Mixed Agreements in the Italian Legal Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 343-362
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2020) (2) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Milson Xavier ◽  

he Coronavirus pandemic that spread around the world in the first half of 2020 brought impacts to society that will be registered for an extended period. In this paper, the effects showed an impossibility to maintain the progress of mineral research made by professionals in the academic and scientific areas. In an attempt to find justifications in the legal order of the mineral industry, to continue the work, it was faced with imposing environmental legislation that made a claim even more difficult. It was found that the Mining Code in place no longer regulates the activities of extraction of mineral specimens for museums, educational establishments and other scientific purposes. This left the legal security tied only to the interpretation of legal provisions in articles of the code and its regulation, as well as procedure manuals for environmental inspection bodies, and therefore, subject to the consequences of legal disputes with final decisions in higher courts, given the claim of superiority of the environmental issue over mining. Keywords: Coronavirus, pandemic, environmental legislation, mining code


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-31
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Grzelak-Bach

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document