生活和学习:欧盟委员会未能认识到立陶宛的法治缺陷

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Pub Date : 2022-01-12 DOI:10.1007/s40803-021-00166-2
Beatrice Monciunskaite
{"title":"生活和学习:欧盟委员会未能认识到立陶宛的法治缺陷","authors":"Beatrice Monciunskaite","doi":"10.1007/s40803-021-00166-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>During the last decade, it has become apparent that the European Union (EU) Commission is failing to halt rule of law decline in Poland and Hungary. However, has the Commission learnt from its experience in handling rule of law decline in these countries? This article suggests that not only has the EU Commission failed to learn the importance of swift action in the face of burgeoning rule of law crises but has actively ignored similar systemic issues altogether in Lithuania, a country that has historically been an exemplary Member State. This article will analyse the status of the rule of law and judicial independence in Lithuania in light of the EU Commission’s first two Rule of Law Reports published in September 2020 and July 2021. These reports were designed to act as a preventative measure to protect the rule of law in each Member State through documenting and raising awareness for rule of law developments in the Union. Lithuania has largely slipped under the radar of constitutional democracy scholars; however, in the past two years, Lithuania has endured a series of attacks on judicial independence and suffered an attempted siege of its national broadcaster. There has been an intense deadlock recently over the election of Constitutional Court justices, which has raised concerns over the executive’s persistent attempts to politicise Lithuania’s highest court. Worryingly the recent Rule of Law Reports, published by the EU Commission, fail to reflect the severity of these recent developments. The reports’ silence on these issues leads this article to conclude that the EU Commission is turning a blind eye to Lithuania’s precarious rule of law situation by failing to truthfully document significant negative developments around the rule of law. By doing so, the Commission not only exacerbates rule of law issues domestically but also undermines the fight against rule of law backsliding in the Union.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"41 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Live and to Learn: The EU Commission’s Failure to Recognise Rule of Law Deficiencies in Lithuania\",\"authors\":\"Beatrice Monciunskaite\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40803-021-00166-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>During the last decade, it has become apparent that the European Union (EU) Commission is failing to halt rule of law decline in Poland and Hungary. However, has the Commission learnt from its experience in handling rule of law decline in these countries? This article suggests that not only has the EU Commission failed to learn the importance of swift action in the face of burgeoning rule of law crises but has actively ignored similar systemic issues altogether in Lithuania, a country that has historically been an exemplary Member State. This article will analyse the status of the rule of law and judicial independence in Lithuania in light of the EU Commission’s first two Rule of Law Reports published in September 2020 and July 2021. These reports were designed to act as a preventative measure to protect the rule of law in each Member State through documenting and raising awareness for rule of law developments in the Union. Lithuania has largely slipped under the radar of constitutional democracy scholars; however, in the past two years, Lithuania has endured a series of attacks on judicial independence and suffered an attempted siege of its national broadcaster. There has been an intense deadlock recently over the election of Constitutional Court justices, which has raised concerns over the executive’s persistent attempts to politicise Lithuania’s highest court. Worryingly the recent Rule of Law Reports, published by the EU Commission, fail to reflect the severity of these recent developments. The reports’ silence on these issues leads this article to conclude that the EU Commission is turning a blind eye to Lithuania’s precarious rule of law situation by failing to truthfully document significant negative developments around the rule of law. By doing so, the Commission not only exacerbates rule of law issues domestically but also undermines the fight against rule of law backsliding in the Union.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"volume\":\"41 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-021-00166-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-021-00166-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去十年中,很明显,欧盟委员会未能阻止波兰和匈牙利法治的衰落。然而,委员会是否从处理这些国家法治衰落的经验中吸取了教训?这篇文章表明,欧盟委员会不仅没有认识到在面对迅速发展的法治危机时迅速采取行动的重要性,而且还积极地忽视了立陶宛这个历史上堪称典范的成员国的类似系统性问题。本文将根据欧盟委员会于2020年9月和2021年7月发布的前两份法治报告,分析立陶宛的法治和司法独立现状。这些报告的目的是作为一项预防性措施,通过记录和提高对欧盟法治发展的认识,保护每个会员国的法治。立陶宛在很大程度上躲过了宪政民主学者的关注;然而,在过去两年中,立陶宛遭受了对司法独立的一系列攻击,并遭受了对其国家广播公司的企图围攻。最近,立陶宛宪法法院(Constitutional Court)法官的选举陷入了严重僵局,这引发了人们对立陶宛最高法院执政者不断试图将其政治化的担忧。令人担忧的是,欧盟委员会(EU Commission)最近发布的《法治报告》(Rule of Law Reports)未能反映出这些近期事态发展的严重性。报告对这些问题的沉默导致本文得出结论,欧盟委员会对立陶宛不稳定的法治状况视而不见,未能真实记录法治方面的重大负面发展。欧盟委员会这样做不仅加剧了国内的法治问题,也破坏了欧盟反对法治倒退的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
To Live and to Learn: The EU Commission’s Failure to Recognise Rule of Law Deficiencies in Lithuania

During the last decade, it has become apparent that the European Union (EU) Commission is failing to halt rule of law decline in Poland and Hungary. However, has the Commission learnt from its experience in handling rule of law decline in these countries? This article suggests that not only has the EU Commission failed to learn the importance of swift action in the face of burgeoning rule of law crises but has actively ignored similar systemic issues altogether in Lithuania, a country that has historically been an exemplary Member State. This article will analyse the status of the rule of law and judicial independence in Lithuania in light of the EU Commission’s first two Rule of Law Reports published in September 2020 and July 2021. These reports were designed to act as a preventative measure to protect the rule of law in each Member State through documenting and raising awareness for rule of law developments in the Union. Lithuania has largely slipped under the radar of constitutional democracy scholars; however, in the past two years, Lithuania has endured a series of attacks on judicial independence and suffered an attempted siege of its national broadcaster. There has been an intense deadlock recently over the election of Constitutional Court justices, which has raised concerns over the executive’s persistent attempts to politicise Lithuania’s highest court. Worryingly the recent Rule of Law Reports, published by the EU Commission, fail to reflect the severity of these recent developments. The reports’ silence on these issues leads this article to conclude that the EU Commission is turning a blind eye to Lithuania’s precarious rule of law situation by failing to truthfully document significant negative developments around the rule of law. By doing so, the Commission not only exacerbates rule of law issues domestically but also undermines the fight against rule of law backsliding in the Union.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
18.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Rule-of-Law Violations in a State of Emergency? Towards a General Analytical Framework The Shifting Landscape of Judicial Independence Criteria Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure: A Comment on the CJEU’s Recent Case Law and the Trajectory of Article 267 TFEU The Rule of Law and Corporate Actors: Measuring Influence EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’ Confused Constitutionalism in Hungary—New Assessment Criteria for Recognising a Populist Constitutional Court
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1