The European Parliament’s current proposal to take away the unanimity requirement from Article 19 TFEU (non-discrimination laws) echoes a centuries-old US debate on voting and minority rights. James Madison, the ‘father’ of the US Structure defended majority voting as a vital situation for neutral law-making and minority safety in multi-state unions. Conversely, John C. Calhoun, the then Vice US President and a key advocate of slavery, sought to take care of the racial status-quo by way of advocating for a unanimity-based construction.
The aim of the weblog is twofold. First, it utilises US constitutional historical past to indicate how unanimity voting can operate as a instrument to perpetuate the unjust established order to the detriment of minority rights. On this regard, partial similarities are drawn between the present Article 19 TFEU and Calhoun’s voting mannequin. Secondly, it contrasts the pragmatic nature of the travaux préparatoires of Article 19 TFEU with the principled strategy of the US debate. This juxtaposition underscores the significance of anchoring the proposed treaty adjustments within the foundational ideas of Western constitutionalism. Particularly, it highlights the nemo judex rule — ‘not being the decide in a single’s personal trigger’ — a precept that formed the US constitutional debate however was surprisingly absent within the drafting historical past of Article 19 TFEU. The weblog exhibits why this explicit precept must be thought of within the debate on the European Parliament’s proposal to amend Article 19 TFEU. Addressing the foundational function of this precept in Western constitutional idea supplies extra assist for eradicating the unanimity requirement from Article 19 TFEU. This variation might assist guarantee higher safety of minority rights according to the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. You will need to make clear that the time period ‘minorities’ right here refers to underprivileged segments of societies based mostly on racial or ethnic origin, faith, or perception, among the many essential grounds protected beneath Article 19 TFEU – aligning with the EU Fee’s definition.
The Madison (majority) vs. Calhoun (unanimity) debate
In making the case for a union over unitary states, Madison argued that in unitary states, the bulk’s management of legislative our bodies allows them to successfully ‘be the decide of their very own case’ and legislate in a fashion that serves their pursuits, usually to the detriment of minorities. The most effective means to counteract majoritarian biases is for states to combine inside a bigger union, the place numerous majorities can stability one another, compelling settlement on widespread ideas which can be extra prone to lean in direction of egalitarianism. Madison’s argument from the nemo judex rule is advanced and rests on sure assumptions, however the chart beneath visualizes the essence of his argument.
Assume there are 5 equally populated states, every dominated by a racial majority with different dispersed racial minorities. The states then come collectively into an integrative union. For easy arithmetical causes, robust state majorities get diluted on the union stage (as an example, group A within the chart shifts from 90% domestically to 18% on the union stage). With majority-based voting, no single group can dominate independently. Slightly, teams should compromise to deal with widespread pursuits. This mutual test on state majorities can present some safety for minorities by making certain that no single home group unilaterally decides issues for the entire union.
This Madisonian argument has been examined in lots of instances, as proven by Halberstam, amongst others. Minority rights in America have improved considerably within the so-called ‘Civil Rights Period’ when these rights have been determined on the federal stage somewhat than left to the majorities of states. Different examples within the US embrace varied fiscal and financial laws, the place voting on the union stage broke the abusive management of native majorities and offered extra balanced outcomes.
Essentially the most (in)well-known problem to Madison’s argument got here from Calhoun, the twice US Vice President and the American South’s ‘evil genius’. Calhoun was recognized for shifting the slavery debate from being a ‘vital evil’ to being a ‘morally good’ apply and his idea on voting is intently associated to his place on slavery. Whereas accepting the benefits of multi-state union, he feared that majority voting would result in the emancipation of slaves and disturb the ‘racial hierarchy’. He thus provided a competing voting mechanism rooted in unanimity or what he termed ‘concurring majorities’. To problem Madison’s reasoning, he employed two arguments which can resonate with EU legal professionals: the indivisibly of sovereignty and its concomitant ‘no demos’ thesis. Calhoun famous that sovereignty is ‘a complete factor;—to divide, is,—to destroy it’. To him, this indivisible sovereignty lies with ‘the folks of a number of states’ as a result of there’s ‘no different folks’ on the union stage. Subsequently, his concurring majority mannequin signifies that majority is barely acceptable inside states (as a result of folks there are sovereign) however not on the union stage (the place there is no such thing as a demos nor sovereignty) and thus the union should operate on the premise of unanimity.
House precludes a full dialogue of Madison’s reply to Calhoun (which is mentioned elsewhere). It’s price noting right here that unanimity voting undermines the ‘nemo judex’ rule by permitting one state majority to guage its personal case and block laws beneficial to minorities throughout the complete union. On this sense, it quantities to the tyranny of the few. The Madison-Calhoun and their majority vs unanimity debate was finally resolved in Madison’s favour in two methods. First, the end result of civil warfare relegated Calhoun to the historical past ‘dustbin odium’.
Second, many comparative case research attest to the effectiveness Madison’s argument that majority voting in a multi-state union tends to, topic to some situations, present extra egalitarian outcomes. In depth literature covers this situation, citing examples resembling the advance of minority rights within the US when rules shifted to the federal stage in comparison with the state stage, as beforehand mentioned. Within the EU, some spotlight how the regulation of intercourse equality within the office grew to become extra egalitarian by way of becoming a member of the European Neighborhood in comparison with leaving the matter to home legislation. Different examples abound as mentioned by Halberstam amongst others.
With this comparative and historic background in thoughts we are able to now discover how this debate influences Artwork 19 TFEU and the proposed treaty revision.
Calhoun vs Article 19 TFEU’s current
Whereas the problem of slavery has receded into the annals of historical past, the rationale behind Calhoun’s unanimity idea has discovered echoes within the EU’s Article 19, albeit inadvertently. Article 19 mandates unanimity amongst Member States within the Council to ‘fight discrimination based mostly on intercourse, racial or ethnic origin’ amongst different grounds. It have to be famous that the similarity between the EU’s strategy and Calhoun’s is barely partial due to the divergent socio-political circumstances that he laboured beneath in comparison with in the present day.
Nonetheless, this partiality doesn’t exclude some similarity in essence and consequence. In essence, his mechanism aimed to make sure that the union would act solely by way of consensus, that is similar to Article 19 TFEU’s requirement for consensus to ‘fight discrimination’. By way of consequence, the similarity lies in perpetuating the established order. On the coronary heart of Calhoun’s idea is the will to insulate the established order from change as a lot as doable. But, the established order, as Sunstein notes, is usually ‘neither impartial nor simply’. To insulate the established order from change is to perpetuate the injustices befalling most of the underrepresented elements of the society. Article 19 TFEU insulates the established order of EU minorities and its concomitant injustice. Whereas Calhoun’s mannequin was not utilized, Article 19 TFEU has been utilized.
Since its adoption, the legislative reliance on Article 19 TFEU has been exceedingly uncommon. The one two measures enacted utilizing the article date again to 2000 and have been induced by the Haider Affair as an ‘uncommon twist of political destiny’. Nonetheless, after greater than 20 years, the consequence of Article 19 TFEU, as many have famous, has rendered the EU ‘minority agnostic’ and its contribution ‘restricted’ to ‘all however probably the most anodyne of actions’, leaving minorities on the mercy of the ‘tyranny of veto’.
An instance of the influence of unanimity in perpetuating inaction is highlighted within the current report of the EP’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Residence Affairs. It laments the 16-year failure to go the EU Horizontal Directive on equal therapy throughout completely different grounds in respect of products and companies which stays unadopted for the reason that 2008 Fee proposal resulting from a ‘blockage’ on the Council stage. The Council’s strategy is in stark distinction to the Parliament, which, unshackled by unanimity, authorized the proposal as early as 2009.
The influence of unanimity can also be proven by evaluating Artwork 19 TFEU to areas or establishments the place unanimity is just not required. Most clearly, intercourse equality, usually unshackled by unanimity stays probably the most protected floor the place 9 directives have been efficiently enacted and transposed.
Whereas area precludes a full evaluation of the substance of EU non-discrimination legislation past gender, it suffices to say that unanimity has been criticised for slowing the event of this space of legislation to the detriment of racial, ethnic and non secular minorities. As an illustration, the Fee blamed Article 19 TFEU’s unanimity requirement for resulting in ‘an inconsistent authorized framework and an incoherent influence of Union legislation on folks’s lives’. Furthermore, de Búrca remarked the Race Equality Directive is a ‘extra real framework in nature, in as far as it comprises a common prescription … to which States should commit themselves, however with out prescribing intimately how that is to be achieved’. Relatedly, the prevailing directives, as Bell argues, nearly solely depend on the ‘passive’ safety by way of ‘complaints-based’ enforcement, which is especially inadequate to rectify historic inequalities of racism. Based on the Fee’s personal reckoning, the prevailing legislative framework ‘is just not sufficient to resolve the deep-rooted social exclusion’. Many has referred to the failure to stop the ill-treatment of Roma minorities in lots of member states. Kornezov has confirmed that risks of unanimity for minority rights extends even past inaction as it may possibly make issues worse for minorities domestically by way of disincentivizing states from offering any particular benefits for its native minorities. He remarked that ‘nearly any proper reserved for a particular group of residents of a selected Member State who belong to a minority have to be opened as much as any EU citizen from different Member States’. Thus, others have lamented the shortage of EU legislative response to repair these hurdles as effectively issues resembling affirmative actions and different proactive measures wanted to fight non-discrimination.
One other instance is said to how the shortcoming to go additional legislative measure contributes to hindering jurisprudential improvement. Contemplating the failure to go the horizontal 2008 directive, as EU legislation at the moment stands, it might be ‘lawful’ to disclaim companies for somebody manifesting a spiritual image, be it a Sikh turban, a Jewish yarmulke, or a Muslim scarf. The Court docket can not merely lengthen the safety right here to these minorities. As Advocate Normal Mazák famous, ‘Article 19 TFEU is just an empowering provision’ and as such ‘it can not have direct impact’. He cautioned that any judicial activism on this space ‘[n]ot solely would … elevate critical issues in relation to authorized certainty, it might additionally name into query the distribution of competence between the Neighborhood and the Member States, and the attribution of powers beneath the Treaty basically’. Circularity and the ‘constitutional catch 22’ is clear right here. Unanimity can’t be interpreted away, and the Council with its present 27 Member States can not simply comply with broaden legislations past the prevailing measures.
Total, the unfavourable influence of unanimity of Artwork 19 TFEU is well-documented within the Fee’s communications in addition to scholarly work to warrant abstract right here.This dissatisfaction lies on the core of the proposed modification of Artwork 19 to which we now flip.
Travaux préparatoires and Article 19 TFEU’s Future
Following the convention on the Way forward for Europe, which gathered enter from European residents and resulted in forty-nine proposals, the European Parliament tasked the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) with finalising a report on the draft proposed amendments. In November 2023, the Parliament voted in favour of a variety of amendments and referred to as for a conference to revise the treaty.
The vote included approving a draft proposal to amend Artwork 19 TFEU trough introducing majority voting as a substitute of unanimity in addition to increasing ‘non-discrimination protections to gender, social origin, language, political opinion and membership of a nationwide minority’. Whereas this a commendable step, the absence of reasoning from first ideas within the accompanying Parliamentary reviews raises an alarm from the travaux préparatoires of Artwork 19 TFEU (ex-Artwork 13 TEC). The drafting historical past of the article channelled Calhoun (unanimity as a concomitant of indivisible sovereignty) however not Madison and his use of the European sources citing the nemo judex rule.
Archives present that the unique draft of Article 19 (ex 13 TEC) within the Amsterdam Treaty contained certified majority voting however strain from a couple of Member States led by the UK managed to weaken the Article by requiring unanimity for its use. The UK Parliament’s archives demonstrates that the British view, which concurring member states hid behind, noticed very similar to Calhoun, that the ‘the defence of sovereignty is sure up with the idea of veto’.
Whereas sure parallels may be drawn between Calhoun’s argument from sovereignty and the place of the UK-led faction, it’s important to underscore an vital distinction between the place of Member States endorsing majority voting and that of Madison. While Madison made a transparent recourse to first constitutional ideas, representatives of European states supporting majority voting relied solely on pragmatic arguments which have been described as missing a transparent ‘course’. Commentators famous that the Irish Presidency ‘didn’t push the negotiations alongside’ and to articulate compelling standards to find out which issues must be topic to certified majority voting.
What’s shocking is that Madison straight engaged with sources of European constitutional idea utilizing the nemo judex rule. The exact same precept has been missed within the allocation of decision-making process throughout the Article negotiation. This oversight is placing contemplating that the precept was leitmotiv many foundational textual content of European Constitutional idea (e.g in Locke and Hobbes). Extra lately the maxim has been invoked earlier than the CJEU and lays the muse of the correct to an neutral tribunal enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution. The absence of foundational ideas allowed the unanimity aspect to prevail on pragmatic grounds, with out fostering the constitutionally enriching debate witnessed within the US.
The nemo judex argument and its historical past exhibits unanimity’s notably disproportionate price for racial, non secular and ethnic minorities. Choosing unanimity for non-discrimination laws speaks volumes concerning the precedence of this area. This demonstrates both full discard for foundational constitutional idea or intentional discard of minorities. While Article 2 TFEU upgrades minority rights to an EU worth, the unanimity selection relegates its safety to the bottom stage.
Advocates of reform shouldn’t be discouraged by their opponents wielding the sovereignty argument to defend unanimity. This argument would have been convincing had Article 19 not been straight preceded by Articles 18 (discrimination on grounds of nationality) which requires majority voting, as does 157 TFEU (equal alternatives of women and men). Furthermore, recourse to majority doesn’t threaten states and there are safeguards to states which I element right here. Even in sovereignty-guarding states just like the UK, for the reason that Factortame II judgment, courts have reconciled EU powers with sovereignty on the premise that Member States have voluntarily transferred some powers to the EU and sovereignty is preserved by way of retaining the final word energy to exit. Moreover, as Triantafyllou famous, regardless of the EU’s declare to being a ‘new authorized order’ it’s lagging behind in lots of worldwide organisations, which now use majority voting somewhat than unanimity to amend their very own constitution.
To be clear, whereas the nemo judex rule is essential for minority rights, it doesn’t necessitate the elimination of unanimity in areas such because the Widespread Overseas and Safety coverage (CFSP). Such space, as an example, doesn’t essentially contain a direct battle between racial majorities and minorities the place the nemo judex in causa sua rule applies. Subsequently, addressing which voting process is appropriate for this space could require balancing varied competing elements, extending past the scope of the present weblog and as defined elsewhere.
To conclude, the weblog makes use of insights from comparative constitutional historical past to indicate how unanimity can operate as a instrument to perpetuate the unjust established order to the detriment of minority rights. This evaluation goals to assist the European Parliament’s proposal of transferring Article 19 to majority voting akin to articles 18 and 157 TFEU. This may enable the EU to strengthen its much-needed function on this space and to keep away from the pitfalls that befell Calhoun’s racially motivated mannequin. This will additionally allow the EU to uphold the values outlined in Article 2 TFEU, which explicitly embrace minority rights, and to respect the centuries-long historical past of the nemo judex in causa sua precept in Western constitutional idea. Total, understanding the interlinkages between the constitutional precept of nemo judex and the unanimity versus majority debate is of well timed relevance to bigger debates throughout the EU.
Admittedly, treaty modification is advanced and troublesome to safe, however historical past could counsel in opposition to despair. The introduction of the EU’s competence to incorporate non-discrimination past gender within the first place was solely made doable after relentless activism, contributions from the Kahn Fee Report, and the political efforts of the European Parliament. Now, revising the treaty appears to be ‘steadily gaining floor’ — probably in anticipation of the EU’s additional enlargement. If the Parliament’s name for a conference is materialised, heeding classes from comparative historical past and reasoning from first ideas of western constitutionalism can present mental ammunition to the reform endeavours in opposition to Calhoun-like pondering.
