Jürgen Bröhmer

This chapter examines the European Union’s governance dysfunction within the contemporary “Trumpian” political environment characterised by anti-establishment sentiment and institutional distrust. The analysis demonstrates how this context particularly disadvantages the EU’s technocratic, multilevel governance structure. Drawing on Macron’s Sorbonne speeches, the paper identifies core challenges: security, economic competitiveness, and defence capabilities. The institutional analysis reveals significant structural limitations. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) remains constrained by unanimity requirements preventing rapid responses. Internal governance faces competing forces of “informal internationalisation” and “unilateral renationalisation.” The German and Polish constitutional court’s rejection of EU law primacy represent direct threats to foundational integration principles. The German Constitutional Court’s “identity review” doctrine constrains EU development by reserving critical policy areas to national control. Contemporary crisis responses demonstrate both adaptive capacity and structural limitations. Ukraine-related cooperation advanced significantly, yet decision-making remains dependent on member state consensus rather than integrated institutional capacity. The paper concludes that the EU faces a fundamental governance dilemma: member states individually lack capacity to address global challenges, while collective action remains constrained by institutional frameworks designed for different circumstances. Drawing parallels to ancient Greece after Rome’s rise, the analysis warns that without addressing these structural contradictions, the EU risks global relegation while member states face strategic marginalisation.

Der Beitrag enthält einige kritische Überlegungen zur Überdehnung des Rechts als Instrument zur Lösung von, im Wesentlichen, politischen Fragen und Kontroversen. Vor dem Hintergrund der Erosion des institutionellen Vertrauens, des Populismus und der Legitimität der politischen Entscheidungsfindung, sowohl auf transnationaler als auch auf nationaler Ebene, weist der Beitrag auf das zunehmende Governance-Defizit hin, das besonders in Bereichen virulent ist, die sowohl nationale als auch internationale Maßnahmen erfordern. Das jüngste Gutachten des IGH zu den Verpflichtungen der Staaten bei der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels dient als wichtige Illustration. Die Befürworter wirksamer Klimaschutzmaßnahmen verweisen auf dieses Rechtsinstrument, um den Eindruck zu erwecken, dass weitreichende rechtliche Verpflichtungen die umfangreichen politischen Entscheidungen, die getroffen werden müssen, vorwegnehmen, während sich bei näherer Betrachtung herausstellt, dass es weitaus weniger rechtliche Verpflichtungen gibt, als es auf den ersten Blick den Anschein hat, und zwar schon deshalb, weil der politische Prozess nicht durch das Recht vorweggenommen werden kann – das Recht ist viel mehr ein Ergebnis politischer Prozesse als sein Motor. Das ist kein gutes Omen für die Fähigkeit, Lösungen für tiefgreifende Probleme wie den Klimawandel zu finden.

The paper offers some critical thoughts on the overextension of law as an instru-ment to resolve what are, in essence, political questions and controversies. Against a backdrop of the erosion of institutional trust, populism, and the legitimacy of political decision-making, both transnationally and domestically, the paper points to the increasing governance deficit that is especially virulent in areas that require both domestic and international action. The recent Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on the obligations of states regarding combating climate change serves as a major point of illustration. The advocates for effective climate change action point to this legal instrument to create the impression that far-reaching legal obligations pre-empt the vast political decisions that have to be taken, when in fact a closer look reveals that there might be far less in terms of legal obligations than might appear at first sight, if only because the political process cannot be pre-empted by law – law is a result of political processes much more than its driver. That being so does not bode well for the ability to provide solutions for profound problems such as climate change.

Sustainability (the term and the concept) permeates practically every perspective and field of study. Whatever concrete content one can ascribe to it, when it comes to translating that content into tangible reality, legal and regulatory decisions will be one major tool to achieve that. The term and concept of sustainability are closely linked to the environment and its protection. Threats to the environment in general and environmental subsystems, be they the climate, the oceans, the pollution of water, the atmosphere, or the food chain, are often global and not organized along artificial borders that delineate governance systems. The result is a dilemma common to many transnational policy challenges. Transnational governance systems either do not exist, are too weak, or face legitimacy problems. Therefore, policy challenges cannot be effectively addressed (governance deficit). Transnational governance deficits also have repercussions domestically, where this inability to deal with such challenges becomes an argument for restraint at home. This chapter discusses climate change, international trade, and regional integration to illustrate transnational decision-making difficulties. The European Union example shows how even closely related, deeply integrated regional governance entities can struggle to break the confines of national democracies. Comprehensive answers are difficult, if not impossible, to find. Efforts of transnational federalization or increased judicialization (legalization) and subsequent litigation to achieve broader transnational governance outcomes are limited in what can be achieved.

Professor Jürgen Bröhmer at the Murdoch University, School of Law reviews the 4th Edition 2022 of Sports Law By David Thorpe, Antonio Buti, Paul Jonson and Jack Anderson which introduces the body of law that regulates all sporting activities in Australia. It examines the areas of law that apply to sport including governance, torts, criminal liability, intellectual property, marketing, behavioural misconduct, doping, trade and competition. The fourth edition is updated to reflect major legislative and case law changes in sports law, and has extensive content on corruption, gambling and doping.