Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Compliance with EU Law and Argumentative Discourse: Representing the EU as a Problem-Solving Multilevel Governance System through Discursive Structures of Argumentation

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes how, during the Juncker Presidency (2014–2019), the European Commission employed argumentative strategies to address the question of member-states’ compliance with European Union (EU) law. There is a literature gap regarding how European leaders employ argumentative strategies to coax member-states to comply with EU legislation and how those strategies can be associated with multilevel governance designs and problem-solving approaches. Building on van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s (A systematic theory of argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004) pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, the paper explores what dialectical and rhetorical strategies were employed by the Juncker European Commission to build an argumentative regime where the question of compliance with European Union law is articulated with the representation of the European Union as an efficient multilevel governance system. Starting from the distinction between procedural and operational concepts of problem-solving in multilevel governance polities (Maggetti in Public Administration 97:355–369, 2019), the paper questions whether the Juncker Commission’s arguments on the need to ensure European Union law compliance favor a particular conception of problem-solving in multilevel governance systems. The paper argues that the argumentative strategies employed by the Juncker European Commission in the field of compliance reveal a preference for an operational notion of problem-solving combined with some aspects of a more procedural perspective of problem-solving in multilevel governance polities. The background of this paper is associated with the growing impact that European legislation has on member-states and also with the efforts developed by the Juncker European Commission in discussing how to improve EU regulation to increase compliance with EU law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data sources are referenced in the text and at the Reference List.

References

  • Aakhus, Mark, and Alena Vasilyeva. 2008. Managing disagreement in multiparty deliberation. In Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, Borriello, and Armandine Crespy. 2015. How to not speak the ‘F-word’: Federalism between mirage and imperative in the euro crisis. European Journal of Political Research 54 (3): 502–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja, Diana Panke, Tobias Hoffmann, and Carina Sprungk. 2010. Obstinate and Inefficient. Why member-states do not comply with European Law. Comparative Political Studies 43 (11): 1363–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreras, Yasemin. 2019. Problem-solving across literatures: Comparative federalism and multi-level governance in climate change action. European Policy Analysis 5 (1): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chodorowska, Daniela. 2012. Compliance leaders and laggards within the EU-8. L'Europe en Formation 2, 364: 129–147. https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-europe-en-formation-2012-2-page-129.htm. Accessed 21 June 2020.

  • European Commission (EC). 2015. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Better Regulation for Better Results: an EU Agenda. May 19 2015. Strasbourg: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0215&from=EN. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • European Commission (EC). 2016. Monitoring the Application of EU Law 2015 Annual Report. July 15 2016. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0463&from=EN. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • European Commission (EC). 2018. Monitoring the Application of EU Law 2017 Annual Report. July 12 2018. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-2017-annual-report-monitoring-application-eu-law.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • European Commission (EC). 2019. Better Regulation. Tacking stock and sustaining our commitment. April 15 2019. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-taking-stock_en_0.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Crespy, Armandine, and Vivien Schmidt. 2014. The clash of Titans: France, Germany and the discursive double game of EMU reform. Journal of European Public Policy 21 (8): 1085–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinan, Desmond. 2016. Governance and institutions: A more political commission. Journal of Common Market Studies 54: 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, Richard. 1979. Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94 (4): 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone, Kevin. 2003. In the name of Europe. In The politics of europeanization, ed. Kevin Featherstone and Claudio Radaelli, 3–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 2001. Types of multi-level-governance. European Integration Online Papers 5, 11: 1–24. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2001-011.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020.

  • Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2003. Unravelling the central state, but how? types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, Michael. 2019. Designing public policies. Principles and instruments. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, Ian. 1999. Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization 53: 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally. 1992. “Virtual Standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. Argumentation Illuminated 1: 260–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2015. Authorized State of the Union 2015: Time for Honesty, Union and Solidarity. September 9, 2015. Strasbourg: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/betapolitical/files/state_of_the_union_2015_en.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2016. State of the Union 2016: Towards a better Europe: A Europe that protects, empowers and defends. September 14, 2016. Strasbourg: European Commission. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-16-3043_en.htm. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2017. State of the Union 2017. September 13, 2017. Brussels: European Commission. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2018. Authorized State of the Union 2018: The Hour of European Sovereignty. 2018. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-speech_pt_0.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2019. Foreword. Report from the Commission. Monitoring the Application of European Union Law. 2018 Annual Report. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-2018-annual-report-monitoring-application-eu-law.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Juncker 2018b. Foreword. Report from the Commission. Monitoring the Application of European Union Law. 2017 Annual Report. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-2017-annual-report-monitoring-application-eu-law.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020.

  • Kaiser, Robert, and Heiko Prange. 2002. Managing diversity in a system of multi-level governance: The open method of coordination in innovation policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (2): 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, Martino, and Philipp Trein. 2019. Multilevel governance and problem-solving: Towards a dynamic theory of multilevel policy-making? Public Administration 97: 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, Philipp. 2014. Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Social Science Open Access Repository SSOAR. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/39517. Accessed 10 June 2020.

  • Olsson, Eva-Karin., and Kajsa Hammargard. 2016. The rhetoric of the president of the European Commission: Charismatic leader of neutral mediator? Journal of European Public Policy 23 (4): 550–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pansardi, Pamela, and Francesco Battegazzorre. 2018. The discursive legitimation strategies of the president of the Commission: A qualitative content analysis of the State of the Union Addresses (SOTEU). Journal of European Integration 40 (7): 853–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, Thomas. 2000. Let’s argue: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization 54 (1): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse. Thomas and Tanja Börzel. 2009. The transformative power of Europe: The European Union and the diffusion of ideas. Kolleg-Forschergruppe Transformative Power of Europe, Working Paper, 1. Freie Universität Berlin. file:///C:/Users/Iscsp/Downloads/The_Transformative_Power_of_Europe_The_European_Un.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2020.

  • Schmidt, Vivien. 2008. Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, Eva, Philip Trein, and Martino Maggetti. 2019. What’s the problem: Multi-level governance as problem-solving. European Policy Analysis 5 (1): 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toshkov, Dimiter. 2010. Taking stock: A review of quantitative studies of transposition and implementation of EU Law. Working paper 01/2010. Working paper series. Institute for European Integration Research. Social Sciences Research Centre. Austrian Academy of Sciences. https://ideas.repec.org/p/erp/eifxxx/p0009.html. Accessed 11 June 2020.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen. 2008. Controversy and argumentation in argumentative discourse. In Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 133–140. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2009. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2016. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1 (4): 479–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2001. Managing disagreement: Rhetorical analysis with a dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocacy 37 (3): 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2003. The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation 17: 387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., R.R. GrootendorstJackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Toscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Henkemens. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and F.S. Henkemans. 2009. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E. Krabbe, A.F. Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J. Wagemans. 2014. Argumentation theory. In Handbook of argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, E. Krabbe, A.F. Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J. Wagemans, 1–49. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst. 2020. Developments in Argumentation Theory. s.l. https://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00010570.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2020.

Download references

Funding

This work was not supported by funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Administration and Public Policies; School for Social and Political Sciences, Department of International Relations, University of Lisbon, Rua Almerindo Lessa, 1300-663, Lisbon, Portugal

    Maria Ferreira

Authors
  1. Maria Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Ferreira.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferreira, M. Compliance with EU Law and Argumentative Discourse: Representing the EU as a Problem-Solving Multilevel Governance System through Discursive Structures of Argumentation. Argumentation 35, 645–665 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09548-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09548-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation