Édouard Hargrove

This doctoral thesis focuses on recent instances of political dissensus within the European Union surrounding an ambivalent and contested political ideal: the rule of law. Numerous scholars across the social sciences have analysed a wide range of controversies within a number of EU member states tied to this ideal. These controversies tend to revolve around the functioning of the judicial system, the protection of fundamental rights, and the existence of counter-powers on governmental action such as the constitutional review of legislation. A parallel stream of research has also emerged around various 'rule of law' measures adopted at the EU level in response to some of these controversies in certain member states, especially from the Commission (i.e. regulation 2092), the Council (i.e. article 7 procedure), and the Court of Justice (i.e. infringement procedures).

In line with this second axis of research, the thesis looks into how different issues in member states have become objects of political contention at the European level, and more specifically within the European Parliament. It tries to map the relational space of positions, and to grasp the various political considerations at stake, in order to explain the variation in legislative action from one case to another. As such, the research does not explore the actual issues across member states that can be tied to the rule of law, depending on how it is conceived. What matters is their problematisation and appropriation by elected representatives in a transnational political space. In all, it strives to uncover the different schemes of perception and patterns of action that have emerged among MEPs around a comparable set of issues broadly related to the rule of law ideal.