Sognsveien 68 (map)
Since 2008, the European Union faces a range of existential threats between populism, technocracy, and mediatisation. How can the EU address the rise of populist parties, the expanding role of the EU’s depoliticized bodies, and the world of social media?
If the EU admits that it is a federation, the Union might be better able to strike the right balance between the supranational and national levels. Professor John Erik Fossum wants to revive the controversial concept.
European citizenship poses a theoretical challenge to the paradigmatic understanding of citizenship as congruence between nation, state, and membership rights. This challenge is addressed in this paper by focusing on ideal typical models of the EU polity. Is EU citizenship more nation-based, federal, or cosmopolitan?
ARENA Working Paper 4/2011 (No full text version available)
Espen D. H. Olsen
The paper critically examines the democratic theory that informs the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Lisbon Treaty ruling, and argues that the ruling and the justification speak to several – distinctly different – models of democracy.
Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum
This paper sheds some light on the peaceful and democratic transformation of the nation-state occurring in Europe. It offers a systematic comparison of the EU experience with that of Canada, a democracy variously referred to as a post-national entity, multinational federation, or confederation.
ARENA Working Paper 28/2002 (html)
John Erik Fossum
While a federal order often involves a conflict between (individual) equality and (regional) autonomy, it is argued in this paper that the additional advantages of autonomy point towards federal arrangements - insofar as no fundamental rights are under threat.
ARENA Working Paper 08/2001 (html)
In a time where Europeans reflect on how to reflect human rights and solidarity in the Constitutional Treaty, this paper develops a theory of federal justice to respond to some key issues. Aspiring to supplement Rawls’ Law of the Peoples, particular emphasis is put on the justification of differentiated human rights and distributive inequality in a federal order.
This paper gives an assessment of the EFTA Court at the tenth anniversary of its existence. It is argued here that from the point of view of national courts, ther is no discernible difference in jurisdiction between the EFTA Court and the European Court of Justice. Other factores, such as institutional and cultural legacies in the member states more significantly affect the supply of referrals from national courts.
Hans Petter Graver