Search results

The notion of subsidiarity in European federalism labors from all manner of burdens. It seems elusive by nature, commentators claiming that they do not know what subsidiarity means or, if they do, that they do not see in it anything new. At the same time subsidiarity has been presented at least in some quarters as a panacea for the Community's current malaise. It clearly is not that. Even if subsidiarity has not been oversold, it is almost certainly overexposed, a condition that the present Article is unlikely to cure. My purpose in this Article is simply to help make some sense of subsidiarity and even to make a case for it as a Community standard. Thus, after offering a basic definition and rationale for subsidiarity (Part I), I attempt to justify subsidiarity first by reference to the legal and political circumstances that gave rise to it (Part II), and then by reference to the specific functions it may usefully perform in the workings of the Community institutions (Part III). On the other hand, precisely because it does risk being oversold, subsidiarity's chief difficulties need to be explored and understood (Part IV). This is not because these difficulties are necessarily easily overcome, but because their acknowledgment should help lower the expectations that continue to be brought to the subject.

The principle of subsidiarity is a bastion of Catholic social teaching. It is also a principle in the philosophy of the American Founding Fathers. In the USA, subsidiarity is ignored without a sense of the proper harmony between authority and responsibility. Human dignity and wise stewardship are compromised. Conscience protection becomes a concerning issue as highlighted by the conflicts arising after passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A reconnection of the patient to be steward of his health care is critical in addressing these issues. Third parties, including the government, business, and insurance companies, are firmly entrenched in health care oftentimes with the result being increased cost and detachment of the patient from the stewardship of his or her care. Vitally needed is a return to the principle of subsidiarity in health care. Hopeful solutions include the Zarephath Health Center, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, and the clinic of Dr. Juliette Madrigal-Dersch.

The post-Maastricht world of the European Union is only about two years old. Within that new world, however, few concepts are as important, and yet as elusive or unsettled, as the doctrine of subsidiarity. On the other hand, the European Community has for many years evidenced concern over human rights. The purpose of this essay is to consider the implications of the concept of subsidiarity for human rights law and enforcement within the European Community and the European Union.

Harmonization is an essential instrument of international risk governance. It is the process through which disparities among national regulatory standards are ironed out, producing uniform outcomes that all participants in a regime can accept and that facilitate the free exchange of regulated goods in commerce. Contrary to conventional belief, however, harmonization requires not only technical but also political cooperation, since standards themselves are not direct mirrors of reality but are co-produced responses to technoscientific and political uncertainty. Attempts to harmonize standards across national borders therefore pit alternative political cultures and their systems of public reasoning against one another. Put differently, harmonization calls into question the underlying models of subsidiarity that provide the foundation for robust international regimes. This paper examines three models of epistemic subsidiarity – coexistence, cosmopolitanism, and constitutionalism – and discusses each scheme's capacity to protect a nation's fundamental political commitments while advancing the goals of international risk governance.

"In Europe, the subsidiarity principle has been enjoying renewed consensus in recent years. This book offers an insight on the original meaning of subsidiarity, particularly the horizontal dimension of subsidiarity, which challenge traditional patterns of government. Prominent international scholars and experts from various fields "read" the distinctive wealth of government experience accumulated in Lombardy and the experience of governing in their own various countries. This book is for anyone willing to add a new perspective, that of subsidiarity, to the debate on governance reform"--Provided by publisher

Regulatory overlap can inflict real costs on businesses through repetitive inspections and data collection efforts. It is particularly burdensome when agencies issue conflicting rules with inconsistent standards. In recent decades there has been a gradual increase in the number and activity of non-governmental bodies in regulation in a number of contexts. Although good intentions have underpinned widespread government agendas to deregulate and impose less restrictions from a central government perspective, this may have led to overlap in this different sense, particularly when one considers that this 'retreat of the state' has been accompanied by a 'rise of regulatory pluralism'. Causes aside, the purpose of this paper is to provide background to the discussion on principles to reduce regulatory overlap.

The principle of subsidiarity lies at the heart of the European Union's strife to bring the EU closer to the citizen. Yet, it appears to be failing to do so in its present form. Therefore, the new Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe [hereafter: European Constitution] has the intention to bring it to the best possible position in this respect.

This article examines how subsidiarity can limit the exercise of EU procedural criminal law competence. It argues for a narrow understanding of subsidiarity, suggesting that EU procedural criminal law legislation can only be directed at problems which are of a cross-border nature. By analysing a specific piece of EU legislation, the new Victims Directive, it is shown how the subsidiarity principle can be enforced. The article sustains that the Victims Directive can be criticised on subsidiarity grounds as the directive fails to adequately account for the link between victim rights and the application of the principle of mutual recognition, since the directive fails to explain properly the need to regulate local victim rights. The article also draws some broader reflections on the justifications for EU harmonization. It is argued that EU initiatives in procedural criminal law have not primarily been driven by the need to facilitate mutual recognition and free movement but rather motivated by a general concern to deliver a common European sense of justice. Whilst this approach from the EU legislator can be justified from a moral perspective, it flies in the face of the idea that decisions should be taken as closely as possible in respect of citizens. ; Subsidiarity and EU criminal law

Europeanization can be regarded as a process that finds expression in the gradual redefinition of state sovereignty and the development of supranational common institutions (e.g. Agreement of Schengen, Court of Justice, Euro currency). In parallel, territorial subsidiarity seeks to provide for a greater sub-state say in areas of social policy making, often linked to cultural or identity considerations. This article deals with welfare development in the European social model in contemporary times. While a paradigm shift in macro-economic policies has allowed for monetary centralization and a growing matching of EU internal 'open' markets, the quest for the decentralization of welfare programmes has also aimed at meeting demands for policy innovation and a more effective management. Allegedly, welfare provision by sub-state diversity may affect collective solidarity and redistribution. The emergence of new social risks and the role played by the mesogovernments in welfare reform in Europe are also subject to analysis and discussion in this article. ; Peer reviewed