The Court of Justice of the European Union and policy change: Analysing the influence of the CJEU on Justice and Home Affairs policies

欧盟法院与政策变化：分析欧盟法院对司法和内政政策的影响

• 批准号: 1917802
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Queen Mary University of London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2017 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1917802
• 关键词: Court; Justice; European; Union; policy

The extent to which supranational courts, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), generate policy change, and can influence European Union (EU) legislation and national legislation has been an issue of long-term debate. This research endeavours to contribute to the policy and law literature, by analysing how CJEU jurisprudence has influenced key Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) policy outputs, before and after the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon (Trauner and Ripoll Servent, 2014:1142-1143). The puzzle that this PhD thesis seeks to address is whether, and to what extent, the CJEU has influenced policy change within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The central guiding research question is as follows: To what extent, and under what conditions, does the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) influence Justice and Home Affairs policy outputs? The CJEU has often been considered to be a 'driver' of European integration, due to its political power and its judicial activism (Terpan and Saurugger, 2018: 1; Martinsen, 2015: 2; Alter, 2009; Stone Sweet and Brunell, 2012; Weiler, 1991). Some scholars have argued that supranational courts have become powerful political institutions that are able to drive policy change (Alter, 2014; Kelemen, 2013; Cichowski, 2007; Stone Sweet, 2000). Other scholars have argued that the political power of supranational courts has been overstated, and that these courts are constrained by political, administrative and constitutional factors (Martinsen, 2015: 25). The question of whether supranational courts are able to drive policy change (resulting in changes to the core of the policy and changes of secondary order) addresses the political impact of judicial decisions, and the transfer of decision-making powers to a non-majoritarian institution (Martinsen, 2015: 23). This research aims to go beyond the narrow and oversimplified view of the impact of courts in the literature. This PhD thesis will use a constructivist (sociological institutionalism) approach. This project will examine secondary EU legislation, CJEU case law, and findings from semi-structured elite interviews with civil servants involved in decision-making processes in key JHA sub-policy areas. The field of Justice and Home Affairs is a sensitive area of policy-making. JHA policies impinge upon the sovereignty of EU member states and the human rights and mobility rights of nationals and third country nationals (TCNs) (Wolff, 2015: 129-130). The influence of the CJEU on Justice and Home Affairs policies remains under-explored. Much of the existing literature (Ripoll Servent in Ripoll Servent and Trauner, 2018; Martinsen, 2015: 20-23) has focused on one specific area in isolation, such as asylum or social policy, which has limited the ability to draw wider patterns across JHA policy domains. For this reason, this research will focus on four main JHA sub-policy areas: immigration (family reunification), border control (the Schengen regime), asylum (the Dublin system), and data protection. The timeframe of this research is from 2005 to 2017. In this research, judicial influence on EU policy outputs occurs when interpretations generated by a CJEU judgment are incorporated into the final policy outputs, which results in political integration (Martinsen, 2015: 9). Policy outputs refer to EU secondary legislation that has been proposed by the European Commission, and adopted by the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union (Martinsen, 2015: 6). The research methods used in this PhD thesis are qualitative. This study will make use of the value of a comparative case study method. Three additional methods have been selected as constituting the empirical framework of this study: document analysis, process tracing, and semi-structured elite interviews.

欧盟法院（CJEU）等超国家法院在多大程度上产生政策变化，并能影响欧盟（EU）立法和国家立法，一直是一个长期争论的问题。本研究通过分析 2009 年《里斯本条约》前后，欧盟法院判例如何影响司法和内政 (JHA) 的关键政策产出，致力于为政策和法律文献做出贡献（Trauner 和 Ripoll Servent，2014：1142-1143）。本博士论文试图解决的难题是欧盟法院是否以及在多大程度上影响了自由、安全和正义领域 (AFSJ) 内的政策变化。中心指导性研究问题如下：欧盟法院（CJEU）在多大程度上、在什么条件下影响司法和内政政策的产出？由于其政治权力和司法积极性，欧盟法院经常被认为是欧洲一体化的“驱动者”（Terpan 和 Saurugger，2018：1；Martinsen，2015：2；Alter，2009；Stone Sweet 和 Brunell，2012；Weiler，1991）。一些学者认为，超国家法院已成为能够推动政策变革的强大政治机构（Alter，2014；Kelemen，2013；Cichowski，2007；Stone Sweet，2000）。其他学者认为，超国家法院的政治权力被夸大了，这些法院受到政治、行政和宪法因素的限制（Martinsen，2015：25）。超国家法院是否能够推动政策变革（导致政策核心的变化和次要秩序的变化）的问题涉及司法判决的政治影响，以及决策权向非多数机构的转移（Martinsen，2015：23）。本研究旨在超越文献中对法院影响的狭隘和过于简单化的看法。本博士论文将使用建构主义（社会学制度主义）方法。该项目将审查欧盟二级立法、欧洲法院判例法以及对参与 JHA 子政策关键领域决策过程的公务员进行半结构化精英访谈的结果。司法和内政领域是政策制定的敏感领域。 JHA 政策侵犯了欧盟成员国的主权以及国民和第三国国民 (TCN) 的人权和流动权（Wolff，2015：129-130）。欧洲法院对司法和内政政策的影响仍未得到充分探讨。许多现有文献（Ripoll Servent 中的 Ripoll Servent 和 Trauner，2018；Martinsen，2015：20-23）都单独关注某一特定领域，例如庇护或社会政策，这限制了在 JHA 政策领域绘制更广泛模式的能力。因此，本研究将重点关注 JHA 的四个主要子政策领域：移民（家庭团聚）、边境管制（申根制度）、庇护（都柏林制度）和数据保护。本研究的时间范围为2005年至2017年。在本研究中，当欧盟法院判决产生的解释被纳入最终的政策输出时，司法对欧盟政策输出的影响就会发生，从而导致政治一体化（Martinsen，2015：9）。政策产出是指由欧盟委员会提出并由欧洲议会（EP）和欧盟理事会通过的欧盟二级立法（Martinsen，2015：6）。本博士论文使用的研究方法是定性的。本研究将利用比较案例研究方法的价值。选择了三种额外的方法作为本研究的实证框架：文献分析、过程追踪和半结构化精英访谈。