Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original Research Articles

Vol. 12 (2024): Publicación Anual Continua

¿Desatar el policentrismo jurídico en Europa? : Barnett, Hayek y la teoría del derecho de la Unión Europea

DOI
https://doi.org/10.30800/mises.2024.v12.1531
Enviado
enero 3, 2024
Publicado
2024-07-10

Resumen

El cuestionamiento de la producción pública y monopolística del derecho de la Unión Europea es muy poco o nada abordado por la teoría jurídica de la Unión Europea. El artículo propone dividir las razones de esta ausencia en dos clases. La primera parte del artículo explora las razones endógenas al derecho de la Unión Europea. La segunda parte está dedicada a las razones que forman parte del contexto evolutivo del derecho de la Unión Europea, derivadas de hechos de naturaleza histórica, política, epistemológica y social. El artículo sugiere remitirse a la teoría del orden constitucional policéntrico desarrollada por el teórico jurídico estadounidense Randy Barnett, así como a la teoría de la federación interestatal de Friedrich Hayek, propuesta ya en 1939. A pesar de las aparentes dificultades que presenta la organización contemporánea de la Unión, los mecanismos propios del derecho de la Unión y de la cultura europea son capaces de apoyar la rehabilitación de la concepción policéntrica del derecho de la Unión y de la federación interestatal hayekiana.

Citas

  1. Aligica, P.D. & Tarko, V. (2011). Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond. Governance, 25(2), pp.237-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01550.x
  2. Alvarez, Y. (2017). Indigenous Territorial Rights, Legal Pluralism and Alternatives to Development: Notes on an Indissoluble Relationship. Deusto Journal of Human Rights, 1(2), pp.95-120.
  3. Alves da Silva, F. (2021). Strong State, Sound Economy: Carl Schmitt and the Total State. Constelaciones, 1(13), pp.167-185.
  4. Badie, B. (2015). Subsidiarité. In G. Hermet, B. Badie, & P. Birnbaum (Eds.), Dictionnaire de la science politique et des institutions politiques. Paris: Armand Colin.
  5. Barnett, R.E. (1986). Four Senses of the Private-Public Law Distinction. Harvard Journal of Law, 9(2), pp.267-276.
  6. Barnett, R.E. (1998). The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  7. Barroche, J. (2007). La subsidiarité chez Jacques Delors: du socialisme chrétien au fédéralisme européen. Politique européenne, 3(23), pp.53-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.023.0153
  8. Barroche, J. (2008). La subsidiarité. Le principe et l’application. Études, CDVIII(6), pp.777-788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/etu.086.0777
  9. Barton, R.F. (1919). Ifugao Law. University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology, 15(1), pp.1-186.
  10. Bell, T.W. (1991). Polycentric Law. Humane Studies Review, 7(1), pp.1-10.
  11. Benson, B.L. (1989). Enforcement of Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 9(1), pp.1-26.
  12. Benson, B.L. (1990). The Enterprise of Law: Justice without the State. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
  13. Bertrand, B. (2012). Un principe politique saisi par le droit. La justiciabilité du principe de subsidiarité en droit de l’Union européenne. Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, XLVIII(2), pp.329-354.
  14. Bobic, A. (2019). The Shared System of Rules in a Polycentric European Union. In J. van Zebe & A. Bobic (Eds.), Polycentricity in the European Union, pp.141-162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108528771.008
  15. Bruno, F. (2022). Ordoliberal ideas on Europe: two paradigms of European economic integration. History of European Ideas, 49(4), pp.737-756. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2022.2151494
  16. Burrows, N. & Greaves, R. (2007). The Advocate General and EC Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299003.001.0001
  17. Carnis, L. (2007). Mises’s Austrian Theory of Bureaucracy. Procesos de Mercado, 4(2), pp.95-137.
  18. Carret, V. (2022). Jacques Rueff, Friedrich Hayek, and the Emergence of Economic Order: the Case of the European Coal and Steel Community (Working Paper). Durham: Duke University.
  19. Casey, G. (2010). Reflections on Legal Polycentrism. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 22(2), pp.22-34.
  20. Clement-Wilz, L. (2012). The Advocate General: A Key Actor of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14(1), pp.587-613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712805580435
  21. Da Fonseca, A. (2020). La subsidiarité juridictionnelle. Contribution à l’étude de l’intégration européenne [Doctoral dissertation in public law]. Pau: Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour.
  22. Deffains, B. & Ferey, S. (2010). Analyse économique du droit et théorie du droit: perspectives méthodologiques. Nancy: Université de Nancy.
  23. Dilorenzo, T. (2011). A Note of the Canard of 'Asymmetric Information' as a Source of Market Failure. The Quaterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 14(2), pp.249-255.
  24. Donati, A. (2021). Le Principe de précaution en droit de l’Union européenne. Bruxelles: Bruylant.
  25. Donegani, M. (2013). Le principe de subsidiarité ou la stratophobie corporatiste. Revue française de science politique, 63(3-4), pp.684-686.
  26. ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network. (2005). Potentials for Polycentric Development in Europe. Luxembourg: Espon Coordination Unit.
  27. European Commission. (2022). The Innovation Principle. Factsheet from the Research and Innovation of the European Commission.
  28. Farr, J. (2005). Point: the Westphalia Legacy and the Modern Nation-State. International Social Science Review, 80(3-4), pp.156-159.
  29. Finck, M. (2017). Subnational Authorities in EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198810896.001.0001
  30. Friedman, D. (1979). Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case. The Journal of Legal Studies, 8(2), pp.399-415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467615
  31. Fuller, L.L. (1978). The Forms and Limits of Adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 92(2), pp.353-409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1340368
  32. Fuller, S. & Lipinska, V. (2014). The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137302922
  33. Fuller, S. (2012). Precautionary and Proactionary as the New Right and the New Left of the Twenty-First Century Ideological Spectrum. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25(4), pp.157-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-012-9127-2
  34. Geloso, V. & Leeson, P.T. (2020). Are Anarcho-Capitalists Insane? Medieval Icelandic Conflict Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Revue d’économie politique, 130(6), pp.957-974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/redp.306.0115
  35. Gerber, D.J. (1994). Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neo-Liberalism, Competition Law and the ‘New’ Europe. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 42(1), pp.25-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/840727
  36. Gerken, H.K. (2014). Federalism as the New Nationalism: An Overview. The Yale Law Journal, 113(6), pp.1889-1918.
  37. Haberler, G. (1949). Economic Aspects of a European Union. World Politics, 1(4), pp.431-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2008831
  38. Hayek, F. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), pp.519-530.
  39. Hayek, F. (2006). The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226320533.001.0001
  40. Hayek, F. (1958). Individualism and Economic Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  41. Hayek, F. (2011). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226320519.001.0001
  42. Heidebrecht, S. (2023). From Market Liberalism to Public Intervention: Digital Sovereignty and Changing European Union Digital Single Market Governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(3), pp.1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13488
  43. Hirvonen, A. (1998). Polycentricity: The Multiple Scenes of Law. London: Pluto Press.
  44. Hoebel, E.A. (1954). The Law of Primitive Man: A Study in Comparative Legal Dynamics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674038707
  45. Höffe, O. (1996). Subsidiarity as a Principle in the Philosophy of Government. Regional and Federal Studies, 6(3), pp.56-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13597569608420982
  46. Ito, T. (2011). Searching for the Ordoliberal Origin of European Integration: Lessons from the Politics of the European Recovery Program. Biennial Conference of the European Union Study Association, Boston, 1-26.
  47. Jääskinen, N. (2005). The Case of the Åland Islands-Regional Autonomy versus the European Union of States. In S. Weatherill & U. Bernitz (Eds.), The Role of Regions and Sub-National Actors in Europe (pp.89-101). Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
  48. Joyeux, A. (2016). Le principe de subsidiarité. Entre terminologie et discours: pistes pour une nouvelle histoire de la formule (Tome 1). Doctoral dissertation in linguistic. Dijon: Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté.
  49. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), pp.60-85.
  50. Kolev, S. (2023). When Liberty Presupposes Order: F.A. Hayek's Contextual Ordoliberalism. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, pp.1-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/8nhr5
  51. Kornhauser, L. (2011). The Economic Analysis of Law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Spring.
  52. Lavoie, D. (1985). National Economic Planning: What is Left? Pensacola: Ballinger Publishing Company.
  53. Long, R. (2022). Anarchism. In M. Zwolinski & B. Ferguson (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism (pp.181-203). London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367814243-16
  54. Lowenfeld, A. F. (2002). International Economic Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  55. Marchand-Tonel, X. (2012). La subsidiarité, un enjeu des débats sur l’Union européenne. Droit et société, 1(80), pp.5-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/drs.080.0005
  56. Mendenhall, A. (2014). Literature and Liberty: Essays in Libertarian Literary Criticism. Lanham: Lexington Books.
  57. Miksch, L. (1947). Wettbewerb als Aufgabe: Grundsätze einer Wettbewerbsordnung. Munich: H. Küpper.
  58. Millon-Delsol, C. (1992). L’État subsidiaire. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  59. Millon-Delsol, C. (1993). Le Principe de subsidiarité. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  60. Minnerath, R. (2004). Pour une éthique sociale universelle. La proposition catholique. Paris: Cerf.
  61. Mises, L. von. (2002). Liberalism in the Classical Tradition. Irvington-on-Hudson: The Foundation for Economic Education.
  62. Mises, L. von. (1944). Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  63. Mises, L. von. (1998). Interventionism: An Economic Analysis. Irvington-on-Hudson: The Foundation for Economic Education.
  64. Mises, L. von. (1998). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar's Edition. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  65. Mises, L. von. (2018). The Middle of the Road Leads to Socialism. Auburn: Mises Institute.
  66. Musanganya, D. (2023). La matrice intellectuelle du catholicisme social face à l'État faible du Congo (RDC) entre 1990 et 2018. (Doctoral dissertation in political science). University of Paris-Est: Paris.
  67. Nientiedt, D. (2022). F.A. Hayek and the World of Tomorrow: The Principles of International Federalism. Cosmos+Taxis, 10(11-12), pp.97-103.
  68. Ogilvie, S. (2014). The Economics of Guilds. Journal of Economic Perspective, 28(4), pp.169-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.4.169
  69. O’sullivan, D. & Dooley, L. (2008). Applying Innovation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  70. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. The American Political Science Review, 55(4), pp.831-842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400125973
  71. Quirico, S. (2018). The Constructive Side of Fear: Wilhelm Röpke’s Discourse on Europe between Crisis and Integration. De Europa, 1(1), pp.63-73.
  72. Peden, J. R. (1977). Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1(2), pp.81-95.
  73. Petersen, H. & Zahle, H. (1995). Legal Polycentricity: Consequences of Pluralism in Law. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
  74. Polanyi, M. (2002). The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  75. Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row.
  76. Rautenbach, C. (2010). Deep Legal Pluralism in South Africa: Judicial Accommodation of Non-State Law. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 42(60), pp.143-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2010.10756639
  77. Reimers, P. (2020). An Austrian School View on Eucken's Ordoliberalism: Analyzing the Roots and Concept of German Ordoliberalism from the Perspective of Austrian School Economics. Procesos de Mercado, 27(1), pp.13-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v17i1.4
  78. Roger, B. (2012). Doctrine sociale de l’Église. Une histoire contemporaine. Paris: Cerf.
  79. Rothbard, M. (2009). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  80. Rothbard, M. (2011). Conceived in Liberty: Volumes 1-4. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  81. Rueff, J. (1979). Œuvres complètes III. Politique économique. Vol. 2. Paris: Plon.
  82. Sheleff, L. S. (2013). The Future of Tradition: Customary Law, Common Law, and Legal Pluralism. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203044995
  83. Streeck, W. (2015). Heller, Schmitt and the Euro. European Law Journal, 21(3), pp.361-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12134
  84. Stringham, E. (2006). Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
  85. Turk, Z. (2021). Hayek’s Lessons for the European Union. In F. N. Fernandez, B. Kolm, & V. Schmid (Eds.), Austrian Economics 150 Years after Carl Menger (pp.377-388). Vienna: Hayek Institut.
  86. Vallentyne, P. (2000). Reviewed Work: The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, by Randy E. Barnett. Mind, 109(433), pp.131-135.
  87. Weber, M. (1952). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge.
  88. Weis Bentzon, A. (1992). A Note on the Polycentricity of Law: A Danish Version of Legal Pluralism. Commission on Folk Law and Legal Pluralism Newsletter, 21(1), pp.30.
  89. Young, B. (2017). Ordoliberalism as an ‘Irritating German Idea’. In T. Beck & H.-H. Kotz (Eds.), Ordoliberalism: A German Oddity? (pp. 31-40). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
  90. Zahle, H. (2005). Polycentric Application of Law. In T. Andersson (Ed.), Parallel and Conflicting Enforcement of Law (pp. 233-253). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004478985_016
  91. Zeben, J. van. (2019). Polycentricity. In B. Hudson, J. Rosenbloom, & D. Cole (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons (pp. 38-49). London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162782-4

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.