Showing papers in "European Law Journal in 2007"
TL;DR: The concept of accountability is used in a rather narrow sense: a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: It has been argued that the EU suffers from serious accountability deficits. But how can we establish the existence of accountability deficits? This article tries to get to grips with the appealing but elusive concept of accountability by asking three types of questions. First a conceptual one: what exactly is meant by accountability? In this article the concept of accountability is used in a rather narrow sense: a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences. The second question is analytical: what types of accountability are involved? A series of dimensions of accountability are discerned that can be used to describe the various accountability relations and arrangements that can be found in the different domains of European governance. The third question is evaluative: how should we assess these accountability arrangements? The article provides three evaluative perspectives: a democratic, a constitutional and a learning perspective. Each of these perspectives may produce different types of accountability deficits.
1,571 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors define the concepts of multilevel governance and accountability, and then identify the various dimensions of the latter, and argue that MLG generates novel forms of accountability, but undermines its democratic dimension mainly for the following reasons: the weak visibility of MLG networks, their selective composition and the prevalence of peer over public form of accountability.
Abstract: Most studies converge on the growth of processes of ‘multilevel governance’ (MLG) in policy making, related to the often combined trends towards supranationalism and regionalism. Such processes are usually analysed under the angle of their efficiency, while their impact on the quality of democracy is neglected. This article first defines the concepts of multilevel governance and accountability, and then identifies the various dimensions of the latter. It further argues that MLG generates novel forms of accountability, but undermines its democratic dimension mainly for the following reasons: the weak visibility of MLG networks, their selective composition and the prevalence of peer over public forms of accountability.
323 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a distinction between monitoring and political scrutiny is proposed, which recognises parliamentary majority and opposition as two distinct agents of the electorate, and argues that the functions of public deliberation and holding the government publicly to account are at least as important and therefore need to be included in a redefined concept of parliamentary strength.
Abstract: The question of strengths and weaknesses of national parliaments in EU affairs, one of the most salient in the debate on the democratic legitimacy of the EU, is generally answered by assessing formal parliamentary powers which can influence their governments' EU policy. Such an evaluation, however, is flawed: Formal mandating rights are usually incompatible with the overall logic of parliamentary systems, which explains why most national parliaments make very little use of them. Even more importantly, it unduly reduces parliamentary functions to the legislative or policy‐making function. Drawing on agency theory, it will instead be argued that the functions of public deliberation and of holding the government publicly to account are at least as important and therefore need to be included in a redefined concept of parliamentary strength. In particular, the article proposes a distinction between two different elements of accountability—monitoring and political scrutiny—which recognises parliamentary majority and opposition as two distinct agents of the electorate.
173 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a new evaluative framework based on the concept of accountability network is proposed, questioning the hierarchical and pyramidal assumptions that presently underpin accountability theory in the EU context.
Abstract: This article addresses problems of accountability in the system of multilevel governance, organised around networks, as it exists in the EU. An ‘accountability deficit’ arises when gaps are left by the accountability machinery of the several levels of government, supranational and national. This article suggests a new evaluative framework based on the concept of ‘accountability network’, questioning the hierarchical and pyramidal assumptions that presently underpin accountability theory in the EU context. Using case studies of the Community courts and European Ombudsman, the article suggests that ‘accountability networks’ may be emerging, composed of agencies specialising in a specific mode of accountability, which come together or coalesce in a relationship of support, fortified by shared professional expertise and ethos. At present fragmentary and imperfect, these might ultimately be capable of providing effective machinery for accountability in network governance systems.
148 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors put forward a series of arguments against the current spread of the OMC, and then offered some proposals on how to neutralise some of the identified shortfalls of OMC.
Abstract: During the last years, and especially since the launch of the Lisbon agenda in 2000, the literature on the open method of coordination (OMC) has grown exponentially. Most writers explore the tentative outcomes of the method, since they lack a solid experimental background, against which to assess its actual effectiveness. Lately, however, some empirical studies have come to light. Among them, some fully discredit the OMC as a means of pursuing common policies at the EU level; while others recognise indirect effects, essentially at the national level of policy setting. On the basis of this assumption, i.e. that the OMC has only restricted direct effects in the short term and indirect effects in the medium to long term, the present article first puts forward a series of arguments against the current ‘spread’ of the OMC, and then offers some proposals on how to neutralise some of the identified shortfalls of the OMC. Despite the title of the article, the final conclusion is not for the demise of the OMC, but rather for its ‘communautarisation’. It is put forward that both the application and the effects of the OMC should be more clearly defined and better integrated with the other pre‐existing forms of cooperation, in accordance with basic requirements stemming from the Community legal order.
120 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors distinguish between five dimensions of juridification: constitutive, legal expansion and differentiation, increased conflict solving with reference to law, increased judicial power and legal framing.
Abstract: Juridification is an ambiguous term, both descriptively and normatively. In this article we distinguish between five dimensions of juridification: constitutive juridification, juridification as law's expansion and differentiation, as increased conflict solving with reference to law, as increased judicial power and as legal framing. In the first part, we clarify the five dimensions. In the second part, we discuss the relationship between them and in a third and concluding part, we briefly comment on some of the challenges we are faced with from a normative point of view.
113 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the accountability issue is often framed in terms of delegation from a principal to an agent, and the question whether this framing adequately covers accountability forums and mechanisms that are emerging as a matter of legal and institutional practice.
Abstract: This article addresses problems of accountability in relation to two specific kinds of administrative actors in the EU system of multilevel governance, namely comitology committees and EU‐level agencies. With regard to both sets of actors, the accountability issue is often framed in terms of delegation from a principal to an agent. This article explores the delegation of powers discourse and the question whether this framing adequately covers accountability forums and mechanisms that are emerging as a matter of legal and institutional practice. The latter sub‐constitutional level is particularly relevant given the high degree of institutionalisation of both categories of administrative actors. Using these two categories of administrative actors as case studies, this article suggests that a delegation model of accountability in a democratic sense is not adequate and only captures part of emerging practice. A looser conceptual framing, understanding public accountability as a process in which power is checked and balanced by various actors, fits better within a more constitutional perspective on holding EU executive power to account.
98 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that once we dispense with the preoccupation of assigning primacy to a specific level of citizenship and establishing some kind of hierarchy among them, we can begin to address the questions and issues that really matter.
Abstract: EU citizenship has matured as an institution, owing to a number of important interventions by the European Court of Justice and legislative initiatives, such as the Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC, which has recently entered into force. In this article, I critically examine minimalist and cosmopolitan conceptions of European citizenship and argue that once we dispense with the preoccupation of assigning primacy to a specific level of citizenship and establishing some kind of hierarchy among them, we can begin to address the questions and issues that really matter. Among these are the future governance of citizenship and the design of a more inclusive, multilayered and multicultural conception of citizenship. European citizenship entails a number of fruitful ideas for a more ambitious transition to a post-national tableau and can be the prototype for institutional experimentation on citizenship on a global scale.
96 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the question whether problems of accountability can be solved by the open method of coordination (OMC) and argue that the OMC framework includes two types of coordination.
Abstract: In multilevel governance arrangements policies are coordinated across levels, usually in negotiations or networks of executives and representatives of special interests. Actors committed in such arrangements can hardly be held accountable by parliaments or citizens, and this is one of the main reasons for the democratic deficit of the EU. With the open method of coordination (OMC) the EU introduced a new mode of multilevel governance. The article focuses on the question whether problems of accountability can be solved by this mode. It is argued that the OMC framework includes two types of coordination. Whereas the dominating ‘deliberative’ mode does not improve accountability, the ‘competitive’ mode seems to be more promising. It supports transparency, reduces the costs of control for parliaments and stimulates public discussion on policies. However, multilevel coordination by policy competition at the lower levels of government does not work effectively under all conditions, and this therefore has to be carefully investigated.
79 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a legal analysis of the concept of citizenship of the EU, which is closely related to other basic concepts, including free movement of persons, the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality and the protection of fundamental rights.
Abstract: The aim of this article is to present a legal analysis of the concept of citizenship of the EU. This concept was considered by some to be embryonic in the original Community Treaties, but was first expressly incorporated into the Treaties by the Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992. In the case-law of the European Court of Justice, which has given citizenship a content going beyond the express Treaty provisions, the concept is closely related to other basic concepts, including free movement of persons, the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality and the protection of fundamental rights. This article seeks to review the case-law, to disentangle citizenship from other related concepts, and to determine what added value citizenship has brought to the Treaties and what the potential and the proper limits of the concept might be.
65 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyze the responses to the questions referred to the European Court of Justice by the English Court of Appeal and offer some conclusions about the role of courts in resolving economic conflicts.
Abstract: The trade union movement faces a challenge to the legality of transnational collective action as violating economic freedoms in the EC Treaty. How are disparities in wages and working conditions among the Member States to be accommodated? Are national social models protected? Does the internal market allow for trade union collective action? How does EU law affect the balance of economic power in a transnational economy? What is the role of courts in resolving economic conflicts? This article analyses the responses to these questions as referred to the European Court of Justice by the English Court of Appeal and offers some conclusions. The purpose is to highlight the different positions adopted by the old Member States and the new accession Member States as regards the underlying substantive issues, and the options available to the Court of Justice in answering the questions posed.
TL;DR: In this article, the evolving EU policy against human trafficking, especially trafficking that targets migrant women for sexual exploitation, is examined, and it is argued that even though action against trafficking is now firmly on the EU agenda, current policies excessively focus on repressive measures and lack attention to the broader setting in which the exploitation of migrants takes place.
Abstract: This article examines the evolving EU policy against human trafficking, especially trafficking that targets migrant women for sexual exploitation. It maintains that even though action against trafficking is now firmly on the EU agenda, current policies excessively focus on repressive measures and lack attention to the broader setting in which the exploitation of migrants takes place. This means that current EU anti‐trafficking policy remains ineffectual, and may in some cases even be counterproductive.
TL;DR: The draft Constitution of the European Union (EC) as discussed by the authors was an attempt to democratise the EU, while taking account of the problematic social preconditions for democracy at the Union level.
Abstract: The draft Constitution was an attempt to democratise the EU, while taking account of the problematic social preconditions for democracy at the Union level. Its failure demonstrates the need to pay greater attention to the nature of public support for the EU, and to the ways in which this support is related to the democratic quality of EU institutions. Contrary to what is often assumed, EU support can still be quite adequately described by the figure of a ‘permissive consensus’. For better or worse, attempts to democratise EU institutions might undermine this form of support.
TL;DR: In this paper, a preliminary conceptual assessment of the international agency of the EU, India and China in Central Asia is presented, arguing that the strategies advanced by Brussels, New Delhi and Beijing in the region reflect not only their desire to introduce a framework of predictability allowing them to make feasible calculations about future intentions but also the increasing complexity of international life.
Abstract: This analysis undertakes a preliminary conceptual assessment of the international agency of the EU, India and China in Central Asia. The contention is that the strategies advanced by Brussels, New Delhi and Beijing in the region reflect not only their desire to introduce a framework of predictability allowing them to make feasible calculations about future intentions, but also the increasing complexity of international life. The claim is that the external agency of the EU, India and China attests to the normative power of their foreign policies. However, the values and norms of the international agency of Brussels, New Delhi and Beijing reflect their distinct experiences and suggest their clashing interests. The article concludes with a brief appraisal of the prospective trends in the interactions between the EU, India and China in Central Asia and contends that it is the patterns of rivalry rather than cooperation that are likely to structure their global agency.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors assess the recent law and policy initiatives in European Union gender equality, and assess the contribution of external actors in this field to help safeguarding and enhancing the Community gender equality acquis.
Abstract: This article assesses critically the recent law and policy initiatives in European Union gender equality. As a fundamental right, the principle of gender equality is to apply in all areas of EU law. Its scope has been extended to the access to and supply of goods and services and, according to the European Court of Justice, to the Third Pillar. Despite efforts to render the principle visible and accessible, a number of provisions remain unclear and contradictory. The contribution of external actors in this field is set to help safeguarding and enhancing the Community gender equality acquis.
TL;DR: The tension between freedom of movement within the EC/EU and the principle of social solidarity has been explored in this article, a tension which has increased in step with the progressive enlargement over the years of the circle of potential beneficiaries of the right to cross-border access to the social and welfare benefits guaranteed by the social protection systems of the Member States.
Abstract: This article explores the tension between freedom of movement within the EC/EU and the principle of social solidarity, a tension which has increased in step with the progressive enlargement over the years of the circle of potential beneficiaries of the right to cross‐border access to the social and welfare benefits guaranteed by the social protection systems of the Member States. The article aims to re‐construct the system of Community rules regarding the free movement of persons within the EU from the point of view of the justifying criteria for the cross‐border access to national welfare systems of the different categories of ‘migrants’. The focus of the article is on the different degrees and models of solidarity which, at least at the present stage of the European integration process, justify correspondingly graduated and differentiated forms of cross‐border access to Member States' social and welfare benefits for the various categories of persons who move about within the EU.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue for the need for a changed perspective on the role of administrations in the transformation of forms of government and governance in Europe and argue for a change in the way the EU's multi-level system operates.
Abstract: The discussion about the transformation of forms of government and governance in Europe cannot avoid touching upon the role of administrations or administrative actors. Within the EU's multi‐level system, the activities of agenda‐setting, policy formulation, and implementation all involve some form of interaction between public actors from the sub‐national, national, supranational, and international levels. Cooperation amongst administrations in Europe has become the backbone of the EU's unique system of government and governance. Forms of cooperation have led to an integrated administration, which has developed in an evolutionary fashion and operates in large parts beyond the formally constituted rules of the treaties. This article explores the implications of this phenomenon and argues for the need of a changed perspective.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyse the moral and sociological foundations of EU citizenship, stressing the limits of classic interpretations in terms of "identification to" or "support for" the EU.
Abstract: The citizenship of the EU is not only a set of rights, but also of civic behaviours and representations. In this article, I analyse these moral and sociological foundations of EU citizenship, stressing the limits of classic interpretations in terms of ‘identification to’ or ‘support for’ the EU. Instead, I suggest reading the evolution of EU citizenship as a process of political recognition. Such an analytical framework, inspired by recent works of Axel Honneth and Paul Ricoeur, leads one to understand this process as a threefold evolution: critical assessment of one's own national identity; transformation of the perception of other nationalities; and identification to the EU. Such a reading also compels us to pay attention to the limits of these processes: mutual recognition is an unending process which does not exclude the persistence of nationalistic reactions, hegemonic temptation and the revival of xenophobic attitudes vis‐a‐vis other Member States and third countries. I conclude that any project to render EU identity thicker needs to take care of the risk of jeopardising the fragile acquis.
TL;DR: In this article, the Court of First Instance endorsed the Community practice of sanctioning individuals blacklisted by the United Nations (UN) and accepted that the Community uses its competence to adopt state sanctions in combination with Article 308 EC to freeze the assets of civil persons including European citizens.
Abstract: In the Yusuf and Kadi judgments of 21 September 2005, the Court of First Instance endorsed the Community practice of sanctioning individuals blacklisted by the United Nations (UN). It accepted that the Community uses its competence to adopt state sanctions in combination with Article 308 EC to freeze the assets of civil persons, including European citizens. The court also reduced its jurisdiction to a basic scrutiny of whether jus cogens was violated. The Court of First Instance's decisions can be criticised on various grounds. First, the application of these Articles is contrary to the wording of the Treaty and the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Further, as a consequence of the Court of First Instance's judgments, decisions of the UN Sanctions Committee become the supreme law within the EU, provided they meet the requirements of jus cogens as defined by the Court of First Instance. In addition, the individual is deprived of all fundamental rights guaranteed under European law.
TL;DR: Wang et al. as mentioned in this paper argue that the administrative bureaucratic system and market economy development have evolved into a social institution and transform the regulation of market economy towards the rule of law is a slow and incremental process, as it is imbedded in various formal and informal constraints in Chinese society.
Abstract: The making of a market economy in China occurred when the domestic legal system was largely underdeveloped. It is the administrative bureaucratic system that has played a leading role in the making of a market economy in China. In recent years, the Chinese Government has strived to establish a market economy based on the rule of law and has undertaken legal measures to rationalise government regulation of market economy development. However, the administrative bureaucratic system headed by the central government remains a strong party leading the market economy construction in China. This article argues that the administrative bureaucratic system and market economy development have evolved into a social institution. To transform the regulation of market economy development towards the rule of law is a social institutional change and is a slow and incremental process, as it is imbedded in the various formal and informal constraints in Chinese society.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors track the evolution of the European Parliament's competencies in three areas where Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs) figure prominently: comitology, legislative planning, and the establishment of procedures to hold the Commission accountable.
Abstract: Despite the fact that Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs) are an established part of the mass of informal and formal rules structuring EU decision‐making and interinstitutional relations, there is as yet no common understanding of their role and functions in the institutional and legal system of the EU—neither in political science nor legal studies. Tracking the evolution of the European Parliament's competencies in three areas where IIAs figure prominently—comitology, legislative planning, and the establishment of procedures to hold the Commission accountable—this article seeks to show that the European Parliament strategically uses IIAs as instruments to wrest competencies from the Council and the Commission. Having no formal say in treaty reform, the European Parliament ‘creates facts’ through informal but politically binding IIAs hoping that, once established, it can achieve a later codification of its new rights at IGCs. Viewed this way, the analysis of the role of IIAs in Treaty Reform could help to explain a still under‐researched puzzle in European integration theory, namely the incremental parliamentarisation of the institutional system of the EU over the last two decades.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare the EU and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) as models of regional integration, while using the well-funded dichotomies of structural and functional analysis of international organisations.
Abstract: The aim of this article is to compare the EU and the Association of South‐East Asian Nations (ASEAN) as models of regional integration, while using the well‐funded dichotomies of structural and functional analysis of international organisations. At their origin, the two organisations were very different by nature—the EU has always been a role model, or sometimes counter model, for the ASEAN. Today, their objectives and aims are more and more alike, although their structural and legal means remain very different. Finally, both organisations have to find their own way and justification in order to be accepted by their people and to be an active actor of a more globalised world.
TL;DR: In this paper, it is argued that the sources of these constitutional courts' adherence to the Solange pattern are primarily domestic, and that it is a way of strengthening their position vis-a-vis other national political actors, especially at a time when the role and independence of those courts face serious domestic challenges.
Abstract: Soon after the accession of eight post‐communist states from Central and Eastern Europe to the EU, the constitutional courts of some of these countries questioned the principle of supremacy of EU law over national constitutional systems, on the basis of their being the guardians of national standards of protection of human rights and of democratic principles. In doing so, they entered into the well‐known pattern of behaviour favoured by a number of constitutional courts of the ‘older Europe’, which is called a ‘Solange story’ for the purposes of this article. But this resistance is ridden with paradoxes, the most important of which is a democracy paradox: while accession to the EU was supposed to be the most stable guarantee for human rights and democracy in post‐communist states, how can the supremacy of EU law be now resisted on these very grounds? It is argued that the sources of these constitutional courts’ adherence to the ‘Solange’ pattern are primarily domestic, and that it is a way of strengthening their position vis‐a‐vis other national political actors, especially at a time when the role and independence of those courts face serious domestic challenges.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate legal aspects of the content and implementation of the "strategic partnership" between the EU and the People's Republic of China in the absence of a category of emerging countries in international economic law, the Union must adapt its foreign policy with regard to this major economic and commercial power.
Abstract: This article aims to evaluate legal aspects of the content and implementation of the ‘strategic partnership’ between the EU and the People's Republic of China In the absence of a category of ‘emerging countries’ in international economic law, the Union must adapt its foreign policy with regard to this major economic and commercial power Relations between the European Community and China are currently governed by a second‐generation agreement from 1985 However, a new dynamic has been set in motion since 2003, by the drawing up of preparatory documents by both parties and joint declarations at annual summits bearing on the ‘strategic partnership’ Seen in a long‐term perspective, this partnership helps provide a measure of predictability in relations between the two partners, through combining elements of ‘soft law’ and ‘hard law’ If the insertion of political dialogue into the strategic partnership seems to alter the coherence of the Union, notably with regard to the difficulties of implementing the dialogue on human rights, the added value of the partnership lies essentially in its economic and commercial aspects, through not only the putting into place of non‐binding ‘economic dialogues’ which cover a large spectrum of the relationship, but also by the multiplication of sector‐based accords in numerous areas (maritime transport, customs cooperation, etc) This constant development has thus allowed parties, at the last annual summit, to envisage the conclusion of a new framework agreement: this is the origin of the mandate given to the Commission in December 2005 to conclude a partnership and cooperation agreement This article will sketch out a forecast of the legal framework, measured against the yardsticks of Asiatic regional reconfigurations and the law of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) The commercial risks of the relationship could imply the integration of the domains known as ‘WTO plus’ into the future agreement, notably in the field of investments and intellectual property rights, which would introduce a greater variety into the agreement That being the case, the negotiations risk being equally fragile at the political level, in particular concerning the insertion of a clause of democratic conditionality in the future agreement Also, any clash between the values and the interests of the EU would be uncomfortably highlighted during negotiations
TL;DR: The authors assesses Interinstitutional agreements (IIAs) in terms of democratic theory and evaluates several case studies on IIAs in this vein and asks whether they strengthen the European Parliament or not, and why.
Abstract: This article assesses Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs) in terms of democratic theory. It starts from the premise that democratic rules as developed in the national context may be used as a yardstick for supranational governance as well. Thus, parliamentarisation of the Union is defined as an increase in democracy, although relating problems such as weak European party systems, low turnouts, and remoteness are not to be neglected. The article evaluates several case studies on IIAs in this vein and asks whether they strengthen the European Parliament or not, and why. It arrives at conclusions that allow for differentiation: empowerment of the European Parliament occurs in particular when authorisation to conclude an IIA stems from the Treaty or from the power that the European Parliament has in crucial fields such as the budget and is willing to use for this purpose. Success is, however, not guaranteed in every case, and is sometimes more symbolic than real. However, a democratic critique must also stress negative consequences of IIAs in terms of responsivity, accountability, and transparency.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that obligatory, simultaneous, and simple Treaty ratification by referenda is the next step in the consolidation of the political core of European citizenship, which is irreversible and gaining in momentum.
Abstract: This article argues that obligatory, simultaneous, and simple Treaty ratification by referenda is the next step in the consolidation of the political core of European citizenship. In the first part, general remarks about the special nature of EU citizenship highlight the relevance of referenda on EU Treaties for EU citizenship. In the second part, the normative and empirical case in favour of direct democracy is put forward. It is followed by the assessment of direct democracy in European integration as we have known it so far. The practice is irreversible and gaining in momentum. But it is in need of substantial reform due to procedural dysfunctions and discriminatory consequences for the citizens. Section V relates this result to a legal analysis of EU citizenship. The suppression of the discriminatory consequences of the Treaty ratification procedure is necessary from a legal point of view, but it cannot be expected from the ‘judicial incrementalism’ that has characterised the development of EU citizenship regarding free movement and residence. In section VI, the conclusions of the previous sections are drawn into the final proposal of obligatory, simultaneous and simple Treaty reform by referenda in all Member States. At the end, five counter‐arguments to the proposal are discussed.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors trace a line between Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs) and interinstitutional agencies/offices, recently established on the basis of the new "externalisation policy" of the European Commission.
Abstract: This article tries to trace a line between Interinstitutional Agreements (IIAs) and Interinstitutional Agencies/Offices, recently established on the basis of the new ‘externalisation policy’ of the European Commission. Both phenomena serve, to a certain extent, to achieve the same objective, namely a smoother and more effective cooperation between the main institutions within the European Union. On the basis of an empirical documentation of more than 100 IIAs, the article classifies and assesses the extraordinary variety and diversity of IIAs collected in this compilation—according to their chronological distribution, number of parties involved in the conclusion, denomination, and substantial content. The evaluation of these IIAs first addresses the question of their permissibility, proceeding with the examination of their legal nature and effects. The article concludes by asking which of the two dichotomous instruments—IIAs or Interinstitutional Agencies/Offices—will prevail, and hence ensure a more expeditious discharge of the Commissions bureaucracy.
Abstract: According to European Court of Justice (ECJ) case‐law, the scope of application of the EC Treaty is engaged under the following conditions when the free movement of persons has been established: a cross‐border connection is given; the Union citizen concerned resides legally in the host Member State; and the measure in question or the regulation has a connection with the residence or facilitates it. This condition will regularly be fulfilled since nearly every (national) regulation has a direct or indirect effect on the stay. A general link to primary or secondary law is, on the other hand, not necessary. Secondary law, however, can be significant in connection with the lawful residence. Even if partly vehement critiques have been formulated against this approach of the ECJ, it is convincing with regard to the aim of guaranteeing the free movement to European citizens.
TL;DR: In this article, the textile dispute between the EU and China in summer 2005 is analyzed in the context of the expiry of the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA), China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the resulting challenge posed by Chinese textiles and clothing to some European countries' industries.
Abstract: This article deals with the textile dispute that occurred between the EU and China in summer 2005. The dispute is analysed in the context of the expiry of the Multi‐Fibre Agreement (MFA), China's accession to the World Trade Organisation and the resulting challenge posed by Chinese textiles and clothing to some European countries' industries. The main conclusions of the analysis are as follows. First, the cause of the dispute lies in a lack of preparedness on the part of the EU. Second, more innovative ways than safeguards will have to be found to address growing competition from China. Third, divergent interests among EU Member States made a coherent response to the competitive pressure posed by Chinese exports impossible, which might pose great problems in the future. Fourth, by shielding itself from Chinese exports while pushing China for market opening and liberalisation, the EU can be reproached for pursuing double standards.