The aim of this contribution is to analyse what these strong expectations by EPSU are based on. Did the EU indeed create institutional settings that justify those expectations and, consequently,... Show moreThe aim of this contribution is to analyse what these strong expectations by EPSU are based on. Did the EU indeed create institutional settings that justify those expectations and, consequently, did the Commission break the “promise”? Moreover, what narratives have coloured these institutional settings and to what extent has this contributed to such expectations? Three obvious narratives can be distinguished. The first narrative relates to the establishment of the social dialogue in historical perspective starting with the Val Duchesse meetings. The second narrative follows the regulatory developments in the field of EU social policy in general, with an emphasis of the roles of the Commission and Social Dialogue in those regulatory mechanisms. This is based on a review of a selected number of key documents dealing with, among others, EU social policy. The third narrative follows the perception of the social dialogue in the doctrine, especially in handbooks on EU labour law. These narratives together have created a kind of epistemic community about how to understand Social Dialogue in general and the relationship between Social Partners and the Commission. Understanding these narratives is important for any contextual as well as teleological interpretation of Articles 154 and 155 TFEU. Furthermore, combined these narratives may also provide insight in why there is apparently a gap between the expectations, of at least EPSU, and the practice that the indication of “broken promise” is given. Show less
The interaction of multiple actors if European Border and Coast Guard Operations leads to a nexus of responsibilities, both individual and collective, positive and negative, direct or indirect,... Show moreThe interaction of multiple actors if European Border and Coast Guard Operations leads to a nexus of responsibilities, both individual and collective, positive and negative, direct or indirect, that is hard to disentangle. The connections between the responsibility of member states and that of the agency often lead to a non-singular answer to the question of the one responsible, which is not accommodated by the existing paradigm of legal accountability. Thus, this paper suggests a different approach to accountability, named ‘systemic accountability’, arguing from the perspective of justice, the rule of law, and strategic litigation. Show less
