Cover not available
Article published In:
Context-dependency of Argumentative Patterns
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:1] 2017
► pp. 76–96

Argumentative patterns in the European Union’s directives

An effective tool to foster compliance by the Member States?

| University of Amsterdam, ILIAS
| Erasmus University Rotterdam

This paper provides an account of the arguments advanced by the European Union (EU) legislator in the preamble of directives adopted for harmonization in the internal market, and assesses them as to their potential at convincing the Member States to implement the directive at issue. We show what directives should argue for and how they do so in practice, by focussing in particular on Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Furthermore, this contribution moves beyond a purely academic discussion by linking the theoretical-normative framework advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach to assessing the preambles of EU directives in the context of the ‘check’ on the duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty for the of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our analysis unveils a legislative practice in which the obligation to give reasons is not discharged adequately from an argumentative perspective, and which remains generally unsanctioned due to the rather light and flexible test used by CJEU under Article 296 TFEU.

Keywords: argumentative patterns, compliance, duty to state reasons, EU directive, harmonization
Article outline
  • 1.Background, motivation and aim
  • 2.EU directives: What should they argue for?
  • 3.EU directives in the internal market area: What do they argue for?
    • 3.1Arguing for harmonization in Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights
  • 4.Assessment of the reasons in the preamble of the EU Directives by the CJEU
  • 5.Results and challenges
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.05and
References
Beck, G.
(2012) The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.
(2001) ‘Non-compliance in the European Union: pathology or statistical artefact?’, Journal of European Public Policy 8(5): 803–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) ‘Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: Member State responses to Europeanization’, JMCS 40(2): 193–214.Google Scholar
Craig, P., and de Búrca, G.
(2015) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6th edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitrakopoulos, D. G.
(2001) ‘The Transposition of EU law: ‘post-decisional politics’ and institutional autonomy’, European Law Journal 7(4): 442–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitrova, A. and Rhinard, M.
(2005) ‘The power of norms in the transposition of EU directives’, European Integration Online Papers 9(16): 1–22.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van
(2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) ‘Identifying argumentative patterns: a vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics’. Argumentation 30(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, and Grootendorst, R.
(1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M., Leiber, S., and Treib, O.
(2004) ‘Non-compliance with EU Directives in the Member States: opposition through the backdoor’, West European Politics 27(3): 452–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M. and Leiber, S.
(2005) Complying with Europe. EU Harmonization and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., and H. Gottweis
(2012) ‘Introduction. The Argumentative Turn Revisited’, in Fischer, F., and Gottweis, H. (eds), The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham: Duke University Press, pp.1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. and Gottweis, H.
eds (2012) The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Durham: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F., and Forester, J.
eds (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis, Durham: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knill, C., and Lehmkuhl, D.
(2002) ‘The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: three Europeanization mechanisms’, European Journal of Political Research 411: 255–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komárek, J.
(2015) ‘Legal Reasoning in EU Law’, in Arnull, A., and Chalmers, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–51.Google Scholar
Majone, G.
(1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mastenbroek, E.
(2005) ‘EU compliance: still a ‘black hole’?’, Journal of European Public Policy 12(6): 1103–1120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) The Politics of Compliance. Explaining the Transposition of EC Directives in the Netherlands, Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV.Google Scholar
Nicolaides, Ph., and Oberg, H.
(2006) ‘The compliance problem in the European Union’, EIPASCOPE 11: 1–7.Google Scholar
Prechal, A.
(2005) Directives in EC Law. (Second, completely revised edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sauter, W.
(2013) ‘Proportionality in EU Law: A balancing act?’, Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit: 1–31.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W.
(1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, M.
(1992) The Giving Reasons Requirement, U Chicago Legal Forum 1791, 179–220.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., and Vanderveken, D.
(1985/2009) Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, B. and Rhinard, M.
(2010) ‘The transposition of European Law in EU Member States: between process and politics’, European Political Science Review 2(3), 495–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomann, E.
(2015) ‘Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(10): 1368–1387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treaty on European Union (TEU)
available at Eur-lex.europa.eu (accessed 29 February 2016).
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
available at Eur-lex.europa.eu. (accessed 29 February 2016).
Versluis, E.
(2004) ‘Explaining variations in implementation of EU directives’, European Integration Online Papers 8(19): 1–21.Google Scholar
Zhelyazkova, A.
(2012) Compliance under Controversy. Analysis of the Transposition of European Directives and their Provisions, Zutphen: CPI Wöhrmann Print Service.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Andone, Corina & Sara Greco
2018. Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 31:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Puppo, Federico, Silvia Corradi & Lorenzo Zoppellari
2022. Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Pandemic Legislation: The Italian Case. In The Pandemic of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 43], ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.