European Law Journal最新文献

Since 2009, the “Blue Card Directive” has become one of the most important elements of the EU's legal immigration scheme for attracting the best immigrants to Europe. Taking advantage of its current revision, this contribution takes a legal theoretical look at the Directive. Drawing upon the republican conception of freedom defined as the absence of arbitrary interferences, this paper sheds light on some positive steps as well the margin of progression still left in order to fully operationalise the EU's commitment to respecting equal freedom. The article also adds to the limited doctrinal contributions on the Blue Card Directive and illustrates the added value of a republican approach to EU migration law.

The Blue Card Directive 2009/50 has failed. It sets conditions for entry and residence in the EU for third-country nationals in highly qualified and well-paid employment. Recently, negotiations over its recast have come to life, and gives reason to discuss the way forward. This comment reflects on the European Blue Card Directive 2009/50 and its recast and the thoughts presented in this special issue by two legal practitioners, Jo Antoons and Andreia Ghimis, and a philosopher, Johan Rochel. I argue in favour of a new narrative focusing on sustainable labour migration, instead of the current narrative which is based on solving old problems. More particularly, drawing from intersecting policy fields (environment, foreign investment, integration and migration policy), this contribution revisits three themes at the core of the Blue Card and its reform: the economic needs test, privatisation through the concept of a trusted sponsor, and intra-EU mobility rights for migrant workers.

The endorsement/affirmation of the Global Compact on Migration and the Global Compact for Refugees in December 2018 has been accompanied by an intense discussion about the need to introduce new norms in these fields and about the actual legal force of the respective provisions. There was and there persists an open contrast between the openly declared non-bindingness of these Compacts and the widespread fear that they would either severely constrain national sovereignty in highly delicate areas or dilute arduously achieved standards (especially with regard to refugee law). Eventually, this whole discussion leads to the question about the meaning and the status of soft law in international law. With regard to the European Union, the transformative impact of the Global Compacts will depend on whether the EU further proceeds on its path of “emancipation” from international law while internally finding no consensus on the values here at issue.

The rule of law is a constitutional principle under the European Convention on Human Rights. Throughout its history, the rule of law has been the lodestar guiding the development of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In recent years, the normative impact of this principle has been increasing in the case-law of the Court, in particular in cases dealing with the independence of the judiciary. The article discusses the conceptual core of the rule of law under the Convention system as a fundamental component of “European public order”. Subsequently, the three-dimensional normative status of the rule of law is explored as well as the Court's statement that the principle is “inherent in all the Articles of the Convention”. On this basis, an in-depth analysis is undertaken of the application in recent Strasbourg case-law of the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental organic component of the rule of law. Finally, the author reflects on the “symbiotic” relationship in the field of judicial independence between the Strasbourg Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This article employs the image of the antisyzygy, the yoking of opposites, as an analytical tool to understand the dynamic and unresolved tensions built into the very idea of the European Union. It describes the EU as a forming a supranational constitutional space which does not supersede nation states, but instead seeks to preserve their specific identities while promoting and protecting the fundamental values they are called upon to embody as liberal constitutional democracies. The article then critically examines constitutional developments in the UK subsequent to its decision to leave the European Union and suggests that, paradoxically, it may have been the European Union which held the post-War post-imperial United Kingdom together and, without it and outside it, we may anticipate the UK's imminent dissolution into its original constituent nations – Brexit leads inexorably to BreUK-up.

The Citizens' Convention on Climate (CCC) gathered 150 people, randomly selected but representing the diversity of French society. Its mandate was to formulate a series of concrete measures aimed to achieve at least a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (compared to 1990) while preserving social justice. The citizens auditioned experts on various topics from climate to economics and then formulated their own proposals, thus building an effective consensus, beyond individual specific interests. Moreover, proposals formed a coherent whole, and in this regard fare much better than previous attempts to tackle environmental and climate transition through public debates. This methodology shows how citizen science can produce efficient and quality outcomes. This opens new perspectives for democracy on the basis of new interaction channels between law-makers, professional experts and citizens. This seems to be the approach chosen for the Conference on the Future of Europe as well. Gathering citizens from all EU countries to work on important topics for Europe and Europeans could be a way to build a common vision, and contribute to the creation of a true European common good. Citizens' direct involvement in science and democracy might be one of the keys to meaningfully and thus successfully address their shortcomings.

This work argues that there is no univocal interpretation of what regulatory policy is and pursues. Taking the strategy of the European Commission as a starting point only, it addresses more specifically the Union legislature's perspective, which, in a democratic decision-making process, cannot compromise its autonomy. In the unique constitutional universe of the European Union, the “Better Law-Making” agenda pursues an important additional objective: facilitating the very process of adopting legislation by means of interinstitutional conflict prevention mechanisms and through a common approach to interpretation and implementation of primary law. That is the main purpose of the Interinstitutional Agreements on the quality of legislation, which place them in the position of a sort of soft constitutional law.