In recent years, diverse threats across multiple countries to the Rule oflaw have been brought to the attention of the European Commission. Focus hasmainly centred on the Article 7 TEU procedure. This paper argues that EU oversightshould be considered as having regard to its internal premises and credibility; thequestion can be posed whether EU censorship is affected by a ever-encroachingweakness that currently characterises the present relationships between States andregional or supranational orders, whose authority is met at times with resistance.Zooming out from the daily threats to the Rule of law in so-called illiberal orpopulist governments, this paper scrutinises some usual theoretical tools and con-ceptual frameworks, namely the connection between arbitrariness and the Rule oflaw on one hand, and the Rule of law and the overall idea of public law on the other.It suggests that the present crisis is part of a seismic shift of the main components ofthe idea of public law that underpin the modern and contemporary state. Afterexamining further case law and evidence of arbitrariness and non-arbitrariness thatexceeds the features of the Rule of law, this paper challenges the conviction that ageneric notion of arbitrariness can capture the problem of illiberal governmentalactions, or justify the European Union attitude in responding to a ‘Rule of lawcrisis’.

EB00000003761K

Available

• Illiberal, Democratic and Non-Arbitrary?Epicentre and Circumstances of a Rule of Law Crisis