The gradual development of European Union (EU) immigration and asylum law has been characterized by two related, ongoing tensions: the conflict between EU competence in this field and national sovereignty, and the friction between immigration control and the protection of human rights. The EU's approach to resolving the two key tensions in this area are assessed by examining the four key subjects addressed by immigration law: visas and border controls, irregular migration, legal migration, and asylum. The European Union (...) has been more active in the fields of visas and border controls than in any other area of immigration and asylum law owing to the early development of a legal framework, originally in the form of the Schengen Convention. As for irregular migration, the European Union's initial piecemeal approach has been supplemented by the adoption of the fairly comprehensive Returns Directive. (shrink)

In this article, we explore why solidarity has not worked according to expectation in EU migration and asylum law and why it is unlikely to work in the future. First, we consider discourses of burden-sharing and solidarity in EU law from the 1990s up to the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 to identify emergent path dependencies. This period saw the introduction of primary law provisions on solidarity, such as Article 80 TFEU, as French and Dutch electorates had rejected a European (...) constitution. Second, we perform an analysis of Article 80 through the conceptual history of solidarity, in particular, the dominant Roman law tradition of obligation in solidum and the French tradition of solidarism. We submit that the term ‘solidarity’ is actually a misnomer: already on structural grounds, Article 80 should be read as an alliance clause, countering a threat of irregular immigration. Third, we find that the practice under Article 80 as it develops during the period between 2015 and the 2020 European Commission Pact on Migration and Asylum corroborates this finding. Overall, we find that the concept of solidarity in EU asylum and migration law engenders outcome expectations that it cannot deliver as the defence alliance it is. (shrink)

Starting from 2009, national courts of the EU Member States for the first time gained a “real” right to request the EU Court of Justice for preliminary rulings in asylum matters. First judgments of this Court demonstrate equivocal tendencies: some are blaming the Court for incompetence in asylum matters, others believe that the adoption of authoritative decisions at the European level will assist in developing consistent practice of applying asylum law in the European Union, something that failed (...) at international level due to absence of a single authoritative body to provide guidance on interpretation and application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Considering that the judgments of the EU Court are part of the EU law, the Member States should develop their national asylum law with due regard being taken to those judgments. By the beginning of 2012, the Court has issued eight judgments on the interpretation of various problematic issues of EU asylum law. This Article analyses the jurisprudence of the EU Court in asylum cases, related to the granting of refugee status and subsidiary protection. It also provides a critical evaluation of those judgments. The main objective of the Article is to familiarise the relevant Lithuanian institutions and lawyers with the first judgments of the EU Court in asylum cases and encourage discussions concerning the application of rules established by the Court in the Lithuanian context. Due to limited size, this Article presents the analysis of two EU Court judgments adopted on interpretation of the 2004 Qualification Directive: Elgafaji v. The Netherlands (2009) dealing with granting of subsidiary protection, and Abdulla and others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2010), dealing with cessation of refugee status. The value of those judgments first of all lies in the guidance they provided to the Member States on such concepts as: protection in a situation of an armed conflict, agents of protection, effectiveness of protection; as well as determination of a relationship between refugee status and subsidiary protection, relationship of the Qualification Directive with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), also cessation of protection. Elgafaji decision, while quite liberal with regard to persons seeking international protection, is not so liberally applied in the Member States’ practice and does not in itself guarantee positive outcome of the application of a concrete individual fleeing from an armed conflict, or a liberal approach to granting subsidiary protection in the Member States. Based on Elgafaji judgment it is clear that: Art. 15(b) of the Qualification Directive correspond to Art. 3 ECHR, while Art. 15(c) provides additional protection and in that it expands the Member States’ obligations beyond the ECHR to provide protection to persons fleeing in situations of armed conflict. While not every person arriving from an armed conflict situation would automatically fall under the granting of subsidiary protection, in certain exceptional situations indiscriminate violence may amount to individual threat without invoking personal circumstances. The EU Court departed from the individualisation requirement applied by the European Court of Human Rights in Art. 3 cases and did not also rely on international humanitarian law, by introducing a “sliding scale” formula for establishing an individual threat in armed conflict situation instead. This formula addressed the alleged internal discrepancy between “individual threat” and “indiscriminate violence”. The Abdulla decision brought in the human rights and law enforcement perspectives to the interpretation of cessation clauses, however it represents a rather superficial approach in the context of the analysed concepts (e.g. towards effectiveness of protection provided by the multinational armed forces) and is likely to be incompatible with the latest legislative trends in the EU asylum instruments (e.g. determination of refugee status and subsidiary protection by means of a single procedure) and the recent jurisprudence under the ECHR (e.g. failure to ensure a minimum standard of living may violate the ECHR). (shrink)

Even though the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) does not explicitly address the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, the case law of the European Human Rights Court (ECtHR) confirms that their rights can be successfully defended under this mechanism. In parallel, in its evolving jurisprudence on asylum the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) refers to the Strasbourg case law, where there is a certain interrelationship between these two jurisdictions, (...) in particular given the recent ECtHR pronouncement on “EU Dublin transfers”. The article aims at evaluating protection available for asylum seekers and refugees under the ECHR, while comparing it with protection of asylum relevant fundamental rights under the EU legal order and the most recent jurisprudence of the CJEU in asylum cases. The authors also analyze which of the two systems is more favourable and what are their limitations. Thus, the article offers to students and practitioners a detailed analysis of ECtHR and CJEU jurisprudence in asylum cases through a comparative perspective, as well as the key problematic aspects arising in both jurisdictions and their junction. The jurisprudence of the ECtHR reveals that despite the most developed protection from expulsion under Article 3 of the ECHR, it does not sufficiently secure status for the concerned persons. Effective remedy requirements under the ECHR allow for filling the gaps of national asylum procedures, while recognition of vulnerability and special status of asylum seekers by the ECtHR assist in addressing still commonly prevailing detention problems of asylum seekers in Europe. In the context of family protection, the recognition of positive obligations by states to reunite the refugee families is still rudimentary, thus, clearly Article 3 protection in expulsion cases takes over Article 8. At the same time, the jurisprudence of the CJEU in asylum cases is still inconsistent, as the court sometimes takes decisions without including human rights into its’ analysis (Kadzoev, Arslan, K.), while in other cases refers to the Charter (MA and others), verifies if its’ own decision is in line with the ECtHR jurisprudence (Elgafaji) or shapes secondary legislation in line with Strasbourg arguments and findings (N.S.). Quite likely, the ECtHR practice will have an important influence on the developments of subsidiary protection in the EU, at least in the context of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, and serve as an important reference for interpretation of various concepts under the EU Qualification and Procedures Directives. The comparative analysis of pros and cons of the two mechanisms demonstrates that the main advantage of the ECtHR is individual justice possibility, which is not yet accessible under CJEU preliminary judgement procedure and its input in developing asylum law concepts, such as non-state agents of persecution, internal protection or even subsidiary protection regime under EU asylum law. Thanks to the ECtHR, the realistic possibility to question the application of certain EU norms has emerged (Dublin Regulation). While the ECtHR does not have such a specific competence over asylum issues as the CJEU and is clearly a slow and seriously overburdened mechanism, the pilot judgement procedure seems to be increasingly capable of providing guidelines to the states concerning systematic problems in their asylum procedures. Thus, both jurisdictions in their own ways contribute to strengthening asylum seekers’ protection while forming a common oasis for these individuals in Europe. (shrink)

The question of detention of asylum seekers is specific due to the special situation of detainees (persons who have experienced human rights violations and apply for asylum in receiving country) and due to peculiarities of detention itself (persons have not committed crimes, but come or stay illegally because they have been forced to do so by fleeing from human rights violations). Therefore, lately it raises many discussions at the European level. Sooner or later, discussions influence national laws, as (...) after adopting the EU directives their provisions must be properly transposed into national laws. This article describes the recent documents: the study in Lithuania, the UNHCR guidelines, the EU developments, the Lithuania judicial practice. The authors of the article discuss the latest amendments of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens (entering into force on 1 February 2012) related to detention of asylum seekers after the transposition of the provisions of the Return Directive. The practice of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania when applying the new detention-related provisions is also reviewed in the article. The authors do not agree with the position of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania that the provisions of the Return Directive are applicable to asylum seekers. The authors pay attention to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the preamble of the Return Directive and its legal relations with the EU asylum directives. At the end, the conclusions are drawn as to the way that the provisions of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens should be interpreted in the light of the purposes and provisions of the European Union directives. In order to avoid contradictory practice and at the same time ensure the interests of public order in Lithuania, Article 113(7) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens could be applied. (shrink)

The 6th of February 2005 marks the deadline of transposition of the EU Council Directive No. 2003/9/EC (Reception Conditions‘ Directive) into national legislation. This article is the second in a series of articles on transposition of the European Union Asylum Directives in Lithuania and remaining concerns. It analyses the transposition of the Reception Conditions Directive in the country, the impact of the directive‘s provisions on the development of the Lithuanian asylum law and draws attention to the remaining concerns (...) in relation to implementation of this directive in Lithuania. The authors illustrate the remaining concerns with practical and live examples/stories from Lithuania. (shrink)

In this article, we reflect on our personal experience of acting as ‘independent academic experts’ in an European Union policy forum, to reflect on how the EU utilises gender to legitimise certain policy discourses in combating sex trafficking. Starting from our personal experience, we draw on wider feminist research on gender expertise and on Fraser’s new reflexive theory of political injustice, to consider how the EU structures debates in this area to determine ‘who’ is entitled to speak and be heard (...) on this issue. In a context in which sex trafficking policy intersects with a variety of competing agendas on – among other things – law and order, organised crime, immigration, asylum and border security policy, our argument will suggest that the exclusion of critical feminist voices and lack of alternative perspectives permits much scope for continuing inequality and injustice. (shrink)

This chapter reexamines the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the prism of the modern structure of the foundational treaties of the EU: the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Lisbon Treaty has reshaped the structure of the positive law of the EU, marking a new stage in the process of creating a closer union. For EU procedural law, this has led to (...) the formal establishment of three focal points which reflect the issues involved. At one extreme, are general principles of EU law, which have constitutional status including the general principle of effective judicial protection. In the middle of the spectrum are two provisions which recognize the balancing of national and EU interests required at the procedural level. Finally, the treaties recognize the possibility for substantive regulation at the EU level. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is twofold: first, it seeks to provide a better understanding of lawyers’ ethics in practice in the field of publicly funded asylum law. It does so by examining Dutch asylum legal aid lawyers’ moral reasoning in respect of the ethically challenging issue of ‘the hopeless case’, employing a version of Christine Parker’s four approaches to moral reasoning in legal practice: adversarial advocacy, responsible lawyering, moral activism and relational lawyering. Second, it aims to demonstrate (...) the applicability of Parker’s taxonomy, developed in a common law country (Australia), to a civil law country (The Netherlands). This paper shows, in line with what Parker argued, that lawyers may apply a combination of approaches – different ethical considerations carry different in weight in different circumstances. It provides illustrations of situations in which approaches coexist and compete and the circumstances in which one prevails over the other in the area under review. (shrink)

Although the Refugee Convention 1951 generally provided that contracting states should recognise those who came within its definition as refugees, it did not prescribe how contracting states should determine this in order to enable them to balance this obligation with their national interests. However, evidence from the background and drafting of the Refugee Convention 1951 suggests that the provisions that a contracting states would implement in order to protect its interests would be commensurate with the human rights spirit of the (...) treaty. This implied that contracting states would act fairly in balancing the competing interests in devising status determination policies and would take into account decent considerations. But, from a theoretical viewpoint, it is arguable that some recent asylum determination policies have been based on the threats posed by asylum seekers. Asylum seekers have come to be blamed for contributing to the national issues that some contracting states face and as such, some contracting states have adopted draconian measures as a result. (shrink)

In the aftermath of the “Arab Spring” and of crumbling state structures, an exodus of unknown proportion from the Near East and from Northern Africa has set in and was further exacerbated by civil war and ISIS terror rule over large territories in the Near East. As a consequence, thousands of refugees came to Europe. Many of them fulfilled the conditions for non-refoulement according to Article 33 of the Geneva Convention on the Law of Refugees of 1951 or were at (...) least entitled for temporary protection according to the Common European Asylum System. These instruments did not, however, take into consideration situations of mass influx and neither is there an efficient mechanism for burden sharing within the EU in place. Some countries where overwhelmed by these migration flows. In this contribution, particular attention will be given to the reactions to these developments by the Austrian government. In Austria, as a consequence of mounting pressure by considerable parts of the population demanding a halt to this migration, the government adopted or announced a series of measures that, if implemented, will constitute a blatant violation of international law. This holds true, in particular, for the so-called upper limit for asylum seekers. Legal academia in Austria in part was silent as to these events, in part sustained it after having been engaged for a legal. It is contended here that unilateralism may be effective in a short-time perspective, but the long-term consequences should not be overlooked. It would be better to work on a genuine international burden-sharing mechanism even though this approach is more difficult to sell to national constituencies. (shrink)

This chapter provides an overview of the key European Union (EU) competition law provisions, focusing on their impact on the global economy and how this impact is managed. It considers the main transnational themes that arise. The first is the age‐old question of the extent to which national law applies across its borders. The second is the question of externalities, which has two ramifications. The first is an economic one, whereby the concern is that the enforcement of competition law in (...) one jurisdiction may have negative repercussions in others, reducing global welfare. The second branch is political in character and arises when the enforcement of competition law in one jurisdiction harms the economic interests of firms abroad. A third theme is collaboration among agencies in the context of global anticompetitive conduct. A fourth theme is hypocrisy. The chapter also sketches how competition policy became the European Union's first supranational policy. (shrink)

The European Union (EU) has developed a vast body of environmental law, relying on a treaty title setting out normatively and descriptively complex environmental principles and approaches, as well as on those parts of the treaties focusing on the internal market. This chapter provides some introductory insights into EU environmental law. It explores that the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) shows the potential of an approach to governance that sets environmental norms in a collaborative, problem‐solving forum beyond the face of legislation. (...) The chapter shows harmonization is not a straightforward category in EU environmental law. Much was made of the decentralization and local or national flexibility in the predecessor to the IED. By comparison, the IED places greater emphasis on the mandatory application of EU‐wide environmental standards. However, both the initial decentralization and the recentralization are highly ambiguous. (shrink)

This chapter presents an analysis of complex constitutional framework, examining institutional developments brought about by the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties and by focusing in particular on the major institutional changes brought about by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It illustrates how European integration in criminal matters has been organized over time. The chapter examines the extent of European Union (EU) competence to harmonize national legislation in the field of substantive criminal law and European integration in criminal matters (...) via the application of the principle of mutual recognition to criminal law and justice. It then explores harmonization of criminal procedure in order to facilitate the operation of mutual recognition and European integration via delegation, by an examination of the powers and interrelationship between various EU bodies and agencies in the field of criminal justice. The chapter describes the external dimension of EU action in criminal matters. (shrink)

We construct novel measures to assess (i) the extent to which European Union member states are using common standards in recognizing asylum seekers and (ii) the extent to which the responsibilities for asylum applications, acceptances and refugee populations are equally shared among the member states, taking into account population size, gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP expressed in purchasing power parity (GDP-PPP). We track the progression of these measures since the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999). These (...) measures display divergent trends and we try to provide an interpretation of the dynamics that are constitutive of these trends. (shrink)

One of the stated aims of the “2008 Policy Plan on Asylum” by the European Commission is increased ‘responsibility sharing’ between Member States with respect to asylum seekers. Luc Bovens and Günperi Sisman assess the extent to which UNHCR outcome data reflect these aims between 2006 and 2011 – from the end of the first phase of the Common European Asylum System until the latest available data. They find that Greece, Portugal and Spain take on very low (...) responsibility for asylum seekers per capita and per unit of GDP. Eastern European states do poorly per capita, but do much better per unit of GDP. There is also an overall trend towards greater responsibility sharing for acceptances and stocks per unit of GDP. (shrink)

The European Union's interest in developing rules concerning maritime law and liabilities has gained momentum, particularly after the Erika disaster in 1999. The development of EU maritime law has taken place on an incremental basis and to a large extent it is closely associated with various EU institutions' knee‐jerk reaction to pollution disasters within EU waters, prompted, no doubt, by the extensive media coverage of public outrage following such oil spills. This chapter considers several relevant EU directives and regulations devised (...) particularly since the mid‐2000s, with a view to evaluating the effectiveness of these measures in achieving a uniform marine legal regime within the European Union in harmony with the international law. A new trend within the European Union is to incorporate provisions of international conventions into the EU legal order by duplicating them in EU directives and regulations. (shrink)

Transgender legal protections have long been contentious issues, with courts often pathologizing or refusing recognition of transgender identities. Recently, however, courts adjudicating asylum claims have recognized “transgender” as a legitimate category of protection. I take this legal development as an opportunity to ask how courts determine if individuals are transgender. While previous work has shown how courts maintain the gender binary, asylum law offers the first chance to analyze how recognizing a distinct transgender category affects the legal gender (...) order and the classification of trans claimants. Drawing on court decisions, ethnographic observations, and interviews, I argue that the recognition of transgender as a category implicitly acknowledges the malleability of gender. Yet, the adjudication of transgender asylum cases continues to uphold a fixed and binary conception of gender by assuming a “born into the wrong body” narrative and that claimants should always already know their gender identities. Courts thus enforce a cis–trans binary wherein only certain claimants are found “trans enough.”. (shrink)

For the purposes of this article, the right to confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and a client (legal professional privilege) is analysed and understood as a rule under which, in judicial or administrative proceedings, the content of communications between a lawyer and his client shall not be disclosed; if this rule is breached, the content of the communications in question is not treated as evidence in the process. Legal professional privilege is related to several articles of the Convention for (...) the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Court of Human Rights has found that the violation of the right of an accused to communicate with a lawyer without a third party departs from Article 6(3)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which entitles to defend oneself in person or through a legal assistant. This kind of communication also relates to the Article 8 of the Convention, which provides a right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. In the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, according to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms there is no difference if a lawyer representing a client is a practitioner or not. However, when dealing with the violations of EU competition law, the Court of Justice of the European Union acknowledges the protection of legal professional privilege only with regard to the communications between an accused companies and an independent lawyer (who does not work for his client on an employment contract basis). When the protection of legal professional privilege is not granted for communications of the accused company with its own legal personnel, a question may arise whether it is considered that sufficient level of confidentiality is ensured for these companies. (shrink)

Taiwan is considered to be one of the most progressive countries in Asia but has no asylum law. Does it need one? Many in Taiwan, including officials and politicians, claim that the regulations that are currently in place are sufficient. There are, however, some people in Taiwan who require protection, and the government is not able to respond effectively in the absence of an asylum law. The author has identified several different groups in Taiwan that would benefit from (...) an asylum law — from Hong Kong protesters facing persecution, through Chinese dissidents or descendants of the ROC army from the Thai-Myanmar border region, to Turkish people with revoked passports; grouped into two major categories — persons from the PRC, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau and persons from other countries. The draft of the asylum law has been sitting in the Parliament for 14 years, and the reason for it not yet having passed is the “China Factor.” The Taiwan-China relationship thus cannot be disconnected from this issue, and the article discusses the three most common concerns with regard to this in the Taiwanese society. While these are legitimate concerns, they could be solved by adopting a dual asylum system dealing with group 1 and group 2 separately. Compared to UN member countries, Taiwan is on its own when it comes to the asylum issue, although adopting an asylum law is part of a broader push to bring Taiwan’s legal system in line with international human rights law. The article provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the refugee situation in Taiwan; it is based on document studies and interviews conducted in Taipei in autumn 2020. (shrink)

Why are human rights abuses of refugees at the EU’s geographical periphery tolerated by other EU states? This chapter uses the case of Hungary and Germany to explore how the former abolished the institution of asylum, shedding light on the human rights abuses of refugees, and why states such as the latter seem to condone such actions. It argues that core EU member states condone human rights abuses at the geographical periphery of the EU as long as they contribute (...) to keeping refugees from accessing their territory. If the ‘dirty work’ is being done by others, the moral self-portrait of a generous refugee-receiving state remains, on the surface, untarnished. The chapter aims at disenchanting this image. (shrink)

The current international asylum regime recognizes only persecuted persons as rightful asylum applicants. The Geneva Convention and Protocol enumerate specific grounds upon which persecution is recognized. Claimants who cannot demonstrate a real risk of persecution based on one of the recognized grounds are unlikely to be granted asylum. This paper aims to relate real-world practices to normative theories, asking whether the Convention’s restricted preference towards persecuted persons is normatively justified. I intend to show that the justifications of (...) the persecution criterion also apply to grounds currently lacking recognition. My main concern will be persecution on the grounds of gender.The first section introduces the dominant standpoints in theories of asylum, which give different answers to the question of who should be granted asylum, based on different normative considerations. Humanitarian theories base their claims on the factual neediness of asylum-seekers, holding that whoever is in grave danger of harm or deprivation should be granted asylum. Political theories base their justifications on conceptions of legitimacy and membership, holding that whoever has been denied membership in their original state should be granted asylum. Under political theories, Matthew Price’s theory will be discussed, which provides a normative justification of the currently recognized persecution criterion. The second section provides a descriptive definition of persecution based on Kuosmanen, and evaluates the normative relevance of the different elements of this definition based on the theories presented previously. The third section is devoted to the examination of the normative justifiability of the nexus clause’s exclusive list of the bases upon which persons might be persecuted. The section argues that while the clause does not recognize that persecution might be based on gender, in fact many women experience harms based on gender that fulfil all the normatively relevant definitive conditions constituting persecution. The conclusion shows that although the current law’s preferences towards the persecuted are justifiable, the nexus clause’s limiting enumeration of grounds is not. This applies especially to the exclusion of gender as grounds for granting asylum.Article first published online: 21 DEC 2015. (shrink)

This article argues that the practical difficulties and normative dilemmas at stake in the European refugee crisis as a crisis of EU integration extend beyond refugee policies into what we may call ‘the citizenship regime’ of the European Union in ways that are consequential for refugees, member states, and the European Union. It advances arguments for the relatively rapid access to citizenship of refugees, demonstrates that this norm has at least some acknowledgment in the policies of EU member states and (...) considers what further differentiation of refugees from other classes of migrant might be a part of developing a just and legitimate Common European Asylum Regime. It argues that there are some reasons to favour a CEAS in which refugees receive EU citizenship prior to national citizenship in a member state. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised many intriguing questions both in the EU and globally, from the critical task of safeguarding lives to technical legal issues about competences to regulate health as well as the boundaries of emergency laws. This paper is interested in the connection between non-domination theory and the EU’s constitutional structure in the context of emergency laws. A key theme of the paper is that risk and emergencies are nothing new in an EU context, but concepts used by (...) the legislator in a wide range of policy areas which give rise to a number of constitutional challenges. The paper sketches out the main characteristics of non-domination and republication theory and addresses the question of how and why the notion of non-domination may be useful for understanding the EU constitutionalism venture in the framework of risk and emergency laws. (shrink)

In this paper I would like to present a brief description of the issues in English-Polish translation in the field of antitrust. Ever since Poland became a part of the broadening European integration, the Polish antitrust laws have been strongly “Europeanised”. Many new linguistic elements exist in both the Polish language of antitrust law and Polish legal language. Whatever the cause, the result is a decrease in the quality of the language. The issues of concern are divided into two groups. (...) The first relates to producing Polish versions of EU legal documents concerning antitrust. The second is related to translating English language of antitrust for the purposes of drafting national documents concerning antitrust, both legal documents and documents that are not legally binding. I will then turn to areas where a change is needed and propose measures that might be helpful in the current circumstances. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to respond to Jacques Derrida’s reading of Immanuel Kant’s laws of hospitality and to offer a deeper exploration into Kant’s separation of a cosmopolitan right to visit ( Besuchsrecht) and the idea of a universal right to reside ( Gastrecht). Through this discussion, the various laws of hospitality will be examined, extrapolated and outlined, particularly in response to the tensions articulated by Derrida. By doing so, this article will offer a reinterpretation of the laws (...) of hospitality, arguing that hospitality is not meant to capture all the conditions necessary for cosmopolitan citizenship or for a thoroughgoing condition of cosmopolitan justice as Derrida assumes. This is because hospitality could be understood as the basic normative requirement necessary to establish an ethical condition for intersubjective communication at the global level, where discursive communication regarding the substance of a future condition of cosmopolitan justice is to be subjected to global public reason. (shrink)

This chapter examines the role of law in European Union (EU) external relations from two perspectives. First, it examines the EU as a rule‐based (international) actor Law and focuses mainly on EU law‐ governs both the extent of the European Union's external powers and their exercise, the constitutional foundations of EU external relations and the legal principles that govern external action. Second the chapter turns to the European Union's characteristic use of law as an instrument and objective of its foreign (...) policy, the European Union as a promoter of a rule‐based international order. The role of the Parliament in the conclusion of international treaties, which are often regulatory or quasi‐legislative in character, brings to the final theme of this contribution: the role played by law as both an instrument and a goal of EU foreign policy. (shrink)

This Chapter studies legislative initiatives around sustainable finance deriving from the Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth (also called ‘Sustainable Finance Action Plan’, ‘Action Plan’ henceforth), published by the European Commission (‘Commission’) in 2018 (Communication 2018/97). I evaluate various instruments proposed in the Action Plan, using a reflexive law approach coupled with insights from business ethics and epistemology (De Bruin, 2013, 2015). I point to the challenges such an approach encounters, and offer suggestions how to address them. Reflexive law approaches to (...) legislation (Farber 1994, Hess 1999, Orts 1994, Farmer & Teubner 1994) acknowledge the limits of law as an instrument to realize social or political goals, and stress the need to encourage self-reflection and transparency among stakeholders through procedural rather than ‘command-and-control’ legislation. Typical reflexive law instruments involve disclosure, reporting, and labelling. Examining the Action Plan, I show that the main legislative instruments it puts forward are reflexive. I use empirical and theoretical work that challenges the effectiveness of some of these instruments. Drawing on recent work from behavioural economics I suggest that these problems may be overcome once we integrate more fully in reflexive law what it means for people ‘reflectively’ to recruit evidence and gather knowledge, and once we appreciate the value knowledge has over and above mere belief. My argument here is not so much to the effect that more interventionist regulatory tools are needed (they are dearly needed, but that is not the point here). Rather I argue that once a regulator opts for a reflexive law approach, a richer notion of information should be deployed. I call this ‘epistemic’ instead of ‘reflexive’ law. The Chapter gives some background information about the Action Plan, introduces the core ideas of reflexive law, shows how the Action Plan is reflexive law par excellence, considers the challenges, and offers a few modest suggestions. (shrink)

Taking the contemporary definition for ‘refugee’ by the UN High Commission for Refugees as a starting point, this article examines the law on refugee asylum in Deut. 23:16-17 for parallel points and concerns, in order to gain insight into the ethics that have driven its composition. This law is commonly included in discussions on slavery due to the use of עֶ֫בֶד, but the identification of this ‘slave’ as a foreign refugee seeking asylum in Israel has not been adequately (...) noted. Examining the law under this identification sheds light on refugee experience and Deuteronomy’s ethical stance on refugee asylum. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the application of international humanitarian law (IHL) to EU military operations outside of the European Union (EU). It describes where the Union has performed best: promoting the development, acceptance, and respect of IHL by others. EU restrictive measures may be taken in its commercial policy, its foreign and security policy, and its development cooperation policy. A field in which the European Union may have a direct impact on violations of IHL is the export of arms. EU member (...) states continue to be involved in armed conflicts, but EU law did not govern their involvement. Therefore, the relationship between IHL and EU law is fortunately not (yet) an issue of daily concern for practitioners and EU institutions. In the instances in which the European Union has been a military actor abroad, IHL arguably did not apply because the Union had not become a party to an armed conflict. (shrink)

The European Union is one of the ‘big ideas’ of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and has been built on the idea of the European Community, which it supersedes. Seen in this light the emergent law of the European Union is becoming omnipresent in so many ways and yet it does not appear to have been the subject of as much semiotic study as it deserves. This paper takes a multilingual stance and explores emerging EC and EU law from a (...) perspective of a lawyer-linguist practitioner in the field. The purpose is to describe a range of practitioner ‘realities’ and to explore how semiotics provides a tool for analysis and insights for a better understanding and awareness of EU law, with particular emphasis on the legislative, or law-making aspects. (shrink)

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Byzantium, it is well known, in contrast to the medieval West, is the continuous tradition of Roman law and secular courts which the Eastern Empire possessed throughout its existence, as well as a central authority in a position to put these tools into effect. Thus the question of the nature of law and order in Byzantium would seem to be straightforward; whoever wishes to learn how the crime of killing was handled can consult the (...) tenth-century corpus of Roman law, the Basilika, where one finds that the criterion which the law applies is intention to kill, measured by the object or weapon used, and that capital punishment is inflicted even if the act of violence does not result in a death. Those who cause death by accident or through negligence receive a much reduced punishment or none at all. These regulations survive in compilations of Byzantine law until the fall of the empire. (shrink)

State aids law has become a major subject in its own right. Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which lays down the substantive rules on state aid, and Article 108 TFEU, which provides for the procedural rules, form part of the treaty chapter on competition. However, there are now several important pieces of legislation. The first is Council Regulation 994/98/EC, which applies Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. The gist of the regulation is that (...) the Commission is authorized to adopt block exemptions for certain categories of aid. On this basis, the Commission has adopted a number of regulations, which will be discussed in this chapter. The enforcement of the state aid rules by the Commission has been essential in containing the crisis. The Commission efforts have been supplemented by the policies of the European Central Bank, which provided enhanced credit support. (shrink)

Both the European Union and the Council of Europe have a bearing on privacy in genomic databases and biobanking. In terms of legislation, the processing of personal data as it relates to the right to privacy is currently largely regulated in Europe by Directive 95/46/EC, which requires that processing be “fair and lawful” and follow a set of principles, meaning that the data be processed only for stated purposes, be sufficient for the purposes of the processing, be kept only for (...) so long as is necessary to achieve those purposes, and be kept securely and only in an identifiable state for such time as is necessary for the processing. The European privacy regime does not require the de-identification of personal data used in genomic databases or biobanks, and alongside this practice informed consent as well as governance and oversight mechanisms provide for the protection of genomic data. (shrink)

Ulrich Beck characterized the transition from modern to late modern society as a shift from an industrial to a “risk society.” Contemporary society is challenged by negative side effects of modernization, including the increasing and imminent threat of global climate change. This article will test the validity of conceivable prescriptive elements associated with this sociological theory. In doing so, it will focus on the most recent legal developments aimed at tackling climate change within the EU. This paper finds that the (...) precautionary approach is unable to sufficiently shape balanced legal intervention in this day and age. However, the approach adopted by the EU appears to be more successful in this respect. (shrink)

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas Lietuvos Respublikos darbo ginčų instituto reformavimas ir kaita Nepriklausomybės laikotarpiu atskirų Europos Sąjungos valstybių patirties kontekste. Darbo ginčų reforma Lietuvoje minimu laikotarpiu vyko keliais etapais, iš jų paskutinysis, prasidėjęs 2013 m. sausio 1 d., pakeitė darbo ginčų komisijų organizavimo tvarką, šias komisijas pradėjus kurti teritoriniu principu, prie veikiančių Valstybinės darbo inspekcijos teritorinių padalinių, nustačius, kad į darbo ginčų komisiją su skundu gali kreiptis ne tik darbuotojas, bet ir darbdavys, įvedus kitas naujoves. Tačiau šie pokyčiai vis dar neatspindi europinių (...) tendencijų, kiek įmanoma mažiau institucionalizuoti ikiteisminę individulių darbo ginčų nagrinėjimo tvarką. Straipsnyje akcentuojama mintis, jog darbo ginčų instituto reforma laikytina nebaigta ir, tikėtina, bus tęsiama, remiantis pažangiausia kai kurių ES valstybių praktika šioje srityje, tačiau išlaikant nacionalinį teisinio reguliavimo ypatumą. (shrink)

This chapter considers the effect of European Union (EU) law in the national courts of the member states and its status vis‐a‐vis overlapping rules of national law. The basic doctrines crafted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) marked a significant departure from the standard model of international law and made a major contribution to the early development of the common market. The CJEU added, in many national legal systems the essentials of the legal rules governing State (...) liability have been developed by the courts. The principle of state liability has in practice been applied by the CJEU with restraint. The national courts now routinely apply the doctrines of direct effect and what de Witte calls ordinary primacy. However, the idea that Union law takes precedence over national rules having constitutional status has proved problematic with top national courts, particularly in so‐called dualist member states. (shrink)

This open access book seeks to identify the ethical spirit of European Union law, a context in which we can observe a trend towards increasing references to the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’. This aspect is all the more important because EU law is now affecting more and more areas of national law, including such sensitive ones as the patentability of human life. Especially when unethical behaviour produces legal consequences, the frequent lack of clearly defined concepts remains a challenge, particularly against (...) the background of the principle of legal certainty. This raises the question to which extent the content of these references is determined and whether it is possible to identify an ethical spirit of EU law. Answering that question, in turn, entails addressing the following questions: In references to ethics concerning EU law, can we identify references to a particular theory of practical philosophy at all; and, if so, to one or more normative ethical theories? Further, should these non-legal concepts be imported in an unaltered way, or be adapted to the legal context? This book explores the different layers of EU law, including the role of ethics in EU lawmaking and in EU case law, as well as the implementation of relevant EU directives in selected Member States. In addition to the above-mentioned normative philosophical lens, the book also analyzes the findings from the legal lens of EU integration, i.e., especially EU values, human rights and the cornerstone of human dignity. (shrink)

The establishment of the Common European Asylum System by 2012 remains a key policy objective for the European Union. According to the Council of the European Union, the development of a Common Asylum Policy should be based on a full and inclusive application of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and other relevant international treaties. In the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum attention is brought to the persistence of wide disparities amongst Member (...) States in the granting of protection and the form of protection granted. This is seen as one of the main problems to be addressed in building the CEAS. It is fairly obvious that existing divergences in policy have a substantial impact upon the aims of the CEAS. It can be assumed that the difference in governmental practices involving recognizing asylum seekers on refugee grounds or subsidiary protection grounds may be a substantial factor in the decision-making process on where to apply for international protection. The European Commission stressed the importance, during the second phase of the CEAS, of paying particular attention to subsidiary and other forms of protection. (shrink)

The advent of Generative AI, particularly through Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and its successors, marks a paradigm shift in the AI landscape. Advanced LLMs exhibit multimodality, handling diverse data formats, thereby broadening their application scope. However, the complexity and emergent autonomy of these models introduce challenges in predictability and legal compliance. This paper analyses the legal and regulatory implications of Generative AI and LLMs in the European Union context, focusing on liability, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity. It examines (...) the adequacy of the existing and proposed EU legislation, including the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), in addressing the challenges posed by Generative AI in general and LLMs in particular. The paper identifies potential gaps and shortcomings in the EU legislative framework and proposes recommendations to ensure the safe and compliant deployment of generative models. (shrink)

The European Community has been in existence for forty years. This period has seen considerable change and development in both the institutional and the substantive law of the EC -- and more recently the EU. Numerous works on EC law have been published over the years, ranging from textbooks, to specialist monographs, to collections of essays on particular aspects of Community jurisprudence. This, however, is the first work which seeks to stand back from the ever-growing detail of Community law, and (...) examine this jurisprudence from an evolutionary and interdisciplinary perspective. Every important area of institutional and substantive European law is covered -- leading lawyers analyse the evolution of their area of expertise across time, bringing out the major thematic changes which have occurred.These changes are then viewed against the broader political and economic background of the Community as a whole. This book will give readers a clearer understanding of the overall legal picture, and will also allow them to gain a richer perspective on the interaction between law and other forces which have shaped the Community and made it what it is today. (shrink)

This paper attempts to address the question of how multilingualism in the EU might affect the consistency of private enforcement of competition law. In the literature, there have been concerns raised about the consistency of public enforcement of competition law, so in this paper attention has shifted to concerns about consistency of private enforcement. For the purposes of this paper, a distinction is drawn between rule-making and the application of competition law. The latter falls outside the scope of this paper. (...) The article starts by going straight into aspects of public versus private enforcement of EU competition law and consistency of private enforcement of competition law. Next, by looking at examples of national rules implementing the EU Damages Directive, the author is going to discern what challenges for consistency of private enforcement of competition law are associated with the multilingualism in the EU. (shrink)

In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in Matter of A-B-, attempted to bar victims of non-state actors—such as intimate partners and local gangs—from obtaining asylum in the United States. This article focuses on domestic violence-based asylum claims that made it to the US Circuit Court of Appeals during the Trump administration and the first five months of the Biden administration. My interdisciplinary approach goes beyond analysing the effect that Matter of A-B- has had on the outcomes of cases (...) and asks how judges evaluate the credibility of petitioners, determine whether domestic violence can rise to the level of persecution, and decide whether a government was unwilling or unable to protect the victim. A systematic analysis of 83 appellate level verdicts shows that asylum decisions are fraught with inconsistencies and that many judges lack a sophisticated understanding of domestic violence, credibility, and trauma. (shrink)

This chapter first considers the more formal basis for the relationship between international law and European Union (EU) law by looking at the international law framework of EU law. It then discusses the approach of the EU legal order to international law and the various ways in which the two legal orders interact within the EU legal order. The chapter also considers reasons for and implications of the CJEU's approach. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held (...) that customary international law (CIL), just like treaty law, is a standard of assessment in the review of the validity of EU secondary legislation, thus ranking CIL more highly within the EU legal order than secondary legislation. Treaties in the area of human rights have enjoyed a relatively strong role within EU law, either by interpretation or by linking them to general principles of law. (shrink)