EU Soft Law in Domestic Legal Systems: Flexibility and Diversity Guaranteed?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Korkea-Aho
Keyword(s):  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Member States ◽  
Regulatory Instruments ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
Judicial Recognition ◽  
The Eu ◽  
New Modes Of Governance

New modes of governance are proliferating at all levels, most prominently in the EU. One main characteristic of new governance is adjustability and revisability in the form of soft law. The non-binding nature of soft law is said to contribute to flexibility and diversity in Member States and to secure national autonomy. However, this article argues that while soft law may not be legally binding, it nevertheless has legal effects that throw flexibility and diversity of national action into doubt. Beginning by demonstrating that soft law may have discernible effects on practices in Member States, at the same time restricting Member State choices, the article goes on to develop a categorisation of those effects and to document them in detail. These are: judicial recognition by the European courts, explicit terms of soft law instruments, which demand special types of national implementing measures, the role played by non-state actors, and hybrid forms of regulatory instruments comprising soft and hard law provisions. The analysis shows a need to add variety to existing research on EU soft law, which has traditionally focused on the role of the judiciary in giving legal effects to soft law. Instead, we should be more attentive to the other three factors when discussing soft law. Besides the more holistic approach, research should also analyse soft law in a more case-specific manner in order to fully grasp the implications of choice of soft law in a domestic legal system.

scholarly journals New Governance in the EU after the Euro Crisis—Retired or Reborn?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Dawson
Keyword(s):  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Euro Crisis ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Altered Form ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
The Eu ◽  
New Modes Of Governance ◽  
Governance Instruments

This chapter explores the place of new modes of governance among the EU’s legal acts ‘after’ the onset of the sovereign debt and euro crises. While the last decade has seen a period of supposed decline in such instruments, the chapter argues that the euro crisis has returned an altered form of new governance to prominence as a way of managing complex, multilevel problems that traditional regulation cannot easily solve. The empirical drift back to new governance instruments is also examined normatively. Analysing the development of the European Semester, the chapter questions the suitability of new governance instruments to the harmonizing tasks to which they are currently being put. By abandoning the earlier focus of new governance on experimental policy learning between states, the EU may also be abandoning the most promising impact of new governance instruments on the EU’s legal architecture.

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

scholarly journals Cybersecurity in the EU and Member States: Genesis and Issues of its Enhancing

2019 ◽  
pp. 57-69
Author(s):  
Viktor Boiko ◽  
Mykola Vasylenko ◽  
Serhii Kukharenko
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Approach ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Regulatory Instruments ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Ict Development ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with the issues of establishing cybersecurity in the EU and its member-states at the legislative level as viewed from the point of a systematic approach. The authors identified problematic aspects of improving cybersecurity quality and conditions. They analyzed the impact of the EU member states legislation on cy-bersecurity. The article as well considers the process of ICT development and pre-sents the ways of creating new challenges by means of new technologies. Key words: cybersecurity, cyber resilience, regulatory instruments, EU legislation, innovations.

scholarly journals Governing education policy: the European Union and Australia

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gosia Klatt ◽  
Marcella Milana
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Education Policy ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
The Eu

This paper considers the changing modes of governance of education policy in the European Union (EU) and Australia through a lens of ‘soft governance’. It considers the increased use of ‘policy instruments’ such as benchmarking, targets, monitoring, data-generation in policy-making in recent decades. It considers the roles these policy instruments play in coordinating education policy in the EU and Australia as well as their intended and unintended consequences. It shows that in the EU, these instruments played a role in strengthening the coordination through the links between individuals and programs, and networking, which is seen as resulting in enhanced creativity in policy solutions, development of new norms and new means for achieving policy goals. While in Australia it seems that the role of these instruments is focused on consolidating the role of the Commonwealth’s oversight and control over what constitutionally is a responsibility of States which adds to several policy tensions already existing in the federal coordination of education.

Human Rights in EU Development Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. 682-706
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Michal Ovádek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Development Policy ◽  
External Action ◽  
Development Cooperation ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Member States ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Constitutional Level ◽  
The Eu

This chapter studies the role of human rights in EU development policy. The place of human rights in development policy was solidified at the constitutional level with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which made the promotion of human rights in all EU external action a legal obligation. As a result, different institutional mechanisms, thematic guidelines, and dedicated instruments and strategies have been put in place to consolidate a comprehensive operational framework aimed at ensuring that EU development programs advance human rights worldwide coherently and consistently. EU development policy is a shared competence, which means that both the EU and its Member States are entitled to act within this domain, as long as national actions do not undermine EU laws and positions. The sharing of competences, however, makes it more difficult for the EU to live up to the commitment of coherent and consistent promotion of human rights. In any case, substantial amount of coordination between the EU and the Member States is required in order to deliver coherence in development policy. However, the role of the EU as a normative leader in development cooperation remains subject to a multitude of long-standing criticisms and various evaluations of EU human rights policy point to a series of mixed results and missed opportunities.

European Union Rights and Values in Human Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.

7. Challenging EU action or inaction

2019 ◽  
pp. 312-355
Author(s):  
Elspeth Berry ◽  
Matthew J. Homewood ◽  
Barbara Bogusz
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Primary Materials ◽  
The Eu

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the role of the Court of Justice in ensuring that the rule of law in the EU is observed both by Member States and EU Institutions. The chapter examines infringement actions under Article 258 TFEU, and financial penalties for Member States under Article 260 TFEU. The discussion of judicial review considers acts that may be challenged; who can bring an action under Article 263 TFEU; permissible applicants under Article 263 TFEU; non-privileged applicants; reforming the criteria for locus standi for non-privileged applicants. The chapter also explains the grounds for annulment; the effect of annulment; the plea of illegality; failure to act; and the relationship between Article 263 TFEU and Article 265 TFEU.

Labour Immigration Policy in the European Union: How to Overcome the Tension between Further Europeanisation and the Protection of National Interests?

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-223
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Farcy
Keyword(s):  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Labour Immigration ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article critically assesses EU harmonisation in the field of labour immigration. It argues that EU directives are limited both in scope and intensity which explains their relatively low effectiveness and added value. Given the current political and institutional context, the article claims that a truly common labour immigration policy is unrealistic. Labour immigration remains a predominantly national prerogative and EU rules have done little to overcome normative competition between EU Member States. Looking forward, the EU should adopt complementary measures to Member States’ policies. The role of the EU in this sensitive policy area should be better defined and justified, in particular in relation to the principle of subsidiarity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document