Midtveisevalueringen gjennomføres i henhold til Retningslinjer for midtveisevaluering for doktorgradsprogrammet ved Det juridiske fakultet, UiO. Evalueringen består av en åpen seminardel (ca. 90 min.) og et lukket møte (ca. 30 min.). På det lukkede møtet deltar instituttleder (eller dennes representant), veileder/e samt kommentator/ene.
- Kommentator er professor emerita Marise Cremona fra EUI (Firenze)
- Midtveisevalueringen ledes av instituttleder ved Institutt for offentlig rett, professor Ole Kristian Fauchald
- Veileder er professor Christophe Hillion, Institutt for offentlig rett
Om stipendiaten
Alida Steigler er doktorgradsstipendiat i rettsvitenskap ved Universitetet i Oslo.
Steigler fullførte jusstudiet ved ELTE i Ungarn i 2020 og tilbrakte ett år av studiet i Bergen som ERASMUS-utvekslingsstudent. Hun har vært tilknyttet UiB og Christian Michelsens institutt i ulike engasjementer, blant annet som trainee og vitenskapelig assistent ved Centre on Law and Social Transformation, og gjennom forskningsprosjektet "PROTECT - The Right to International Protection", som var finansiert av EUs HORIZON-program.
Hun underviser i EØS-rett (del av JUS2211) og i Internasjonale menneskerettigheter (del av JUS2111) ved fakultetet.
Om rammen rundt doktorgradsprosjektet
Prosjektet til Steigler inngår i prosjektet ENROL: Enforcing the rule of law: What can the European Union do to prevent rule of law deterioration from within?
ENROL er et tverrfaglig samarbeid mellom ARENA-senteret ved UiOs samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet og Juridisk fakultets EU-rettsfaglige miljø. Det er samfinansiert av Norges Forskningsråd og UiO gjennom Fellesløftet. Prosjektleder er professor Daniel Naurin ved Institutt for statsvitenskap, UiO. Christophe Hillion leder den rettsvitenskapelige delen av prosjektet.
Prosjektets overordnede tematikk er å undersøker hva EU og medlemslandene kan gjøre for å hindre demokratisk tilbakegang og at rettsstatsprinsipper svekkes. Prosjektperioden er 2022-2027.
Prosjektet har to stipendiater i rettsvitenskap: Alida Steigler og Samuel Shannon.
Nærmere om prosjektets tema
Steigler beskriver sitt avhandlingsprosjekt slik:
"In her dissertation, Alida focuses on the rule of law as a non‑negotiable requirement for EU membership and, in that regard, on the crucial intersection between the internal constitutional order and the enlargement dimension. Article 49 TEU stipulates that any European state applying for membership must respect the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and be committed to promoting them. Since the Court’s judgment in Repubblika (Case C‑896/19), it is clear that adherence to these foundational values, including the rule of law, forms the very basis upon which the functionality of the Union and the mutual trust among its Member States are built, and constitutes the condition for the enjoyment of all rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member States. Building on a cumulative reading of Articles 2, 3(1) and (5), 7, 8(1), 13, 21(1) and (3), 49 TEU and Article 7 TFEU, as well as on doctrinal developments following the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, she shows that it is in the membership context that the requirement to respect the rule of law is normatively and functionally most evident, and that the imperative of consistency – an obligation grounded in Treaty commitments and in the foundational requirements of the rule of law – is most salient.
Her normative and doctrinal claims, as well as her empirical hypothesis, culminate in the argument that the Treaties not only enshrine the rule of law as a foundational EU value, but also require the Union – and all its institutions – to promote and protect its own interpretation of that value consistently, both vis‑à‑vis Member States and candidate countries, with the rule of law thus also acting as a constraint on the Union’s own conduct. Given the rule of law’s elevated status – reiterated most recently in Commission v Poland (Case C‑448/23) – its protection demands a higher standard of consistency than could be expected in other areas. Without consistent application, the rule of law cannot exist. Inconsistency, perceived “double standards”, and the politicisation of rule of law enforcement risk eroding the rule of law itself and undermining trust in EU institutions, potentially threatening the stability of the Union. Additionally, for the EU to position itself as a credible promoter of rule‑of‑law standards abroad, its institutional approach must consistently uphold this principle. In particular, there must exist a minimum level of viable rule of law protection, and the standard for this minimum is set by the duty of consistency. Consistency, in this sense, functions as a floor below which the system’s response to rule of law threats is no longer compatible with its self‑description as a value‑based legal order, or with its obligations to act consistently and to protect the rule of law. In other words, consistency defines the minimum acceptable level of institutional response. Consistency thus operates as a structural constraint on how low the Union can allow its practice to fall while still plausibly maintaining that the rule of law is a genuine condition of membership rather than a purely rhetorical aspiration.
While consistency in the EU’s rule of law defence is pivotal, the EU’s complex multi‑state structure necessarily produces tensions and requires adaptation to national particularities. Properly applied discretion and differentiation can secure nuanced justice without compromising consistency. This implies that it is compatible with a singular definition of the rule of law that different legal solutions might nonetheless be equally valid for similar legal issues. Steigler argues, however, that the application of the rule of law is not a political question: there are clear legal standards and obligations stemming from the Treaties that must be followed for the survival of the EU as a project based on shared values. By articulating a multi‑layered definition of consistency and proposing a test of consistency in rule of law protection, her project evaluates the current rule of law crisis and the practical operation of the EU’s rule of law toolbox. The test converts institutional discretion into a duty to act when a legal basis exists and objective, authoritative material demonstrates a risk or breach affecting the essence of the rule of law. Thereafter, discretion is limited to the choice of instrument, which must be reasonably connected to the matter at hand and proportionate.
Methodologically, the project combines doctrinal analysis of the Treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice with empirical studies of institutional practice. The case studies test the consistency of EU action in practice, focusing on the annual Rule of Law Reports, financial conditionality mechanisms, and procedures to freeze membership rights or candidate‑country negotiations. By tracing how these instruments are used across different situations and actors, the project assesses whether the Union’s rule of law responses actually meet the consistency standard that is normatively required.
Alida’s research directly engages with whether and how the EU has achieved greater consistency of action concerning the rule of law as a membership criterion since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, whose Preamble proclaims the aim of improving the coherence of EU action. She does so by asking, and answering, the following four interconnected questions:
(1) Should and (2) does the EU – including the different EU institutions – adopt a common, uniform understanding of what the rule of law is, as a condition for enduring membership; and (3) should and (4) does the rule of law get applied consistently within the sphere of membership?"