Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance

This article argues that the chief challenge to international governance is an emerging political cleavage, which pits nationalists against immigration, free trade, and international authority. While those on the radical left contest international governance for its limits, nationalists reject it in principle. A wide-ranging cultural and economic reaction has reshaped political conflict in Europe and the United States and is putting into question the legitimacy of the rule of law among states

European steel policies in the 1980s: Hindering technological innovation and market structure change?

L51, L61,

A demoicratic justification of differentiated integration in a heterogeneous EU

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this record.Earlier scholarship assumed differentiated integration (DI) was pragmatic and temporary and that member states should and would converge on the same policies. By contrast, we contend that many instances of DI can be normatively justified on democratic grounds of fairness, impartiality and equity as suitable ways to accommodate economic, social and cultural heterogeneity. We distinguish between instrumental, constitutional and legislative differentiation and relate them respectively to problems of proportionality, partiality and difference. In so far as member states have unequal stakes in EU level collective decisions, reflecting their economic and social heterogeneity, or apply distinct constitutional norms to them, reflecting their cultural heterogeneity, then fairness and impartiality in decision-making justify respectively instrumental and constitutional DI, while the equity of regulations when applied to relevantly different agents and agencies warrant legislative forms of DI