This paper presents the overarching aim of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence on the Rule of Law and European Values CRoLEV to participate to the societal enhancement of justice in Europe and beyond, to contribute to overall social harmony, by eventually deploying some aspects of the societal reality of the rule of law and European values with international reach. Through the study of the impact of the rule of law and European values on the enhancement of societal balances locally, with repercussions across Europe and beyond, we wish to reflect on societal reality and eventually contribute to sustainable justice beyond EU frontiers and concepts. Many States in Europe but also worldwide have been heavily affected by emergency situations such as economic crises and war, migration and refugee crises, and by the fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic, facing as a result renewed global phenomenon of social inequality, polarisation, misinformation, digital and societal transformations, all having a direct impact on social harmony across jurisdictions. Yet, social harmony is not often directly associated with rule of law indicators but rather with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ultimately, there is a need to advance the societal meaning of the rule of law and European values, of direct interest to any human being, generations to come, and societies, shifting focus from rule of law and values conditionality to rule of law and values sustainability.

The European Union (EU) is in a serious rule of law crisis. This is not only important from a legal perspective, it also raises important sociological questions. Yet, now that we need empirical answers more than ever, our methodological toolbox is still mostly empty. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to explore the contours of an empirical approach to the rule of law. We develop this new ‘social science that does not yet exist’ in three steps: (1) we focus on the social foundations of the rule of law; (2) we introduce a Living Rule of Law approach; and (3) we use a mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods. The paper concludes that this empirical approach is not only relevant for our understanding of the EU rule of law crisis, it may also contribute to an interdisciplinary research agenda to study the rule of law and the EU in general.

A strong rule of law creates both normative and public legitimacy for the EU. This contribution shows the results of three empirical studies which examine how important the rule of law and other (moral) values are to EU citizens, whether EU law reflects these values, and what that means for people’s perceptions of EU legitimacy. We also test a legitimation intervention which aligns EU law with people’s values.

Study 1 was conducted among 1136 people from six Member States. It provides preliminary evidence that when people believe that the EU endorses values that are important to them (i.e., democracy, liberty, fairness, rule of law, respect for national authority, respect for tradition), they perceive the EU to be more legitimate.

Study 2 then examined to what extent EU laws reflect deeper moral intuitions. While measuring moral reasoning processes, we asked 595 people from six Member States to evaluate 40 rules of EU law. Perceived EU legitimacy increased when support for EU laws was higher. Support was higher among people who value individual rights and well-being than people who value the protection of ingroups and existing institutions. The latter group especially rejected the primacy of EU law over national law. Moral values were irrelevant when participants evaluated internal market-related rules.

Study 3 tested among 567 Dutch people whether aligning the legal principle of primacy with people’s values enhances perceived EU legitimacy. We changed either the discursive content (i.e., reframing) or the legal content (i.e., rebalancing) of the message about primacy to match it with one of five values: care for/equality of people, loyalty to the national ingroup, respect for authority, individual liberty, and economic prosperity. While we expected stronger effects when moral values were matched, we found that reframing towards economic values effectively increased legitimacy across the entire sample. Furthermore, legitimacy increased among people with a ‘conservative moral palette’ when it was emphasized that primacy contributes to the obligation for EU law to respect Member States’ constitutional identity and traditions. These effects were not found when primacy was rebalanced. Reframing communications about EU law may thus better reach citizens than reporting about alternative legal procedures, even though these may have stronger legal effects.

We conclude that while the EU should care about moral diversity and show respect for national identities, appealing to output may be a way to legitimize the EU when a moral conflict emerges in EU law.