|Abstract: ||歐盟的政治疆界在外部地緣與權力範圍不斷地伸展的同時，在價值上卻逐漸裂解為「菁英的歐洲」與「人民的歐洲」兩大板塊，尋根究底歸結的核心即是「政治正當性」（political legitimacy）問題，這個問題不在於歐盟菁英的擅權，而在於權責不明；不在於菁英的強勢，而在於缺乏人民的制衡，歐盟不僅是為各國政府設立的，更重要的是為歐洲人民而存在的。|
As the political territory of EU expands in terms of geography and power, its value is increasingly torn between “Europe des elites” and “Europe des citoyens”, with the upper class and the lower class wanting different kinds of Europe. The reason that the gap of the two classes is widening is complex, the core issue, however, lies in the political legitimacy. The problem is not the authoritarianism of the elite class but rather the ambiguity and confusion of authority and liability, not the aggressiveness of the elite but rather the lack of check and balance from the people. It is easy to forget that EU is not established for European governments but for all Europeans.
The issue of legitimacy arose when the unification of Europe shifts from an economic body to a political body. With the Maastricht Treaty taking effect in 1993, the change of the EU further weakened its governance and its member’s obedience. Amendments of the Treaty have long been outrun by the deterioration of people’s trust. Rapid enlargement of the EU, from fifteen to twenty-seven within ten years, increased the heterogeneity of economic structure and sharpened the regional differences. Political legitimacy deteriorated from an issue to a crisis.
This dissertation argues that the political legitimacy for the EU had adopted the concepts of the normative and the empirical approach to override those of Democracy, Performance, and Identity, with different sets of priority during the forming phases. First, performance was undoubtedly the foundation of political legitimacy for EU, which had to attest to its own value and to win support from the populace with its performance in political, economic, and social strata. Secondly, the Treaty of Lisbon asserted that the form of EU democracy would primarily be a representative democracy with subordinate participative and deliberative democracy. The national parliaments and their important roles in this democracy are not likely to change structurally in the near future. In the end, the Europe identity must rely on the national identity in a multi-level structure of identity, forming a “national-European” identity.
EU, a sui generis and emerging governing body, is still changing its political and physical territory. The character of the EU body decides the formation of its political legitimacy. The mode of legitimacy for the national countries cannot be transplanted to nor does it benefit the EU legitimacy. What can be ascertained is that the construction of legitimacy for EU must be influenced by the developmental experiences of the national countries.