Page:ELO 1(1), 113–125. Here be dragons legal geography and EU law.pdf/11

Rh contributions in EU law come close to employing the spatial lens, reflexive awareness and normative commitment that typify legal geography, but as a whole, such work is very haphazard and piecemeal, and lacks coherence. At the same time, EU law is prime territory for a legal geographer, for reasons set out in this article. It is a geography waiting to be discovered, explored and reconfigured – an exercise that will not simply offer a more meaningful understanding of the nature and effect of EU law but also, more generally, of how the law of integration relates to the reality of integration.

4. Questions of space

There is no doubt that much of the spatial territory of EU law remains unexplored. But perhaps more interesting than the spaces that can be explored are the type of inquiries on which EU legal geography might focus. At least three distinct types of research come to mind: methodological, empirical and conceptual – each committed to the project of legal geography and each invaluable in unearthing how EU law engages with space in (and beyond) Europe.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the relative youth of the field, legal geographers are very preoccupied with methodology. A number of important contributions that have shaped the field deal with questions such as the appropriate interaction between law and geography; the place for empirical, theoretical and conceptual work; and the different methods that could bridge the legal and geographical traditions. Likewise, the field has been criticised for being insufficiently sensitive to how methods influence substance, and for approaching law as being too contingent. Work of this sort is invaluable in shaping the discipline, in creating a communal language, fostering coherence and allowing for genuine interaction between studies and scholars.

Within the EU context, all this methodological work is perhaps even more valuable. Partially for obvious reasons: scholars will be used to their national traditions, methods and blind spots. There are no narratives, such as ‘integration through law’ or ‘constitutionalisation’, to connect EU legal geographers. How, then, can we ‘do’ EU legal geography? How do we become ‘spatial detectives’, as Layard and Luke Bennett have framed it, in a space where EU law and national law collide; where boundaries become porous and administration is multi-tiered? Which concepts are central to making the EU spatially ‘legible’? How can we study the impact of CJEU case law spatially? Which methods of legal studies and geography are particularly interesting from the EU perspective? Which normative commitments might underpin legal geography in the EU? Does space influence EU law in legislation and adjudication or mainly in application and decentralised implementation? Can a polity like the EU ever be ‘localised’ to a meaningful extent? And, perhaps most crucially for the ability of EU legal geography to contribute to our understanding of the process of European integration: how do the insights of EU legal geographers translate into the language, concepts, ideas and core tenets of the disciplines that surround legal geography?

The bulk of work by both legal scholars and geographers can be defined as doctrinal, positivist, descriptive, empirical, qualitative or quantitative. This is not to say that their research does not aim at problematising or resolving normative issues but rather that their work is primarily akin to excavating new material. This very broad category is a second type of research in which EU legal geographers might be interested. It is perhaps of most interest to scholars who are occasional visitors to the land of legal geography – and want to study the relationship between law and place in a very specific context. This might mean a very specific place or site (such as the fishing waters of