Split Vision: Multidimensionality in the European Union's Legal Policy Space

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 492-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olof Larsson ◽  
Daniel Naurin

AbstractThe European Union (EU) offers an example of deep judicialization, where highly salient political values are adjudicated on a regular basis. In such contexts, political attention may shift from national sovereignty costs (the vertical dimension) to distributive conflicts within and between states (the horizontal dimension), creating a multidimensional legal policy space. We discuss the implications of this setting for judicial behavior and argue that it may create both opportunities and pitfalls for international judges, depending on how the dimensions are related. If the institutional interests of judges in promoting international law systematically favor some states over others on the horizontal dimension, judicial activism is likely to provoke feedback effects in the form of severe legitimacy problems. If the dimensions are unrelated, on the other hand, adjudicators become further empowered. We draw on a large dataset to show how the Court of Justice of the EU has been able to use divisions between states on the left-right dimension to enhance the legitimacy and autonomy of European law.

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
A. V. Kuznetsov

The article examines the norms of international law and the legislation of the EU countries. The list of main provisions of constitutional and legal restrictions in the European Union countries is presented. The application of the norms is described Human rights conventions. The principle of implementing legal acts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered. A comparative analysis of legal restrictive measures in the States of the European Union is carried out.


Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis

This book offers a legal and political theory of the European Union. Many political and legal philosophers compare the EU to a federal union. They believe that its basic laws should be subject to the standards of constitutional law. They thus find it lacking or incomplete. This book offers a rival theory. If one looks more closely at the treaties and the precedents of the European courts, one sees that the substance of EU law is international, not constitutional. Just like international law, it applies primarily to the relations between states. It binds domestic institutions directly only when the local constitutions allow it. The member states have democratically chosen to adapt their constitutional arrangements in order to share legislative and executive powers with their partners. The legal architecture of the European Union is thus best understood under a theory of dualism and not pluralism. According to this internationalist view, EU law is part of the law of nations and its distinction from domestic law is a matter of substance, not form. This arrangement is supported by a cosmopolitan theory of international justice, which we may call progressive internationalism. The EU is a union of democratic peoples, that freely organize their interdependence on the basis of principles of equality and reciprocity. Its central principles are not the principles of a constitution, but cosmopolitan principles of accountability, liberty, and fairness,


2002 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-81 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractDuring the 1990s and beyond, the European Union (EU) and Chile have been engaged in a controversy over highly migratory swordfish stocks in the South Pacific. Following disputes over Cod, Turbot, and Tuna, the Swordfish Case reveals outstanding problems in the international law of fisheries. The Swordfish Case attracts further attention, as it involves proceedings both at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and at the World Trade Organisation, with potentially inconsistent decisions. At the WTO, the EU's assertion of a right to access Chilean ports on the grounds of GATT 1994 freedom of transit provisions bears an impact on the use of ports in countries around the world. At the ITLOS Chamber, the long-standing conflict between distant water fishing nations and coastal states is once again to the fore. Although the parties to the dispute arrived at a provisional agreement, setting out to establish a scientific fisheries program and a conservation framework, the issues involved in the swordfish controversy highlight the tensions among the international maritime, economic, and environmental regimes. The article offers an overall account of the core elements of the swordfish dispute.


2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Kopanchuk ◽  
Tetiana Zanfirova ◽  
Tetiana Novalska ◽  
Dmytro Zabzaliuk ◽  
Kateryna Stasiukova

Cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union is of great interest to Ukraine, which defines the entry into the European legal field as one of the main vectors of its development. The study is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of the impact of cooperation between the Council of Europe and the European Union on the development of modern international law. The authors studied the formation and development of collaboration between the Council of Europe and the EU; emphasized the legal aspects of cooperation between the European Council and the EU in the EU enlargement process; analyzed in detail the types of international agreements through the legal aspect and clarified the impact of cooperation between the Council of Europe and the EU on the development of modern international law and describe the forms of international legal cooperation between the Council of Europe and the EU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 865-884
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Weiß ◽  
Cornelia Furculita

Abstract Considering the new focus of the European Union (EU) trade policy on strengthening the enforcement of trade rules, the article presents the proposed amendments to the EU Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014. It analyzes the EU Commission proposal and the amendments suggested by the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA), in particular with regard to uncooperative third parties and the provision of immediate countermeasures. The amendments will be assessed in view of their legality under World Trade Organization (WTO), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and general international law and in view of their political implications for the EU’s multilateralist stance. Finally, the opportunity to amend Regulation 654/2014 to use it for the enforcement of FTA trade and sustainable development chapters will be explored. The analysis shows that the shift towards more effective enforcement should be pursued with due care for respecting existing international legal commitments and with more caution to multilateralism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-241
Author(s):  
Claudia Seitz

Abstract The current pandemic outbreak of corona virus SARS-CoV-2 shows the need for comprehensive European cooperation in drug development and the importance of genetic material and sequence data in research concerning this unknown disease. As corona virus SARS-CoV-2 is spreading across Europe and worldwide, national authorities and the European Union (EU) institutions do their utmost to address the pandemic and accelerate innovation to protect global health. In order to be prepared and to be able to respond immediately to serious epidemic and pandemic diseases, the EU has already adopted the Decision No (EU) 1082/2013 on serious cross-border threats to health. The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a global system to collect genetic material and information to protect a global influenza pandemic outbreak. The article describes the current legal landscape under EU and international law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 923-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuscheh Farahat ◽  
Nora Markard

The European Union (EU) Member States have experienced the recent refugee protection crisis in the EU as a de-facto loss of control over their borders. They find themselves unable to subject entry into their territory to a sovereign decision. In response, the Member States have sought to regain full sovereignty over matters of forced migration, both unilaterally and cooperatively, seeking to govern a phenomenon—forced migration—that by definition defies governance. Unilateral measures include forced migration caps and a search for ways to circumvent responsibility under the Dublin system. Cooperative efforts by EU Member States include the search for ways to more effectively govern forced migration at the EU level and beyond. Supranational EU efforts include the introduction of an internal relocation scheme and support for Italy and Greece in processing asylum claims in so-called “hotspots.” Beyond the EU, Member States are seeking to externalize protection responsibility to third world countries under international agreements, in particular, by returning asylum seekers to Turkey. This Article outlines the unilateral and cooperative governance efforts undertaken and shows that states' sovereign decisions over migration are significantly limited in the case of forced migrants, both by EU law and by international law.


2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 533-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Efthymios Papastavridis

AbstractEUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta has been the first maritime operation of the European Union and it has certainly been successful given the significant decrease of pirate attacks off the Somali coast. However, various issues have been raised concerning its legal basis under international law and its legal framework, including questions of responsibility. These issues are particularly interesting since the EU has a more integrated legal order than other organizations involved in such operations (eg UN, NATO). The present article attempts to address these issues against the background of international and European law. Even though the legal basis of the Operation is clear from a European law perspective, there have been certain misconceptions concerning the legal basis of the Operation under international law. The delineation of the Operation's legal framework requires a careful analysis of the rules applicable to each of its phases and of its addressees, since each phase is subject to different rules which are binding on different actors. Finally, there is an extensive discussion of questions of responsibility, which were heavily influenced by the applicable Rules of Engagement and of the actual conduct of the Operation. The conclusion is that, at least on the high seas, responsibility should primarily rest with the flag States rather than with the EU. However, in most cases the EU is indirectly responsible for violations of international law, except in cases where suspected pirates are transferred to third States pursuant to EU agreements with such States, in which case it bears primarily responsibility.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-89
Author(s):  
Simone Vezzani

As recognised by the International Law Commission in the 2011 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations, the rule of the prior exhaustion of internal remedies also applies to cases where the international responsibility of international organisations is invoked, be it in the field of diplomatic protection or human rights. This essay focuses on the application of this rule to the European Union (EU). The author maintains that the legal remedies available to individuals alleging injury as a result of an internationally wrongful act of the EU include both direct remedies before EU courts and remedies before domestic tribunals. He then scrutinises whether each remedy is capable of providing individuals with accessible and effective means of redress.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document