scholarly journals Law Enforcement Cooperation of the Member States of the European Union

Author(s):  
Natalia Mushak ◽  
Anastasiia Zaporozhets

The article is devoted to the study of law enforcement cooperation of the European Union Member States. The main bodiesresponsible for cooperation in the EU have been identified.It has been determined that the main instrument of police cooperation is the European Police Office, which is a central elementof the wider European internal security architecture. CEPOL has been proven to be the agency that develops, implements and coordinatestraining for law enforcement officers. The EU Analytical Intelligence Centre (EU INTCEN) is not, strictly speaking, a policecooperation body, as it is the Directorate for European External Action Service (EEAS) and deals only with strategic analysis. On theStanding Committee to ensure the development and strengthening of operational cooperation on internal security matters within theUnion (COSI), it promotes coordination among the competent authorities of the member states.

Author(s):  
Natalia Mushak ◽  
Anastasiia Zaporozhets

The article is devoted to the study of law enforcement cooperation of the European Union Member States. The main bodiesresponsible for cooperation in the EU have been identified.It has been determined that the main instrument of police cooperation is the European Police Office, which is a central elementof the wider European internal security architecture. CEPOL has been proven to be the agency that develops, implements and coordinatestraining for law enforcement officers. The EU Analytical Intelligence Centre (EU INTCEN) is not, strictly speaking, a policecooperation body, as it is the Directorate for European External Action Service (EEAS) and deals only with strategic analysis. On theStanding Committee to ensure the development and strengthening of operational cooperation on internal security matters within theUnion (COSI), it promotes coordination among the competent authorities of the member states.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hrant Kostanyan

By applying the rational choice principal–agent model, this article examines the European Union member states’ principal control of the European External Action Service (eeas) agent. More specifically, the article applies mechanisms of agency monitoring, control and sanctions that are inherent in the principal–agent model to analyse the establishment and functioning of the eeas. These mechanisms aim to ensure the eeas’s compliance with its mandate, thereby curtailing its ability to pursue own objectives that are independent from the principal. The findings reveal that the eeas is tightly controlled by the eu member states. Moreover the European Commission has tools to exercise horizontal checks vis-à-vis the eeas. The application of the principal–agent model to control the eeas is not without its limits. The model falls short of conceptualizing the role of the European Parliament, which remains an outlier to this model.


elni Review ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 17-24
Author(s):  
Thomas Ormond

In recent years it has become fashionable again among politicians and publicists across Europe to practice ‘Brussels bashing’ and make the EU responsible for many ills of globalisation and modern society. This applies in particular to the field of environmental law. The European Union has been active in the field of environmental protection since the 1970s, i.e. since a time when there was no Union yet but a European Economic Community (EEC), a European Coal and Steel Community and a European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The EEC Treaty of 1957 did not know the term ‘environmental protection’ and for the next decades did not contain any explicit legislative competence for this subject matter. The main instrument of EU environmental policy is the directive. In the European context it means a framework law, as proposed by the EU Commission and adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, which the Member States have to transpose within certain deadlines into their national law, and specify and implement by their authorities into practice. The directive is binding as regards the objective (the result to be achieved) but leaves the choice of form and methods to the national authorities. It is estimated that 80% of current environmental law in Germany (as well as probably in other Member States) is determined by the European Union. The author of this article presents his thoughts on how the EU shapes Member State environmental law and policy, highlighting inter alia “innovation from Brussels” such as EIA, access to environmental information and climate protection, as well as the systematic and risk-based approach as hallmark of EU legislation.


2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Happold

There is a question mark over the future of the nation-state in Europe. National monetary policy has been transferred to the European level in most European Union member States. Over the next ten years the EU will have a stronger role in defence and foreign policy, immigration and law enforcement. The very policies that supposedly define the concept of national sovereignty are no longer the exclusive domain of national governments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viacheslav Lyashenko ◽  
Iryna Pidorycheva

By signing the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine, Ukraine has demonstrated its intention and willingness to integrate into the system of formal institutions of the EU, to adopt the EU rules, norms, and practices, which will enable Ukraine to achieve significant economic benefits. One of those benefits is the opportunity to build a true scientific-educational and innovative partnership with the EU Member States within the European Research Area. This study considers opportunities and perspectives of creating an interstate and cross-border scientific-educational and innovative spaces between Ukraine as an associated country and the European Union Member States taking into account key priorities of the ERA and rapidly growing impact of digital technologies. Particular attention has been given to the establishment of a common Polish-Ukrainian scientific-educational space which could be complemented by the entrepreneurial component. The article has identified opportunities, existing prerequisites, directions, and priorities for building Polish-Ukrainian spaces. It has also defined the challenges of formation the European interstate and cross-border scientific-educational and innovative spaces as a whole. It has been suggested to develop hereinafter an interstate and cross-border high-tech clusters based on the interstate and cross-border scientific-educational and innovative spaces. The scheme and the main steps of formation a cross-border cluster of nano- and biotechnologies are proposed.


Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Duke

AbstractThe Lisbon Treaty may well be on ice, may perhaps even be moribund, but there remain compelling reasons to think through the identified shortcomings of the European Union in external relations. Many of the innovations in the area of external relations that are contained in the treaty are dependent upon ratification by the EU's member states, but some are not; the European External Action Service (EEAS) falls into the latter category. Although the actual implementation of the EEAS will face formidable hurdles, as has been outlined in this contribution, the exercise of thinking through these challenges is essential if the EU and its members are to begin grappling with many of the issues examined in this special issue — ranging from the role of national diplomats in today's world to the successful pursuit of structural diplomacy and the effectiveness of the EU in multilateral organizations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Gruszczak

This article takes up in the form of an interdisciplinary legal and political analysis the issue of the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into European Union law and the national legal systems of the EU member states in the light of the concept of a hybrid system of territorial governance. Accordingly, the Schengen acquis stimulated the process of intersecting the interests of internal security and the protection of Member States’ borders with the supranational ideological imperative with regard to the principle of free movement of persons. The argument developed in this article is that the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into EU law consolidated hybridity of the legal and institutional construction of the EU after the Amsterdam Treaty as a result of the contradiction between the logic of political bargain at the intergovernmental level and the vertical spillover generated at the supranational level in the institutional and decision-making dimensions. The conclusions point to the emergence, as a result of “schengenisation”, of the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, in which the principle of free movement of people brought about diversification of the states’ adaptation mechanisms in relation to the ideologically determined project of transformation of the system of management of the territory and borders within the European Union.


Author(s):  
Russell J. Dalton

This chapter focuses on the variations in cleavage politics across the European Union member states. The analyses compare the structure of issue positions across nations to see if the set of issues defining the economic and cultural cleavages are comparable. While there is some cross-national variation, both cleavages are evident across the European Union. The social group positions on both cleavages are also broadly similar across nations. The chapter then examines the social correlates of cleavage positions to see if factors such as the economic structure or the religious composition of societies affect group alignments. The results emphasize the commonality of the basic patterns for the EU overall to the pattern in specific member states. The analyses are primarily based on the 2009 European Election Study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document