Conference Report

From Wednesday 11 to Friday 13 March, the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) hosted the workshop “European Society at the Crossroads of Disciplines, Politics, and Imaginaries”. In recent years, the concept of “European society” has been at the centre of a lively legal debate in academia and progressively also in judicial contexts. However, there is still the need to further develop its cross-disciplinary applications and explore its practical consequences.

The conference, organised by Loïc Azoulai (European University Institute), Armin von Bogdandy (MPIL), and Silvia Steininger (Hertie School/MPIL), brought together more than 50 scholars and practitioners to discuss the meaning and promises of European society. By combining legal analyses with philosophical, sociological, and economic perspectives, the event aimed to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the concept.

Following the Dworkin-Nagel discussion format, the programme was structured around eight thematic panels: contributions, previously distributed among participants, were first presented by a discussant, then examined by a commentator, followed by a Q&A session with the audience, and finally a response by the author.

The commentators who participated in the conference were Martijn van den Brink (Leiden University), Julia Christ (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University), Chiara Gentile (MPIL), Oliver Gerstenberg (University College London), Matthias Goldmann (MPIL), Christophe Hillion (University of Oslo), Martin Höpner (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies), Andreas Knecht (MPIL), Joana Mendes (University of Luxembourg), Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz (European University Institute), Frank Schorkopf (University of Göttingen), Luke Dimitrios Spieker (MPIL), Antoine Vauchez (Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University).

The conference kicked off with a panel on the basic understandings of European society featuring two of the conference’s conveners. Loïc Azoulai presented Armin von Bogdandy’s paper, which sought to analyse European society, drawing on both legal interpretation and social theory. Von Bogdandy framed European society as a collective singular that should be used as an epistemic tool for the analysis of political conflicts and the future of the EU. In his own paper, Azoulai argued that European society has emerged in response to challenges to the core assumptions on which the EU is built. He proposed that EU law must draw from social theories to recognise and integrate the lived experiences of diverse social groups rather than continuing its current reductionist path. The debate centred on questions of principle on democratic legitimisation of creative treaty interpretation, identifying a society in the face of divisive conflicts, and potential impacts of practically applying the concept of European society.

In the second panel, Ana Bobić (Hertie School) and Alexander Somek (University of Vienna) approached European society from a Hegelian perspective. Bobić examined the inherent hierarchies in EU law, critiquing the EU’s claim to freedom through the lens of Hegel’s concept of mutual recognition. To be a fully-fledged political community in the Hegelian sense, Bobić argued, the EU must abandon its current market-based approach for defining personal statuses. Similarly, Somek analysed the pervasive influence of market logic in EU law and sought to situate European society within Hegel’s tripartite framework of family, civil society, and state. He suggested that European society remains confined to the conflictual sphere of civil society, lacking the integrative mechanisms characteristic of the state.

The second day of the conference began with a session focusing on the social sciences. Vincent Gengnagel (University of Magdeburg), presented by Poul F. Kjær (Copenhagen Business School), offered a sociological reading of “academic capitalism” within the European context. This prompted a broader discussion on whether academia and scholars act as agents of transformation within European society or whether they are increasingly marginalised in a system dominated by consultancy firms and economic technocracy. Subsequently, Gengnagel presented Kjær’s work, which argues that EU law has progressively reshaped national political economies, thereby contributing to the emergence of a European society grounded in public governance of the economy.

In the fourth panel, Marlene Tiede (MPIL) presented Toni Marzal’s (University of Glasgow) contribution, arguing that “European society” precedes the values of the Union enshrined in Article 2 TEU and provides the concrete space in which these values can be realised. At the same time, Marzal states that these values have developed and strengthened through the EU’s external action, reshaping EU law and influencing the definition of European society itself.

The fifth session started with Lucia Serena Rossi’s (University of Bologna) work. Her contribution emphasised that the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU can shape a European identity only if concretely implemented in society. Following this, Barbara Randazzo’s (University of Milan) analysis highlighted that, within the system of protection established by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Strasbourg Court’s case law has contributed to defining the content and limits of the evolving meaning of a “democratic society”, enshrined in the ECHR, which is relevant for interpreting the concept of a European society.

The sixth panel examined Ferdinand Weber’s (University of Göttingen) contribution, which noted that attempts to conceptualise European society predate formal integration and expressed scepticism about the overreliance on European constitutional law, particularly Article 2 TEU, to justify further progressions of European integration. Silvia Steininger’s contribution, adopting a decolonial approach, argued that European law is not a neutral regulator, but facilitates a European social and political order. Thus, the concept of European society could serve to integrate heterogeneous and highly complex social realities.

The third day began with a discussion on the role of administrative law in shaping European society, based on Giacinto della Cananea’s (Bocconi University) contribution, commented on by Costanza Margiotta (Sapienza University of Rome). It was noted that the growing role of EU administration enables it to directly impact European society, not only as an authority but also as a provider of transnational public goods and services. This raises a key question: to whom should European administration be held accountable? Individual citizens, Member States, or European society as a collective entity? The discussion highlighted the need for new accountability mechanisms beyond judicial review and criticised the lack of systematic treatment in EU law of transparency, responsibility, and mutual trust. Margiotta focused on the European Commission v Malta (C-181/23) judgement, which, challenging Malta’s citizenship-by-investment scheme, established that EU citizenship cannot be commodified, thereby underlining the need for a genuine link between applicants for naturalisation and a Member State.

During the last section of the conference, starting from her Opinion in European Commission v Hungary (C-769/22), Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta further developed her analysis about the judicial protection of EU values. She contended that Article 2 TEU can be autonomously invoked in infringement proceedings where a Member State engages in a “negation” of fundamental values, such as dignity, equality, and the rule of law.

Across the eight panels, the Q&A sessions and plenary debates repeatedly converged around three central tensions regarding the future of European society:

• A recurring question was whether the EU can transcend its market-based origins. Participants debated if genuine economic convergence and solidarity are possible, or if EU law, through mechanisms like citizenship-by-investment and labour stratification, inevitably commodifies individuals and perpetuates socio-economic hierarchies.
• The enforcement of European values prompted deep discussions on democratic legitimacy and judicial overreach. While some saw judicial reliance on Article 2 as an important tool to address rule of law challenges, others warned that empowering courts to define a "good society" risks turning legal assessments into moral judgments, potentially exacerbating divisions among Member States.
• Efforts to define a singular European society or identity were frequently met with caution. Discussions highlighted how constructing a shared identity based on values can inadvertently exclude marginalized groups, such as migrants and ethnic minorities, underscoring the need for EU law to critically address colonial legacies and structural inequalities.

In conclusion, the three-day conference conveyed a dynamic and still-evolving notion of European society. Despite theoretical tensions, dialogue among different perspectives enriches the debate and will contribute to shaping a concept capable of guiding the future development of the European Union.

Report: Yasmineh Badaro (Triest), Lara Priolo (Trento), Valerie Rücker (Lund)