The European Union increasingly uses 'soft' international arrangements rather than formal international agreements in establishing relations with non-EU states. This contribution aims to raise the ...question of to what extent a move from hard to soft law in relations between the EU and its partners can be seen as allowing the Union to 'step outside' the legal framework (if that indeed is what is happening) and disregard the rules and principles that define the way in which EU external relations are to take shape. Possible consequences include the risk that these instruments are not subject to appropriate safeguards, that parliamentary influence (by the European Parliament as well as by national parliaments) is by-passed and that transparency is affected. There are various reasons for the EU not to use formal procedures, but a turn to informality does come at a price.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NUK, PILJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Formal international law is stagnating in terms both of quantity and quality. It is increasingly superseded by 'informal international lawmaking' involving new actors, new processes, and new outputs, ...in fields ranging from finance and health to internet regulation and the environment. On many occasions, the traditional structures of formal lawmaking have become shackles. Drawing on a two-year research project involving over 40 scholars and 30 case studies, this article offers evidence in support of the stagnation hypothesis, evaluates the likely reasons for it in relation to a 'turn to informality', and weighs possible options in response. But informal structures can also become shackles and limit freedom. From practice, we deduce procedural meta-norms against which informal cooperation is increasingly checked ('thick stakeholder consensus'). Intriguingly, this benchmark may be normatively superior (rather than inferior) to the validation requirements of traditional international law ('thin state consent').
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
This handbook provides comprehensive and expert analysis of the impact of the Brexit process and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on existing and future EU-UK relations ...within the context of both EU and international law.
Examining the wider international law implications, it additionally assesses the complex legal consequences of Brexit for both the EU and the UK in their dealings with third states and other international organizations. With contributions from renowned specialists in the field of EU external action, each chapter will analyse specific policy areas to address key challenges arising from the Brexit process for the EU and the UK and propose solutions to overcome these problems. The handbook aims to fill a gap in research by assessing the consequences of Brexit under EU external relations law and international law. As such, it is hoped it will set the research agenda for coming years on the international dimension of Brexit.
The Routledge Handbook on the International Dimension of Brexit is an authoritative and essential reference text for scholars and students of international and European/EU law and policy, EU politics, and British politics and Brexit, as well as of key relevance to legal practitioners involved in Brexit, governments, policy-makers, civil society organizations, think tanks, practitioners, national parliaments and the Court of Justice.
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(3), 1247-1254 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. The autonomy of EU law and legal theory: bridging the disconnect. – ...II. Overview of this Special Section. | (Abstract) The autonomy of EU law is a source of ample connections between EU law and legal theory. This Special Section contributes to the mutual enrichment between EU constitutional law and legal theory – which traditionally have been mostly disconnected disciplines – by bringing together new, theory-informed perspectives on the autonomy of EU law and European integration from both EU lawyers and legal theorists. The ten Articles in this Special Section are grouped together in three categories, focusing re-spectively on philosophy of law, legal theory and legal history, and legal doctrine and the role of the European Court of Justice. Together, they provide a plethora of contrasting and complementary legal-theoretical views on the autonomy of EU law and the EU legal order, within the broader context of European integration. With this Special Section, we aim to contribute to the legal-theoretical analysis of EU constitutional law, hoping that many others will follow in our footsteps.
The Emergence Of EU Withdrawal Law Polak, Polly R; Wessel, Ramses A
Common market law review,
02/2024, Volume:
61, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
"EU withdrawal law" has become a sub-field ofEUlaw.Nowthat the dust of the first withdrawal of a Member State from the EU is slowly settling, one can take a step back and analyse "withdrawal law" in ...a more comprehensive fashion. Its main characteristics reveal the extensive, and largely exclusive, role of the EU as such in the process of negotiating and concluding both a withdrawal agreement and a future trade deal. This reflects the procedure, which may not have been given too much attention when it was included in theTreaty, but which formed the basis for extensive subsequent institutional and scholarly interpretation. EU withdrawal law reveals not only that Member States wishing to leave the Union have to follow strict rules and procedures, but also that these rules and procedures partly remain relevant after the actual withdrawal.
The use of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) by the European Union to manage defence cooperation between its Member States is the most recent example of Differentiated Integration (DI) in the ...EU. Yet differentiation may come at a price. The main aim of the present Article is to assess to what extent defence cooperation under the umbrella of PESCO can be cut up in pieces and yet still be considered a common defence adhering to the EU's general principles of consistency and sincere cooperation. The question, therefore, is whether DI in PESCO is limited by these principles, and consequently, whether the CSDP, despite the differentiation, still contributes to a common policy. In short, the question is whether there is a tension between commonness and differentiation in EU security cooperation.
PDF
