The EU competition policy as an international human rights issue: Wolfgang Weiß

Author(s):  
Samantha Velluti ◽  
Vassilis P. Tzevelekos

The paper introduces the theme and topics of this Special Issue on the extraterritoriality of EU law and human rights in the fields of trade and public procurement since the entry into force of the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon. It briefly explores the meaning of extraterritoriality in international (human rights) law and the EU legal order highlighting the complexity of such notion in both legal systems. In so doing, it provides the context and focus of analysis of the collection of papers that make up this Special Issue, which addresses a number of topical questions concerning the extraterritorial conduct of the EU, as well as the extraterritorial effects of EU law in those specific fields, from the perspective of human rights.


Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Michal Ovádek

This chapter addresses equality and non-discrimination, which are explicitly acknowledged as foundational values in the EU context in Article 2 TEU. Similarly, the right to non-discrimination enjoys wide recognition in international human rights law. In the EU, non-discrimination had a specific role to play from the outset of European integration. Despite being founded without explicit reference to human rights, the original Treaty of Rome nonetheless prohibited discrimination on the basis of nationality (now Article 18 TFEU), as well as discrimination regarding pay between men and women (now Article 157 TFEU). Today, the scope of non-discrimination was enlarged, paving the way for Directives on racial equality and non-discrimination in the field of employment on the grounds of religion, disability, age, and sexual orientation. Moreover, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) identified the principle of equality as a general principle of EU law.


2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Desmond

Even before it had been fully drafted, the un International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families was blighted by a debilitating lack of support from States. Described by one of the participants in the drafting process as the un’s best-kept secret, it remains the least popular of the ten core international human rights instruments and has not been signed or ratified by any of the 28 eu Member States. This article is the first substantive examination of the Convention in the context of the un’s universal periodic review. It suggests that the universal periodic review may give the kiss of eu life to the Convention by raising awareness of it, re-energising civil society to more actively advocate for its ratification and forcing Member States to once again justify non-ratification.


Author(s):  
Lisa Ginsborg ◽  
Graham Finlay

Coherence remains one of the most important challenges facing the European Union (EU) with respect to its commitment to human rights. While perfect coherence in EU human rights policy may never be possible, and is perhaps not even desirable, the normative coherence of EU human rights policy-making under international human rights law remains essential to uphold such a commitment and ultimately to avoid human rights violations by EU actors themselves. ‘Hard interests’, including security, managing migration, or economic policy, must never be used as an excuse to violate human rights, especially by the EU. The present chapter offers a number of suggestions to overcome different types of incoherence, and to promote normative, interest-based, and structural coherence in EU human rights action. Starting from this three-fold typology of incoherence, the chapter identifies different ways in which incoherence is a challenge for EU human rights policy, and offers suggestions to EU actors for opportunities to promote coherent human rights policy and best practices in this regard. Despite the EU’s complex institutional structure and web of competences, significant opportunities remain for the EU and its Member States to act coherently for human rights, both through law—in particular international and regional human rights law—and through the practice of EU actors themselves.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Buhmann

AbstractThis article analyses the EU Commission's policy-based approach to regulating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the role of international human rights law as a normative source for the regulatory output in two initiatives launched in 2002 and 2006. The article argues as a starting point that the understanding of CSR as ‘beyond law’ tends to shroud the contributions that international human rights law and legal theory based regulatory technique lend to CSR normativity and regulation, not only outside the EU but also within. The EU experience shows that due to power relations and their impact on multi-stakeholder negotiations and their outcome, this potential does necessarily unfold. It also shows that the procedural design of reflexive multi-stakeholder regulatory processes is significant for bringing forth the normative contributions of international law to CSR in public–private regulation. Finally, the article suggests that within the public policy context in which EU CSR regulation is emerging, the normative role of international human rights law which the Commission suggests for CSR in Europe and the application of the reflexive regulatory technique contribute to a substantive as well as procedural juridification of CSR, especially in the formative stage of defining CSR normativity. The latter adds a significant new perspective to the understanding of CSR and its relation to law, although it need not conflict with the understanding of CSR being ‘voluntary’ in the sense of action beyond direct legal obligations.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelle Reneman

AbstractDoes EU law provide for a right to interim protection in asylum cases and if so under what circumstances and in what form? These questions are addressed in this article on the basis of relevant EU legislation, the EU principle of effectiveness and the right to effective judicial protection, and finally international human rights law, which serves as a source of inspiration for these principles. It is argued that Article 39 of the Procedures Directive, interpreted in the light of the EU principle of effectiveness and the EU right to effective judicial protection, requires a remedy with automatic suspensive effect in all asylum cases, regardless of their arguability. It is therefore conceivable that this provision offers broader protection than the right to an effective remedy, laid down in international human rights treaties, such as Article 13 ECHR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document