par Debande, Julien 
Référence International Conference University of Lille - The Legitimacy of Legal Decisions Adopted under Radical Uncertainties (2026-05-22: Lille)
Publication Non publié, 2026-05-22
Référence International Conference University of Lille - The Legitimacy of Legal Decisions Adopted under Radical Uncertainties (2026-05-22: Lille)
Publication Non publié, 2026-05-22
Communication à un colloque
| Résumé : | Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the European Union (EU) chose to mobilise a complex combination of budgetary and extra-budgetary (off-budget) instruments to support the Ukrainian authorities financially.Initially, the EU relied on the MFA, a form of financial aid extended to partner countries experiencing a balance of payments crisis, and, in 2023, launched the Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA+) as a source of emergency loans for the country. The European Peace Facility (EPF), an off-budget external instrument created in 2021, was also revised and used to reinforce Ukraine’s military capabilities. Lastly, the EU legislator developed the ad hoc Ukraine Facility (2024-2027), endowed with €50 billion for Ukraine . Their deployment raises a growing challenge to safeguard normative legitimacy in a context marked by radical uncertainties. These instruments were deployed quickly to meet pressing operational needs and operate outside traditional institutional decision-making frameworks.The combination of budgetary and extra-budgetary is likely to continue in the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, as the Commission’s proposal channels support through several instruments under the new MFF, in particular through the Global Europe Instrument, which includes a €100 billion envelope dedicated to this purpose. This evolution thus transforms ad hoc crisis responses into a pre-emptive framework that institutionalises flexibility while maintaining a reactive logic. It reflects a forward-looking approach, structuring the EU’s response to evolving crises through the coordinated engagement of relevant actors.The evolution of the financial toolkit for Ukraine affects structural EU principles, especially the principle of institutional balance, since these instruments reconfigure the roles of the EU institutions during their adoption and implementation. The expanding use of off-budget structures and accelerated procedures significantly enhances executive discretion and blurs boundaries between budgetary authority, executive action, and oversight .The proposed contribution aims to evaluate the legitimacy of the different financial instruments mobilised – from MFA+, EPF and the Ukraine Facility to Ukraine support in the new MFF. They constitute a relevant case study to illustrate the difficulty of reconciling swift action with the preservation of multidimensional legitimacy, raising fundamental questions about the viability of institutional principles in a crisis context. To that end, the proposed contribution will rely on an analytical framework grounded in procedural legitimacy (parliamentary scrutiny and transparency) and normative legitimacy (adherence to constitutional principles and legal frameworks), considering pragmatic, cognitive, and moral dimensions of legitimacy. It will demonstrate that, while the urgency driving the initial responses highlighted the fragility of legitimacy, the institutionalisation of forward-looking instruments, such as the proposed Ukraine support, risks normalising this fragility. By embedding flexibility into the decision-making framework, the EU risks institutionalising deviations from its core institutional principles, rather than resolving the normative tensions that exceptional instruments initially generated. |
