Skip to main content

The Limits of Law (and Democracy) in the Euro Crisis: An Approach from Systems Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy and Financial Order: Legal Perspectives

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 273))

  • 346 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter attempts to explore the fate of law and democracy in the euro crisis from the sociological perspective of systems theory. It consecutively ascertains the performance, the relevance, and the function of the law with regard to the current practice of restructuring sovereign debt in the euro area. While novel forms of regulation such as the European Stability Mechanism attest a remarkable assertiveness of the law, they cannot effectively command economic recovery and must cede to economic imperatives for their part. Under such circumstances, the law can no longer adequately fulfill its function to counterfactually secure normative expectations. Nevertheless, the regulatory experiments in the euro crisis may not be regarded as undemocratic. Rather, the heterarchical processes of mutual observation, recognition, and contestation among the various constituencies involved, including representatives of governments, institutions of the European Union, central banks, national parliaments and peoples via referenda, as well as European and national courts, provide some substitute for the lack of elections and parliamentary decision-making at the European level.

Revised version of the original published article “The Limits of Law (and Democracy) in the Euro Crisis: An Approach from Systems Theory” by Lars Viellechner, German Law Journal 17(5):747–762

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an overview of the legal instruments, see de Gregorio Merino (2012), p. 1613.

  2. 2.

    See Case C-62/14, Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag, ECLI:EU:C:2015:400 (16 June 2015); Case C-370/12, Pringle v. Government of Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2012:756 (27 Nov. 2012).

  3. 3.

    For the German perspective, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], 142 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 123 (21 June 2016); 135 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 317 (18 March 2014); 134 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 366 (14 Jan. 2014); 132 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 195 (12 Sept. 2012); 131 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 152 (19 June 2012); 130 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 318 (28 Feb. 2012); 129 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 124 (7 Sept. 2011).

  4. 4.

    See von Bogdandy et al (2015), p. 6; Steinbach (2016), p. 223.

  5. 5.

    See von Bogdandy and Goldmann (2013), p. 39.

  6. 6.

    Goldmann and Steininger, chapter “A Discourse Theoretical Approach to Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Towards a Democratic Financial Order”.

  7. 7.

    See generally Luhmann (1995 [1984]).

  8. 8.

    See Luhmann (1971), p. 1; Luhmann (1985 [1972]), pp. 255–264; Luhmann (2004 [1993]), pp. 479–490.

  9. 9.

    See the contributions in Kjaer et al (2011).

  10. 10.

    See Luhmann (1995 [1984]), pp. 12–58.

  11. 11.

    Briggs (1961), p. 221; Luhmann (1990 [1981]).

  12. 12.

    Luhmann (1998), p. 369 (my translation).

  13. 13.

    Luhmann (1992a), p. 1419.

  14. 14.

    See Luhmann (1990), p. 176.

  15. 15.

    Luhmann (1985 [1972]), pp. 259–260.

  16. 16.

    Habermas (1998 [1996]), p. 251.

  17. 17.

    Teubner (1983), p. 266; Willke (1992), p. 366.

  18. 18.

    Luhmann (1992b), p. 397.

  19. 19.

    Teubner (2004), p. 15. For more detail, see Teubner (2012).

  20. 20.

    Teubner (2011), p. 3.

  21. 21.

    See Craig (2014), p. 19; Fabbrini (2016).

  22. 22.

    Luhmann (1966) p. 36.

  23. 23.

    See ESM (2012), art. 13(3).

  24. 24.

    See Eur. Comm’n (2015).

  25. 25.

    See, e.g., Austin (1832), p. 208. For an overview of the various approaches, see Walz (1930).

  26. 26.

    Henkin (1979), p. 47.

  27. 27.

    See Eur. Comm’n (2018).

  28. 28.

    See Ladeur (2014), pp. 148–151.

  29. 29.

    Luhmann (2004 [1993]), p. 487.

  30. 30.

    Id., p. 481. For an illustration regarding the case of Brazil, see Neves (1992).

  31. 31.

    See Luhmann (2004 [1993]), pp. 142–172.

  32. 32.

    Id., p. 148.

  33. 33.

    See Luhmann (1985 [1972]), pp. 31–40. For an obnoxious example of the distinction between normative and cognitive expectations, see id., p. 33:

    Suppose, for example, one is waiting for a new secretary. This situation contains both cognitive and normative components of expectation. To be sure, the fact that she could be young, pretty and blonde may be cognitively expected; but in these respects it is necessary to adapt to disappointments, i. e. not to insist on blonde hair, ask for it to be dyed, etc. However, it is normatively expected that she should achieve something.

  34. 34.

    See Luhmann (1971), pp. 10–17; Luhmann (1985 [1972]), pp. 261–264.

  35. 35.

    Luhmann (1985 [1972]), p. 262.

  36. 36.

    Id., p. 261.

  37. 37.

    Joerges (2014), p. 251.

  38. 38.

    Kleine (2013).

  39. 39.

    See Tuori and Tuori (2014); Hinarejos (2015a).

  40. 40.

    See Puetter (2006, 2014).

  41. 41.

    Bickerton et al (2015), p. 703; see also Fabbrini (2013), p. 1003.

  42. 42.

    See Dimopoulos (2014), p. 41; Lorz and Sauer (2012), p. 573.

  43. 43.

    See ESM (2012).

  44. 44.

    See Peers (2013), p. 37; Fischer-Lescano and Oberndorfer (2013), p. 9.

  45. 45.

    See ESM (2012), arts. 13, 37–38.

  46. 46.

    See Bauer and Becker (2014), p. 213; Beukers (2013), p. 1579.

  47. 47.

    See ESM (2012), art. 13(3).

  48. 48.

    See Schwarz (2014), p. 389; Meng-Papantoni (2015), p. 3.

  49. 49.

    See Bardutzky and Fahey (2014), p. 341; Hinarejos (2015b), p. 112.

  50. 50.

    See cases cited supra notes 2–3.

  51. 51.

    See, e.g., Case C-226/13, Fahnenbrock and Others v. Hellenic Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2015:383 (11 June 2015).

  52. 52.

    See Ladeur (2006), p. 87; Vesting (2015), pp. 113–115.

  53. 53.

    See Beck (1992 [1986]); Ewald (1986).

  54. 54.

    See Schmitter (1974), p. 85; Ritter (1979), p. 389.

  55. 55.

    See ESM (2012), art. 13(1).

  56. 56.

    Id., art. 13(7).

  57. 57.

    See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1390/12 et al., 135 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 317, 371 (18 March 2014).

  58. 58.

    See Luhmann (1985 [1972]), p. 262.

  59. 59.

    Id.

  60. 60.

    Id., p. 264.

  61. 61.

    See ESM (2015).

  62. 62.

    Luhmann (1985 [1972]), p. 262.

  63. 63.

    Luhmann (2004 [1993]), p. 404.

  64. 64.

    See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 et al., 142 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 123 (21 June 2016).

  65. 65.

    See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13 et al., 134 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 366 (14 Jan. 2014).

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., Avgouleas (2012).

  67. 67.

    See, e.g., Moloney (2014).

  68. 68.

    See Pistor (2013), p. 315.

  69. 69.

    See Augsberg (2015), p. 457; see also Towfigh and Petersen (2015).

  70. 70.

    See, e.g., Scharpf (2011), p. 163; Scicluna (2014), p. 545; Joerges (2015), p. 167.

  71. 71.

    See also Goldmann and Steininger, chapter “A Discourse Theoretical Approach to Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Towards a Democratic Financial Order”.

  72. 72.

    In a different context, see Peters (2007), p. 273.

  73. 73.

    For a related concept of democracy within the nation-state, see Rosanvallon (2008 [2006]). For some applications to international law, see Krisch (2010), pp. 264–276; Ley (2015), p. 717.

  74. 74.

    Ladeur (2004), p. 113.

References

  • Augsberg I (2015) Some realism about new legal realism: what’s new, what’s legal, what’s real? Leiden J Int L 28:457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin J (1832) The province of jurisprudence determined. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Avgouleas E (2012) Governance of global financial markets: the law, the economics, the politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bardutzky S, Fahey E (2014) Who got to adjudicate the EU’s financial crisis and why? Judicial review of the legal instruments of the Eurozone. In: Adams M et al (eds) The constitutionalization of European budgetary constraints. Hart, Oxford, p 341

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer MW, Becker S (2014) The unexpected winner of the crisis: the European Commission’s strengthened role in economic governance. J Eur Integration 36:213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1992 [1986]) Risk society: towards a new modernity (trans: Ritter M). Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Beukers T (2013) The new ECB and its relationship with the Eurozone Member States: between central bank independence and central bank intervention. Common Mkt L Rev 50:1579

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton CJ et al (2015) The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the post-Maastricht era. J Common Mkt Stud 53:703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (1961) The welfare state in historical perspective. Eur J Soc 2:221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A, Goldmann M (2013) Sovereign debt restructurings as exercises of international public authority: towards a decentralized sovereign insolvency law. In: Espósito C et al (eds) Sovereign financing and international law: the UNCTAD principles on responsible sovereign lending and borrowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A et al (2015) Verlustrisiko: Griechenlands Schuldenlast kann und muss im Euroraum erleichtert werden. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 July 2015, p 6. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/staat-und-recht/griechenland-krise-schuldenschnitt-auch-ohne-grexit-moeglich-13715803.html. Accessed 8 January 2018

  • Craig P (2014) Economic governance and the Euro crisis: constitutional architecture and constitutional implications. In: Adams M et al (eds) The constitutionalization of European budgetary constraints. Hart, Oxford, p 19

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos A (2014) The use of international law as a tool for enhancing governance in the Eurozone and its impact on EU constitutional integrity. In: Adams M et al (eds) The constitutionalization of European budgetary constraints. Hart, Oxford, p 41

    Google Scholar 

  • ESM (2012) Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, 2 February 2012. https://www.esm.europa.eu/sites/default/files/20150203_-_esm_treaty_-_en.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2018

  • ESM (2015) Financial Assistance Facility Agreement Between European Stability Mechanism and the Hellenic Republic and the Bank of Greece and Hellenic Financial Stability Fund, 19 August 2015. https://www.esm.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2015-08-19gr-esm-ffapublicationversion.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2018

  • Eur Comm’n (2015) Memorandum of Understanding Between the European Commission Acting on Behalf of the European Stability Mechanism and the Hellenic Republic and the Bank of Greece, 19 August 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/01_mou_20150811_en1.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2018

  • Eur Comm’n (2018) Overview of Ongoing and Closed Excessive Deficit Procedures, 8 January 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/eu-economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/stability-and-growth-pact/corrective-arm-excessive-deficit-procedure/excessive-deficit-procedures-overview_en. Accessed 8 January 2018

  • Ewald F (1986) L’État providence. Grasset, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini F (2016) Economic governance in Europe: comparative paradoxes, constitutional challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini S (2013) Intergovernmentalism and its limits: assessing the European Union’s answer to the Euro crisis. Comp Pol Stud 46:1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano A, Oberndorfer L (2013) Fiskalvertrag und Unionsrecht: Unionsrechtliche Grenzen völkervertraglicher Fiskalregulierung und Organleihe. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 66:9

    Google Scholar 

  • de Gregorio Merino A (2012) Legal developments in the economic and monetary union during the debt crisis: the mechanisms of financial assistance. Common Mkt L Rev 49:1613

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1998 [1996]) Three normative models of democracy. In: The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory (trans: Cronin C). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge (MA), p 239

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1979) How nations behave: law and foreign policy, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinarejos A (2015a) The Euro area crisis in constitutional perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hinarejos A (2015b) The role of courts in the wake of the Eurozone crisis. In: Dawson M et al (eds) Beyond the crisis: the governance of Europe’s economic, political, and legal transformation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2014) Law and politics in Europe’s crisis: on the history of the impact of an unfortunate configuration. Constellations 21:249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joerges C (2015) Europe’s legitimacy in the crisis. In: Dawson M et al (eds) Beyond the crisis: the governance of Europe’s economic, political, and legal transformation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 167

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaer PF et al (ed) (2011) The financial crisis in constitutional perspective: the dark side of functional differentiation. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleine M (2013) Informal governance in the European Union: how governments make international organizations work. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2010) Beyond constitutionalism: the pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K-H (2004) Globalization and the conversion of democracy to polycentric networks: can democracy survive the end of the nation-state? In: Ladeur K-H (ed) Public governance in the age of globalization. Ashgate, Aldershot, p 89

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K-H (2006) The postmodern condition of law and societal “management of rules”: facts and norms revisited. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 27:87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur K-H (2014) Diesseits der Rechtsgemeinschaft: Die “instituierende Gewalt” der sozialen Regeln und die Grenzen der europäischen Integration. In: Kadelbach S, Günther K (eds) Europa: Krise, Umbruch und neue Ordnung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 139

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ley I (2015) Opposition in international law: alternativity and revisibility as elements of a legitimacy concept for public international law. Leiden J Int L 28:717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorz RA, Sauer H (2012) Ersatzunionsrecht und Grundgesetz: Verfassungsrechtliche Zustimmungsgrundlagen für den Fiskalpakt, den ESM-Vertrag und die Änderung des AEUV. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 65:573

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1966) Recht und Automation in der öffentlichen Verwaltung: Eine verwaltungswissenschaftliche Untersuchung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1971) Die Weltgesellschaft. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 57:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1985 [1972]) A sociological theory of law (trans: King E, Albrow M). Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1990 [1981]) Political theory in the welfare state (trans: Bednarz J). De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1990) Verfassung als evolutionäre Errungenschaft. Rechtshistorisches Journal 9:176

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1992a) Operational closure and structural coupling: the differentiation of the legal system. Cardozo L Rev 13:1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1992b) Some problems with “reflexive law”. In: Teubner G, Febbrajo A (eds) State, law, and economy as autopoietic systems: regulation and autonomy in a new perspective. Giuffrè, Milan, p 389

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1995 [1984]) Social systems (trans: Bednarz J). Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1998) Der Staat des politischen Systems: Geschichte und Stellung in der Weltgesellschaft. In: Beck U (ed) Perspektiven der Weltgesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, p 345

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (2004 [1993]) Law as a social system (trans: Ziegert KA). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng-Papantoni M (2015) Legal aspects of the memoranda of understanding in the Greek debt crisis. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 18:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moloney N (2014) EU securities and financial markets regulation, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Neves M (1992) Verfassung und Positivität des Rechts in der peripheren Moderne: Eine theoretische Betrachtung und eine Interpretation des Falls Brasilien. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2013) towards a new form of EU law?: the use of EU institutions outside the EU legal framework. Eur Const L Rev 9:37

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2007) The globalization of state constitutions. In: Nijman J, Nollkaemper A (eds) New perspectives on the divide between national and international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 251

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pistor K (2013) A legal theory of finance. J Comp Econ 41:315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puetter U (2006) The Eurogroup: how a secretive circle of finance ministers shape European Economic Governance. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Puetter U (2014) The European Council and the Council: new intergovernmentalism and institutional change. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter E-H (1979) Der kooperative Staat: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis von Staat und Wirtschaft. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 104:389

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon P (2008 [2006]) Counter-democracy: politics in an age of distrust (trans: Goldhammer A). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (2011) Monetary union, fiscal crisis and the pre-emption of democracy. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 9:163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter PC (1974) Still the century of corporatism? Rev Pol 36:85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz M (2014) A memorandum of misunderstanding—the doomed road of the European stability mechanism and a possible way out: enhanced cooperation. Common Mkt L Rev 51:389

    Google Scholar 

  • Scicluna N (2014) Politicization without democratization: how the Eurozone crisis is transforming EU law and politics. Int J Const L 12:545

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbach A (2016) The “haircut” of public creditors under EU law. Eur Const L Rev 12:223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (1983) Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law Soc Rev 17:239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2004) Societal constitutionalism: alternatives to state-centered constitutional theory? In: Joerges C et al (ed) Transnational governance and constitutionalism. Hart, Oxford, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2011) A constitutional moment? The logics of “hitting the bottom”. In: Kjaer PF et al (ed) The financial crisis in constitutional perspective: the dark side of functional differentiation. Hart, Oxford, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2012) Constitutional fragments: societal constitutionalism and globalization (trans: Norbury G). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Towfigh EV, Petersen N (eds) (2015) Economic methods for lawyers. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuori K, Tuori K (2014) The Eurozone crisis: a constitutional analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesting T (2015) Rechtstheorie, 2nd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Walz GA (1930) Wesen des Völkerrechts und Kritik der Völkerrechtsleugner. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Willke H (1992) Societal guidance through law? In: Teubner G, Febbrajo A (eds) State, law, and economy as autopoietic systems: regulation and autonomy in a new perspective. Giuffrè, Milan, p 353

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Viellechner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Viellechner, L. (2018). The Limits of Law (and Democracy) in the Euro Crisis: An Approach from Systems Theory. In: Goldmann, M., Steininger, S. (eds) Democracy and Financial Order: Legal Perspectives. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 273. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55568-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55568-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55567-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55568-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics