Finality vs. Enlargement - Constitutive Practices and
Opposing Rationales in the Reconstruction of Europe.
The paper argues that the parallel
development of the debate over political finality, on the one hand, and
compliance with the accession acquis, on the other, brings two opposing action
rationales to the fore. Depending upon how deliberation about finality and
compliance proceeds, compliance can either mean conflict or smooth adaptation
and successful revision of political procedures. The benchmark for success
might not be constituted by an ever growing reservoir of detailed elaborations
on governance principles or yet another plan to bring Europe 'closer to the
citizen' but might lie in a concept that enables the establishment of equal
access to deliberation for all participating parties. The paper focuses on the
necessity of interdisciplinary work that straddles the boundaries of law and
the social sciences in order to bring the constitutive impact of the
interrelated finality and compliance rationales to the fore. It argues that
resonance with evolving constitutional substance will be enhanced by a
constitutionalized space for deliberation that allows for dialogic politics.
Theoretically, the paper advances a societal approach to compliance.