scholarly journals “Is This Really What I Voted For?” – On The Legitimacy Of European Integration

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanel Kerikmäe ◽  
Katrin Nyman-Metcalf ◽  
Ioannis Papageorgiou

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the problems and dangers of proceeding with European integration without facing a transparent constitutional debate. The crucial issue demanding clarity is whether the current integration in the form of the EU shall be seen within the framework and concepts of public international law or within those of constitutional law. The authors argue that more intensive integration cannot be achieved on the basis of undermining rule of law and democracy by vacillating between different international law or constitutional law models of proceeding without taking any clear standpoint.

Author(s):  
Michael Ioannidis

This chapter focuses on cases where the presumption that all Member States are effective in enforcing their law does not hold: when Member States show structural, persistent, and cross-sector ineffectiveness in enforcing their law. Borrowing from literature on international law as well as insights from the rich research on EU compliance, this chapter develops three main points. The first is that, on some occasions, the EU might face a similar challenge with that of international law when dealing with weak states. To describe such cases of structural ineffectiveness, this chapter develops the concept of ‘weak member’. The second point is that these problems can be captured through the lens of EU constitutional law, and more specifically as Rule of Law problems. The last point is to present some of the measures taken during the Eurozone crisis to respond to this type of problem with regard to Greece.


Author(s):  
Jörn Axel Kämmerer

The article is an introduction to subsequent articles touching upon the relevance of colonialism to the evolution of public international law. This was the topic of a transdisciplinary research project conducted by German scholars and of an international workshop, with this issue as a yield. Imperial colonialism may be perceived as a period of transition from a parallelism of mostly unconnected ‘trans-communitarian’ systems toward today’s universal international order. A paradox is inherent in decolonisation because the price of independence consisted in non-European systems being ultimately and definitely superseded by a public international law shaped almost exclusively by European powers. This ‘birth defect’ of universality explains many persisting tensions in international legal relations. It is worthwhile to assess whether public international law could draw some inspiration from approaches in the constitutional law of selected states with a colonial heritage in view of mitigating conflicts without, however, compromising the benefits inherent in universality.


2015 ◽  
pp. 289-306
Author(s):  
Tijana Surlan

Recognition is an instrument of the public international law founded in the classical international law. Still, it preserves its main characteristics formed in the period when states dominated as the only legal persons in international community. Nevertheless, the instrument of recognition is today as vibrant as ever. As long as it does not have a uniform legal definition and means of application, it leaves room to be applied to very specific cases. In this paper, the instrument of recognition is elaborated from two aspects - theoretical and practical. First (theoretical) part of the paper presents main characteristics of the notion of recognition, as presented in main international law theories - declaratory and constitutive theory. Other part of the paper is focused on the recognition in the case of Kosovo. Within this part, main constitutive elements of state are elaborated, with special attention to Kosovo as self-proclaimed state. Conclusion is that Kosovo does not fulfill main constitutive elements of state. It is not an independent and sovereign state. It is in the status of internationalized entity, with four international missions on the field with competencies in the major fields of state authority - police, judiciary system, prosecution system, army, human rights, etc. Main normative framework for the status of Kosovo is still the UN Resolution 1244. It is also the legal ground for international missions, confirming non-independent status of Kosovo. States that recognized Kosovo despite this deficiency promote the constitutive theory of recognition, while states not recognizing Kosovo promote declaratory theory. Brussels Agreement, signed by representatives of Serbia and Kosovo under the auspices of the EU, has also been elaborated through the notion of recognition - (1) whether it represents recognition; (2) from the perspective of consequences it provokes in relations between Belgrade and Pristina. Official position of Serbian Government is clear - Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state. On the other hand, subject matter of Brussels Agreement creates new means of improvement for Kosovo authorities in the north part of Kosovo. Thus, Serbian position regarding the recognition is twofold - it does not recognize Kosovo in foro externo, and it completes its competences in foro domestico. What has been underlined through the paper and confirmed in the conclusion is that there is not a recognition which has the power to create a state and there is not a non-recognition which has the power to annul a state.


2019 ◽  

»From an Individual to the European Integration, Discussion on the Future of Europe - Liber Amicorum in Honour of Prof. Dr. emer. Silvo Devetak on the Occasion of his 80-ies Birthday« is a tremendous collection of articles dedicated to Prof. Dr. emer. Silvo Devetak. The nationally and internationally estimated scholars, from eleven states, have written significant articles. These estimated scholars are academics, researchers, colleagues and friends, who shared common ideas, visions, work and research (some for decades) with Professor Devetak. In their articles, which are dedicated to the wide opus of the field of interest of Professor Devetak, they discuss, argue, analyse or overview the topics especially related to public international law, human rights, minorities and EU neighbourhood policy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 603-628
Author(s):  
GUY HARPAZ

AbstractThe EU's consistent policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been that Israel's presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip (prior to the 2005 disengagement) and the Golan Heights is subject to the laws of belligerent occupation, that any purported Israeli annexation is illegal and null and void, that Israel's settlements in the Territories are in breach of public international law and constitute a serious obstacle to peace, and that Israel and Palestine should settle their conflict on the basis of public international law and through the two-state solution. In recent years the EU attempted to concretize this policy through its trade and trade-related agreements with Israel, withholding the benefits of EU-Israeli co-operation from companies and research institutions based in the Territories or operating therein, as well as from products produced therein (the New Approach). Thus, from the EU perception, the New Approach towards the long-standing conflict and its reliance on international law may be seen as an instrument to reinforce internal and external legitimacy, buttress identity cohesiveness and as a manifestation of its more robust effectiveness. But this article seeks to conduct a more careful and balanced analysis of the New Approach and in doing so to reveal that the EU's (almost) exclusive focus on non-governmental entities, such as corporations situated in the Territories, and on Territories’ products, is misplaced in terms of public international law and effectiveness. The New Approach's deficiencies, in abstracto and in concreto, as evaluated in this article, are likely to prevent it from serving as a paradigm shift in EU-Israel relations.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörn Griebel

Property protection is provided by national law as well as international law. The study seeks for an explanation regarding the divergent approaches to the protection of shareholders in cases of reflective loss provided for in German constitutional law and various fields of public international law. This is done by way of a comparison of the German approach with those found in the law of aliens, in the European Convention on Human Rights and under international investment law. This results in the finding that approaches of international law partly fail to establish the necessary bonds to recognized concepts of national law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document