The discussion regarding what is the correct, superior or most desirable way of studying law lurks in the background of academic debates across numerous legal fields. In EU law, too, various new(er) methodologies and approaches have been gaining ground: political geography has contributed to the understanding of the spread of EU law over time; anthropological approaches to the study of EU law have given us a sense of how various national and international actors use EU law to achieve their goals; quantitative methods have offered new insights into the practice of courts; and discourse analysis has become an important way of linking politics and ideology to doctrinal research.

The salient question lurking behind these developments is what this all means for the study of law and EU law in particular. In ‘The Politics of Method in EU Law’, we aim to shed light on one important, and usually only intuited, dimension of the methodological debate. If each method or approach drives us to foreground certain issues, while backgrounding others, what are the consequences of these movements? Which aspects of reality get attention and priority and what remains unsaid, unseen or unrecognized? In different words, what are the politics of particular methods and approaches to the study of EU law? In the present project we aim to unpack the impacts of methodological choices for the recognition of various types of harm, the distribution of rights and obligations, the constitution of winners and losers or the (de)legitimization of distributive outcomes in and through EU law.


  • Alessandra Arcuri
  • Julien Bois
  • Or Brook
  • Mark Dawson
  • Christina Eckes
  • Sacha Garben
  • Betul Kas
  • Poul Kjear
  • Damjan Kukovec
  • Candida Leone
  • Fernanda Nicola
  • Marieke Oderkerk