Sincere Cooperation and Respect for National Identities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Guastaferro
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
National Identities ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
Vertical Division ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union is a core provision to understand the ‘federal’ nature of the European Union. It is composed of three paragraphs, any of which tries to strike a balance between the constitutive units of the composite legal order, namely the EU, on the one hand, and the Member States, on the other. The first paragraph enshrines the so-called ‘principle of presumed Member States competences’, according to which competences not conferred upon the EU remain to the Member States. The second paragraph requires the EU to respect Member States’ national identities, inherent in their fundamental political and constitutional structures. The third paragraph enshrines the principle of sincere cooperation. In this respect, all the paragraphs express a sort of ‘federal concern’. Article 4(1) TEU is devoted to the vertical division of competences and strengthens the respect of the principle of conferral, Article 4(2) TEU is devoted to the identities of the Member States of the EU thus protecting diversities in the composite legal order, and Article 4(3) TEU is devoted to loyalty, which, like in many federal or compound legal orders, should inform the cooperation among levels of government.

The EU after Brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-109
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fiscal Federalism ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Horizons ◽  
The One ◽  
Unanimous Approval ◽  
Amendment Procedure ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the European Union after Brexit and articulates the case for constitutional reforms. Reforms are necessary to address the substantive and institutional shortcomings that patently emerged in the context of Europe’s old and new crises. Moreover, reforms will be compelled by the exigencies of the post-Covid-19 EU recovery, which pushes the EU towards new horizons in terms of fiscal federalism and democratic governance. As a result, the chapter considers both obstacles and opportunities to reform the EU and make it more effective and legitimate. On the one hand, it underlines the difficulties connected to the EU treaty amendment procedure, owing to the requirement of unanimous approval of any treaty change, and the consequential problem of the veto. On the other hand, it emphasizes the increasing practice by Member States to use intergovernmental agreements outside the EU legal order and stresses that these have set new rules on their entry into force which overcome state veto, suggesting that this is now a precedent to consider.

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

scholarly journals The European Union's policy on human rights and Chinese sovereignism: The case of Xinjiang

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-86
Author(s):  
Dragan Trailovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The One ◽  
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the European Union's approach to human rights issues in China through the processes of bilateral and multilateral dialogue on human rights between the EU and the People's Republic of China, on the one hand. On the other hand, the paper deals with the analysis of the EU's human rights policy in the specific case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which is examined through normative and political activities of the EU, its institutions and individual member states. Besides, the paper examines China's response to the European Union's human rights approaches, in general, but also when it comes to the specific case of UAR Xinjiang. ?his is done through a review of China's discourse and behaviour within the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue framework, but also at the UN level and within the framework of bilateral relations with individual member states. The paper aims to show whether and how the characteristics of the EU's general approach to human rights in China are reflected in the individual case of Xinjiang. Particular attention shall be given to the differentiation of member states in terms of their approach to human rights issues in China, which is conditioned by the discrepancy between their political values, normative interests and ideational factors, on the one hand, and material factors and economic interests, on the other. Also, the paper aims to show the important features of the different views of the European Union and the Chinese state on the very role of Human Rights Dialogue, as well as their different understandings of the concept of human rights itself. The study concluded that the characteristics of the Union's general approach to human rights in China, as well as the different perceptions of human rights issues between China and the EU, were manifested in the same way in the case of UAR Xinjiang.

Israel and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Pardo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Integration Project ◽  
The Eu

Israeli-European Union (EU) relations have consisted of a number of conflicting trends that have resulted in the emergence of a highly problematic and volatile relationship: one characterized by a strong and ever-increasing network of economic, cultural, and personal ties, yet marked, at the political level, by disappointment, bitterness, and anger. On the one hand, Israel has displayed a genuine desire to strengthen its ties with the EU and to be included as part of the European integration project. On the other hand, Israelis are deeply suspicious of the Union’s policies and are untrusting of the Union’s intentions toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the Middle East as a whole. As a result, Israel has been determined to minimize the EU’s role in the Middle East peace process (MEPP), and to deny it any direct involvement in the negotiations with the Palestinians. The article summarizes some key developments in Israeli-European Community (EC)/EU relations since 1957: the Israeli (re)turn to Europe in the late 1950s; EC-Israeli economic and trade relations; the 1980 Venice Declaration and the EC/EU involvement in the MEPP; EU-Israeli relations in a regional/Mediterranean context; the question of Israeli settlements’ products entering free of duty to the European Common Market; EU-Israeli relations in the age of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP); the failed attempt to upgrade EU-Israeli relations between the years 2007 and 2014; and the Union’s prohibition on EU funding to Israeli entities beyond the 1967 borders. By discussing the history of this uneasy relationship, the article further offers insights into how the EU is actually judged as a global-normative actor by Israelis.

‘But the Last Word Is Ours’: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.

The European Union and translation studies

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 63-80
Author(s):  
Alice Leal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sense Of Self ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
Crucial Element ◽  
The One ◽  
Similar Dynamic ◽  
The Eu

The tension between unity versus multiplicity seems to be at the heart of the European Union (EU) and of translation studies (TS). Indeed, a significant parallel between the two is the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF). The EU appears to be torn between a notion of language as a crucial element of one’s identity on the one hand, and a predominantly instrumental, Lockean view of language, on the other. A similar dynamic appears to take place in TS, an area that is par excellence heterogeneous and in which the notion of difference plays a paramount role. Indeed, at times TS appears to be afflicted by a sense of self-consciousness regarding its lack of unity and homogeneity. According to some, the solution is to foster the standardisation of its methods and terminology. But would proposing standardised terminology in a standardised language for the area not inevitably entail repressing different approaches in different languages? The paper explores this question in the context of the use of English as a lingua franca, and proposes various ways out of the dilemma both for the EU and TS.

Variable Geometry or Concentric Circles: Patterns for the European Union

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Usher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Variable Geometry ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
The One

Once upon a time, a Professor of European Institutions, at least if a lawyer by training, could simply assert that the European Communities are based on the rule of law, that they create institutions with autonomous powers, which are able to issue legislation binding as law throughout every member State of the Community, and that they create courts which have power to exercise judicial control over a complex network of relationships between the Community institutions, the member States and private citizens. While these statements are still true, however, they must now be laced in a rather more complex context. Furthermore, there is a contrast between on the one hand the intensification (to borrow a word from the Common Agricultural Policy) of certain fundamenta s of the EC legal order in the recent case law of the European Court, and on the other hand attempts by member States to escape this through non-EC forms of cooperation in the framework of the European Union, the development of the idea that not all the rules of the EC Treaty apply to all the member States, and the entry by the majority of the member States into a separate Treaty, the Schengen Agreement, dealing with matters which might be thought to fall under the EC Treaty or the Home Affairs and Justice pillar of the Treaty on European Union—all of which might generically be referred to as variable geometry. In the other direction, it may be observed that large amounts of substantive

scholarly journals The interpretation complying with EU law manifested in the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013 of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 82-96
Author(s):  
Carla Machado
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

This article aims to address the interpretation that has been made by Portuguese courts in relation to the concept of “communication of the work to the public” enshrined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, duly transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Law No. 50/2006 of 24 August, which culminated in the drafting of the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013. By verifying its content and analysing the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), concerning the interpretation of that concept, we conclude that the said case law unifying judgment does not comply with EU law. Therefore, we will list, on the one hand, the inherent consequences regarding the upkeep of the interpretation that has been held by the Portuguese judicial authorities and, on the other, we will suggest solutions for the resolution of similar cases by appealing to the principle of conforming interpretation.

scholarly journals COVID-19 AND EUROPEAN UNION – THE ANSWER TO THE HEALTH CRISIS AS A WAY FOR RESUMING THE PROCESS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-116
Author(s):  
Stelio Mangiameli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
The Face ◽  
The One ◽  
Economic And Financial Crisis

The essay starts from a comparison in the European Union between the economic and financial crisis of 2009 and the health crisis of 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the scarce capacity of Member States and European institutions to carry out the recovery of the economic European condition and transformation of the European government system after the 2009 crisis, despite the indications of the Commission's Blueprint (of 2012) and of the Report of the five presidents (of 2015). On the other hand, in the face of the health crisis, the reaction of the European institutions seemed more decisive with the creation of various instruments to combat the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. These include in particular the Recovery fund - Next Generation EU, linked to the 2021-2027 MFF. The reaction to the pandemic shows the possibilities of the European Union to create a community of States in solidarity and with its own identity also in the international scenario. However, it is by no means certain that this idea can prevail over the one that sees the European Union as simply a free trade organization between the Member States. The decisions that will be taken in the Conference on the future of Europe between 2021 and 2022 appear to be decided to define the evolution of the European Union.

Wartości czy interesy? Przyczynek do rozważań o istocie procesów integracji w ramach Unii Europejskiej

2018 ◽  
pp. 96-115
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Szczerba-Zawada
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Organization ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Common Values ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this article is to try to outline the essence of membership of the European Union. This international organization, by virtue of the decision of its creators, i.e. the Member States, has been equipped with attributes, which have determined its unique – supranational – character. As a new legal order, the European Union has been granted some scope of autonomy, but ontologically it is dependent on the Member States. It is the Member States that have taken decision on setting up a new integration structure with a center of decision-making located not only outside but also above them, the scope of its competences and instruments of their exercising, and as “masters of the Treaties”, may decide to dissolve it. The decision to join the European Union seems to be determined pragmatically and praxiologically – upon benefits of cooperation within the framework of the EU. In this perspective solidarity, understood as the unity and equality of the Member States, based on common values, becomes a factor legitimizing the EU, and at the same time – a guarantor of its existence, especially in times of crisis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document