The European Union and the Use of Force: a European Perspective

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Didier Bigo

What practices of (in)securitization involve the notions of border and border control in the European Union? How do these practices operate? How are they assembled? In the resulting assemblage, is the notion of borders – understood as state borders – still relevant for the control of individuals and populations moving across the frontiers of the EU? Drawing on empirical observations and with a specific focus on how border control is translated into different social universes, this article seeks to show that practices of control are routinely embedded in a practical sense that informs what controlling borders does and means. This practical sense is itself informed by different professional habitus and work routines involving deterrence and the use of force, interrogation and detention, surveillance of populations on the move and the profiling of (un)trusted travellers. Its strength varies in relation to its shared dimension by most of the operators, and is adjusted to the materiality of borders as well as to the local contexts in which it is deployed. It activates, or does not activate, the maximal use of various control technologies (satellites, pre-registration and interoperable exchange of data between the state and private bureaucracies, biometrics identifiers, body-scanners). For understanding practices of (in)securitization, actual work routines and the specific professional ‘dispositions’ are therefore more important than any discourses actors may use to justify their activities.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 74-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Francq

The decision of the Supreme Court in RJR Nabisco v. European Community is the culmination of sixteen years of litigation, preceded by years of investigation. From a European perspective, the decision can only be read as a disappointment: “we” tried, “we” lost. But beyond the frustration with the outcome, this European take on the RJR decision will focus on two questions: (i) why did the European Community decide to bring proceedings in the United States in the first place; and (ii) what would happen in the reverse scenario, if a foreign public authority or a private plaintiff were to bring suit in the European Union? Answering these two questions casts RJR in a slightly different light and offers an interesting picture of the wider political and regulatory context in the European Union.


2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-325
Author(s):  
Götz Reichert

My aim for this presentation today, is to give you a broad overview of the diverse challenges the energy sector in Europe is confronted with today and the various policy approaches of the European Union in this respect. In order to illustrate the European perspective on energy policy, part one of my presentation will illustrate important challenges European countries have to face, and the respective role of the European Union in developing policy responses. The second part of my presentation will deal with the four major policy approaches in this field: the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the promotion of energy efficiency, the development of renewable sources of energy, and finally, the necessary adaptation of the energy infrastructure.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

This chapter assesses the ‘primacy’ of European law. When the European Union was born, the European Treaties did not expressly mention the primacy of European law. Did this mean that primacy was a matter to be determined by each national legal order; or was there a European Union doctrine of primacy? There are two perspectives on the primacy question. According to the European perspective, all Union law prevails over all national law. This ‘absolute’ view is not, however, shared by the Member States. According to the national perspective, the primacy of European law is relative. The chapter then considers the two national challenges to the absolute primacy of European law. The first is the national claim asserting the relative primacy of European law in the context of fundamental human rights. The second is the contested question of who is the ultimate arbiter of the scope of the European Union's competences.


2021 ◽  
pp. 186-203
Author(s):  
Ester Herlin-Karnell

The chapter sets out to explore the notion of self-defense and how it is manifested in contemporary law of war. In addition, the chapter discusses the notion of collective self-defense in the context of the European Union (EU). The chapter links this debate to Ripstein’s Kant and the Law of War by using the EU as a test case of Kantian war theory. The chapter focuses on the imminence criteria for deciding on self-defense, in the context of EU security law, and to the extent to which Kant completely ruled out any preventive use of force. The EU’s fight against terrorism and security regulation appears to have many parallels with the “war” model which will be discussed in this chapter.


2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael L. Johnstone

Globalization and Human Rights: Challenges and Answers from a European Perspective is a thought-provoking collection of essays emerging from two Spanish-led research projects from 2007 until the present day. Spanning international law, human rights law, political theory, economics and modern history, these essays provoke the reader to assess and reassess the interplay between the European Union, human rights and human dignity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document