72).
9. For example, Commission v Belgium (Belgian waste), C-2/90, Preussen Elektra AG v Schleswag AG C-379/98, Criminal Proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme (Danish Bees) C-67/97.
10. For example, Procureur de la Republiqne v. Association de defense des brûleurs d’huiles usagées (ADBH) C-240/83, Commmission v Denmark (Danish Bottles) C-302/86.