scholarly journals Passive European Union Influence

2021 ◽  
pp. 134-157
Author(s):  
Tobias Lenz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Process Tracing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Statistical Association ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Primary Documents ◽  
National Governments

This chapter traces the European Union’s passive influence in the establishment of the Mercosur Permanent Review Tribunal in 2004. This is an useful case to study passive EU influence because the Tribunal’s establishment constitutes an unlikely case from the perspective of existing explanations of dispute settlement design and it is representative of a statistical association presented in Chapter 4. Through a detailed process tracing exercise that reconstructs the institutional preferences and strategies of national governments and the process of international bargaining on the basis of primary documents, interviews with policy-makers and secondary sources, it shows how the European Union, through its passive influence on the institutional preferences of Uruguay, the bloc’s smallest member state, shaped the design of the Tribunal. In the absence of passive EU influence, the chapter concludes, the Tribunal would have been less institutionalized.

scholarly journals Active European Union Influence

2021 ◽  
pp. 111-133
Author(s):  
Tobias Lenz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Process Tracing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Institutional Strategies ◽  
Carbon Copy ◽  
National Governments

This chapter traces the European Union’s active influence on the establishment of the Tribunal of the Southern African Development Community in 2005—a carbon copy of the European Court of Justice. The Tribunal’s creation is an inferentially powerful case to study active EU influence because it constitutes a least likely case from the perspective of existing explanations of dispute settlement design. Through a detailed process tracing exercise that reconstructs the collective preferences and institutional strategies of national governments and the process of international bargaining, it shows how the European Union, through its threat to withdraw funding from SADC, induced the creation of the SADC Tribunal. In the absence of EU influence, the chapter concludes, the Tribunal would not have been established; active EU influence made a counterfactual difference to SADC’s institutionalization.

scholarly journals Ioannis Armakolas and James Ker-Lindsay: The Politics of Recognition and Engagement: EU Member State Relations with Kosovo

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 73-76
Author(s):  
Jolyon Naegele
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Politics Of Recognition ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
State Relations ◽  
The Way

This edited volume explores the different ways in which members of the European Union have interacted with Kosovo since it declared independence in 2008. While there is a tendency to think of EU states in terms of two distinct groups – those that have recognised Kosovo and those that have not – the picture is more complex. Taking into account also the quality and scope of their engagement with Kosovo, there are four broad categories of member states that can be distinguished: the strong and weak recognisers and the soft and hard non-recognisers. In addition to casting valuable light on the relations between various EU members and Kosovo, this book also makes an important contribution to the way in which the concepts of recognition and engagement, and their relationship to each other, are understood in academic circles and by policy makers.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

EUROPEAN UNION IN WTO’S DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (XX) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Czermińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
World Trade Organisation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Trade Conflicts ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Descriptive Method

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) serves as a forum for co-operation, currently for as many as 164 countries, and in addition, it allows for the resolution, also amicably, of trade conflicts between parties, consequently, settling disputes between them. One of essential provisions of the Uruguay Round (UR) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) included the introduction of a new dispute settlement mechanism, that is to say, the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), which became effective on 1 January 1995. Member States of the European Union were not only actively involved in developing the rules of the international trade system, but they also influenced, to a large extent, the form of both such rules and of ongoing trade negotiations, as well as they assumed and still assume responsibility for the final arrangements. Hence, their role in the multilateral trade system is both active and passive. This paper aims to demonstrate the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism and show the role which the European Union serves in this system. The Article employs an analytical and descriptive method. It draws on sources from the national and international literature and WTO’s databases.

The ‘Pillared-Privatisation’ of Pension Provision in the European Union: The Case of the United Kingdom

2002 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Ring ◽  
Roddy McKinnon
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
World Bank ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Means Testing ◽  
The Road ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World Bank ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
National Governments

Across the European Union, national governments are re-assessing the institutional mechanisms through which pension provision is delivered. This articles sets the debate within the wider context of the ‘pillared’ structural analysis often adopted by international institutions when discussing pensions reform. It then sets out a detailed discussion of developments in the UK, arguing that the UK is moving towards a model of reform akin to that promoted by the World Bank – referred to here as ‘pillared-privatisation’. The themes of this model indicate more means-testing, greater private provision, and a shift of the burden of risk from the government to individuals. An assessment is then made of the implications of UK developments for other EU countries. It is suggested that while there are strong reasons to think that other countries will not travel as far down the road of ‘pillared-privatisation’ as the UK, this should not be taken as a ‘given’.

scholarly journals Los procesos secesionistas y el derecho europeo

2016 ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Javier Tajadura Tejada
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
Regional Authorities

Este artículo analiza en primer lugar el significado de la secesión en el Derecho Internacional y en el Derecho Constitucional. Asimismo, examina cómo se aborda el fenómeno de la secesión en el Derecho comunitario europeo. Esto obliga a estudiar dos tipos de problemas: por un lado, el de la secesión de un Estado miembro respecto de la propia Unión; por otro, el de la fragmentación de un Estado miembro por la secesión de una parte de su territorio. La conclusión es que la conservación o fragmentación de un Estado miembro de la Unión Europea no es un asunto interno: la secesión de partes de un territorio afecta al sistema político europeo en su conjunto, en la medida en que es una forma de integración federal donde no caben actos unilaterales que quebranten el principio de lealtad federal de la Unión y la ciudadanía europea que ha ido conformándose en las últimas décadas.This article analyzes the meaning of secession in international and constitutional law. It also examines the phenomenon of secession in European law. This requires studying two types of problems: the secession of a member state of the European Union and the fragmentation of a Member State for the secession of part of its territory. The conclusion is that conservation or fragmentation of a Member State of the European Union is not an internal matter. In our opinión, the political and legal system of the Union can be characterized also federally, which prevents the national and regional authorities to carry out unilateral acts that go against the principle of Community federal loyalty and European citizenship.

European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China (EC–Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5–China), DS397)

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 703-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Carlson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Antidumping Duties

This compliance proceeding under Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) concerned measures taken by the European Union to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in EC–Fasteners (China). In EC–Fasteners (China), the DSB found, inter alia, that a European Communities measure imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners from China was inconsistent with certain aspects of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA). The European Union's measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB consisted, inter alia, of an anti-dumping review investigation regarding fasteners from China (the Review Investigation) conducted by the Commission of the European Union (the Commission). The conduct of the Commission in the Review Investigation was the focus of this compliance proceeding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document