scholarly journals Critics and aspects of the European citizenship according to the CJEU: From Rottmann to Tjebbes and others

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Dimitris Liakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Citizen Politics ◽  
European Citizen

This work seeks to analyze and deepen the argument of European citizenship once again based on the jurisprudence of the CJEU. In particular, the latest Rottmann and Tjebbes and others judgments present elements of continuity in relation to the proportionality test required by the CJEU to the courts and authorities of the Member States, if the loss of the citizenship of a Member State also causes the loss of European citizenship. And after Brexit? The authors are also applying to British citizens after the last positions of the CJEU in European citizen politics.

Legitimacy of European Citizenship

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-661
Author(s):  
Jürgen Gerhards ◽  
Holger Lengfeld ◽  
Sophia Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Social Characteristics ◽  
Local Elections ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Core Element ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Citizenship

eucitizens living in aneumember state of which they are not nationals may participate in local elections. Based on a survey conducted in three member states of theeuwe analyze the legitimacy of this core element of European citizenship. Firstly, we examine the extent to which European citizens support the Europeanisation of local voting rights. The results show that about two-thirds of citizens accept these rights. Secondly, we analyze whether those who reject the idea of equality for all Europeans can be determined by social characteristics. Our analyses show that opponents are not at all determined by socio-structural factors and are barely determined by cultural factors and hence do not form the basis for a politically mobilized cleavage. All in all, the results indicate that citizens believe in the legitimacy of this important component of European citizenship.

Compensating for limitations in domestic output performance? Member state delegation of policy competencies to regional international organizations

2020 ◽  
pp. 004711782097032
Author(s):  
Diana Panke
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Member States ◽  
Domestic Output ◽  
Window Dressing ◽  
Output Performance ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Energy States

Cooperation in regional international organizations (RIOs) can help member states to work toward and perhaps achieve policy goals that would not be feasible unilaterally. Thus, RIOs might be used as a means of states to compensate for domestic shortcomings in output performance. Do states equip RIOs with policy competencies in order to compensate corresponding domestic performance shortcomings? The analysis of a novel database on policy competencies of 76 RIOs between 1945 and 2015 reveals that usually RIOs are not usually used as window-dressing devices by which states disguise limited domestic output performance. Instead, governments tend to equip RIOs with policy competencies in order to further strengthen their already good output performance in most policy areas. However, in the policy area, ‘energy’ states tend to confer more competencies to their respective RIOs, the worse they perform domestically, indicating that output-related compensation dynamics might be at play in this field.

Piercing the Corporate Veil: The Responsibility of Member states of an International Organization

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odette Murray
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Member States ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Legal Limit ◽  
Primary Rule

AbstractThis paper applies two manifestations of the principle of good faith – pacta sunt servanda and the doctrine of abuse of rights – to the complex relationship between member states and international organizations. The paper argues that these existing doctrines operate as a legal limit on the conduct of states when creating, controlling and functioning within international organizations. The paper begins by exploring an innovative provision in the International Law Commission's recently finalised Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations – Draft Article 61 – according to which a member state will bear international responsibility for the act of an international organization where the member state uses the organization to circumvent its own international obligations. Examining the development of Draft Article 61 and the jurisprudence upon which it is based, this paper argues that the principle which the Commission in fact seeks to articulate in Draft Article 61 is that of good faith in the performance of treaties. As such, being based on a primary rule of international law, this paper queries whether Draft Article 61 belongs in a set of secondary rules. The paper then considers the role of states in the decision-making organs of international organizations and argues that the widely held presumption against member state responsibility for participation in decision-making organs can and should be displaced in certain cases, in recognition of the various voting mechanisms in international organizations and the varied power which certain states may wield. The paper argues that the doctrine of abuse of rights operates as a fundamental legal limit on the exercise of a member state's voting discretion, and thereby forms a complementary primary obligation placed on states in the context of their participation in international organizations.

Situation-Oriented Designation of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction by Non-Member States

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hadi Zakerhossein
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
State Party ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Article 5

Abstract Rule 44 of the icc Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that non-state parties to the Rome Statute may accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in Article 5 of relevance to the situation by lodging a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Statute. The ending phrase of this provision gives rise to the speculation that a non-member state has a power to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in a partial way, namely over a specific situation. To examine this feasibility, the present article will: (i) explain the functions of the Article 12(3) mechanism; (ii) discuss the possibility of making a situational acceptance; and (iii) contemplate the meaning of the concept of situation. This article suggests that a non-state party can exclusively accept the Court’s jurisdiction over a specific situation, and that is a concrete crisis within a territory.

Enhanced Cooperation and European Tax Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Entire Group ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Cooperation Mechanism ◽  
The Law

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.

The imf Conditionality in the Age of Post-National Governance

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Vojtěch Belling ◽  
Lukáš Kollert ◽  
Martin Vojta
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Program Design ◽  
Currency Union ◽  
Currency Unions ◽  
Monetary Unions ◽  
Executive Board ◽  
Member States ◽  
Board Decision ◽  
Supranational Institutions ◽  
The Imf

Abstract The paper focuses on conditionality in imf programs for member states of monetary unions in light of the decision of the imf’s Executive Board on Program Design in Currency Unions (2018). Despite the growing importance of supranational institutions, the imf lacked until 2018 any explicit framework for imposing conditions on currency union bodies in cases where a member state of such a union requested an imf program. The aim of this paper is to assess the newly adopted imf approach to conditionality for currency union institutions based on the concept of “policy assurances” and to answer the question of whether the imf had authority to impose conditions on supranational institutions prior to the 2018 Board decision and whether the imf should in principle have such authority.

scholarly journals Los procesos secesionistas y el derecho europeo

2016 ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Javier Tajadura Tejada
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
Regional Authorities

Este artículo analiza en primer lugar el significado de la secesión en el Derecho Internacional y en el Derecho Constitucional. Asimismo, examina cómo se aborda el fenómeno de la secesión en el Derecho comunitario europeo. Esto obliga a estudiar dos tipos de problemas: por un lado, el de la secesión de un Estado miembro respecto de la propia Unión; por otro, el de la fragmentación de un Estado miembro por la secesión de una parte de su territorio. La conclusión es que la conservación o fragmentación de un Estado miembro de la Unión Europea no es un asunto interno: la secesión de partes de un territorio afecta al sistema político europeo en su conjunto, en la medida en que es una forma de integración federal donde no caben actos unilaterales que quebranten el principio de lealtad federal de la Unión y la ciudadanía europea que ha ido conformándose en las últimas décadas.This article analyzes the meaning of secession in international and constitutional law. It also examines the phenomenon of secession in European law. This requires studying two types of problems: the secession of a member state of the European Union and the fragmentation of a Member State for the secession of part of its territory. The conclusion is that conservation or fragmentation of a Member State of the European Union is not an internal matter. In our opinión, the political and legal system of the Union can be characterized also federally, which prevents the national and regional authorities to carry out unilateral acts that go against the principle of Community federal loyalty and European citizenship.

scholarly journals Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
The Family ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Eu

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document