Conference Agenda

European integration through law has traditionally been presented as a legal and political integration of States, limited to the Member States of the European Union (EU). This paper challenges this approach on three fronts. First, European societal integration can take place within societies, through EU-derived individual and collective rights. Second, this type of integration through rights stretches beyond the EU into its neighbourhood through agreements occasionally clashing with Russia’s increasing incursion in this region. Last, EU-derived rights may also lead to societal disintegration and rupture due to “points of failure” of the integration through rights framework. The outcome is an integration that is both broader in scope and more differentiated than is currently posited.

To support these claims, we rely on an interdisciplinary approach combining law, sociology, and political science. Mapping out different areas and topics of relevance to EU-derived societal integration, we identify key instruments and rights. We then comparatively map out the discourse in academic literature as well as through media analysis of four EU Member States and four EU neighbourhood states, all with less than 10 million inhabitants (small states). We also map out the relevant modalities through which rights are used and claimed in these eight countries, ranging from litigation to societal discourse. The resulting multidisciplinary and multi-language review is presented as an interim stage of an overall research project refining on understanding of societal integration (and disintegration) through EU-derived rights through qualitative comparative empirical research.

The rise of populist radical right-wing (PRR) politics and populist radical right-wing parties (PRRP) has generated significant academic interest. Moving from the fringes to power, these groups generally employ similar public policy strategies to achieve similar public policy priorities. However, this is not always the case and PRRPs maintain significant diversity while converging around other policy goals. This begs the question, under what conditions does PRR policy diffuse? While the existing literature on diffusion provides a useful framework, rather less attention has been paid to the development of transnational PRRP networks. To this end, I call for the development of a research agenda on the diffusion of PRR policy diffusion. Drawing on theories of PRRPs and policy diffusion, I outline ways in which the two strands of literature interact and the contours of just such an agenda. Although still operating within the diffusion framework, I argue that we should not expect PRR diffusion to occur under identical conditions given the distinct ontologies of PRRPs.

The present resurgence of far-right movements all around Europe is not a shocking event as embarrassing as it may be. We lived for the last eight decades in an idealistic bubble created on our bet that the entire society was there for democratic values and narratives, for dialogue and continuous adaptation to a fluid societal culture. Accepting the dissenters’ right to keep their beliefs, we failed to understand the growing wave of discontent approaching in order to rock our boat. The laws against the extremist propaganda are in force but were not used to protect us from far-right mobilization and now, we may easily find these parties in almost all the European parliaments, in the EU one as well as on the local or regional level councils. They all claim the right to preserve a so-called traditional identity and complain about the democratic forces to have fully disregarded it through their governmental exercise. This envelope includes rational control over irrational claims, EU membership, acceptance of EU law preeminence, international cooperation and compromise on a supranational arena.

What seems to be common-sense behavior on the political stage was never a proper common good at the societal one, proof being, at least, Machiavelli’s teachings to the prince. But our age gives voice to people lacking both political culture and understanding of the rules, demands and busy political agenda; there is a huge discrepancy between the claim of power of people (demos-kratos) and their expectation to see each private idea on a public agenda. A false reading of this power exacerbated by false leaders very skilled in abusing the masses leads to the list of present claims “to the right of identity”: the local issue being more important than security; the particular complain getting more volumes than solidarity; magic and mystical theories filling the unknown and prevailing over any kind of rational discourse. What differs from the WWII far right and misleads lots of analysts, is the use of a double language, double attitude as well as ability to shift from one approach to the opposite whenever it deems necessary.

Comparing recent elections held in Central Europe (but bringing inputs from other EU countries as well), I will underline that the so-called nationalist agenda of these parties is far from being nationalist in its essence, rather undermining the mere nationalist interests due to the foreign alignment and obedience of their leaders.