When the Treaty of Rome (the Treaty) was signed, the legal profession believed it had no impact on its organisation. Yet, from the very beginning, the Directorate General (DG) Internal Market started to work on a directive that would facilitate the circulation of lawyers within the European market. This article is based on the analysis of the 16-year debates leading up to the adoption of the 1977 Directive, which facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services. It adopts a bottom-up, actor-centered approach, to understand the role of lawyers and the importance of legal professions in the construction of the common market. Using archival study, interviews and legal analysis, the article shows that the integration of European legal professions cannot be understood without studying the historical structures of each national profession. Moreover, the rallying of lawyers to the European project can only be attributed to the active interpretative work of multipositioned actors.

One of the more remarkable developments in European law is the sudden ‘waking up’ of the European Court of Human Rights in the middle of the 1970s. This article, on the basis of extensive archival materials, follows grassroots actors as they discovered what had been a dormant part of European law, key academics with their own plans for the system and governmental officials debating in the corridors of Strasbourg in order to shed light on this development. The article argues this ‘waking up’ wasn’t the result of a top-down initiative by the Court, but rather the result of a bottom-up movement instigated by a variety of actors. As such, it ties into the recent debates on why and how actors turn to and shape European law (broadly conceived), as well as to why the Court turned active in this period. It makes the case for combining a bottom-up approach with the analysis of governmental policy- and decision-making to examine this change, as from the individual complaints grew a campaign to fundamentally change the entire system of European human rights protection.

Christian Joerges is a scholar whose work spills over the conventional boundaries between public and private law, social science and legal theory, law and public policy, empirical inquiry and normative philosophy. This essay brings into focus Joerges’s under-appreciated role as a prescient, critical intellectual biographer of European integration. It argues that Joerges’s work has helped to diagnose, explain, and dismantle three misconceptions or myths with which European integration has been saddled from its formative decades. These misconceptions are (1) that the European integration project is ‘self-legitimating’ and therefore politically neutral; (2) that the delegation of decision-making authority to supranational institutions is constitutionally neutral; and (3) that there can be an epistemologically neutral, authoritative disciplinary perspective from which to comprehend European integration. Breaking the hold of these misconceptions is an essential step towards gaining a critical understanding of the promises and limitations of European integration today.

This article examines how EU rights and laws serve as legal opportunity structures for women’s rights activists in Europe. Further, it examines what effects this transnational activism has on the permanence and inclusion of public interests and gender equality in EU legal and political processes. The analysis examines the legal domain of EU women’s rights over a thirty-year period. Methodologically, the study relies on case law analysis, primary document collections, and interviews with non-governmental organizations and governmental elites at both the EU and the national level. I ask how legal mobilization can serve as a catalyst for institutional change (by influencing litigation and legislative action), and how this effects subsequent EU-level women’s rights mobilization and public inclusion.

Response of national highest courts to the ECJ's integrationist agenda – Logic behind qualified acceptance of EU law supremacy and direct effect – Several possible explanations for the observed inter-court variation: the courts’ type and organisation; their power to review legislative acts under domestic law; the rules governing access to the judicial forum; the monistic tradition of the legal system and the level of public support for European integration – Assessment of empirical validity of these hypotheses using a new dataset coding the doctrinal positions and institutional constraints of 34 domestic highest courts – Most correlations small – Only one variable – the power to review statutory legislation under national law – appears to have a significant influence on the courts’ doctrinal response to legal integration – Some support for the argument that the varying institutional constraints and incentives under which highest court judges operate shape the way they accommodate and reconcile two conflicting goals

Habermas's normative vision – Strengths and deficiencies – European Union democracy as solution to global problems – Necessity of developing a European civil society – Normative ideal, functional mechanisms, empirical reexamination – Habermas's criticism of Euro-skeptics – Substance-through-procedure mode of social integration – Adequacy of procedural substance questioned – Empirical limits to Habermasian European Union democracy – ‘Multi-segmented governance’ in the European Union – Supranational redistribution? – Legal integration has not facilitated social integration – Scharpf, Weiler, Joerges, Schmitter – Habermas's Sozialstaat principles jeopardized on Union level – Structural obstacle to coordinated European social welfare policy – European politics will resemble Sektoralstaat – Participation, egalitarianism and accountability