Search

Security is the meta-constitutional rationale of the European liberal project and is expressed by two tendentially self-justificatory discourses of power, which are two sides of the same coin: security and rights. The political, inherently conflictual nature of EU constitutional claims has been variously disguised through such discourses. Yet, as the process of constitutionalisation reaches a more advanced stage, in which the probability of high-intensity legal-political conflict as regards key issues of EU integration is growing, the moment has come to address conflict directly, rather than conceal it behind a veil of neutrality. Being ready for actual confrontation means dismissing the straitjacket imposed by the European liberal project. A move from self-referential to heterarchical security is thus advocated. As a result, the constellation of nation states should not be sidelined too easily and the needs and claims of the local level should be considered more carefully. In other words, the principles of primacy, autonomy, uniformity, and effectiveness of EU law ought to be conceived in relative, rather than in absolute terms. One possible way of addressing conflict is to simultaneously permit the CJEU (as well as other EU institutions) to engage more proactively with national courts and identify a common epistemic core, which ought to be upheld whenever the liberal-democratic premises of the European project are threatened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article revisits the role and function of constitutional identity and common constitutional traditions and claims that the latter have had an increasingly stronger influence on the process of European integration—more than may appear at first sight. In addition, the relevance of common constitutional traditions has not been undermined but, on the contrary, strengthened by the emergence of fundamental rights in EU law and the subsequent conferral of binding force on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Constitutional identity and common constitutional traditions are part of two discourses—security and fundamental rights—which are an expression of the security of the European project as an overarching frame characterizing the EU as a polity and legal system. After an overview of some of the most important rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, this Article concludes by emphasizing the importance of the recent conciliatory attitude recently adopted by the Court of Justice, although the more ambivalent attitude of the Italian Constitutional Court indicates how conflictual features are becoming increasingly important and can no longer be concealed as the EU reaches a more advanced stage of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article makes use of the notion of security as a heuristic device providing a descriptive and normative conceptual framework for the purposes of interpreting the events associated with Brexit. It claims that security can be identified as a meta-constitutional rationale of the European project. In particular, two discourses of power (security and fundamental rights) have been constitutive of the process of European polity-building, although they are characterised by ambiguities and contradictions. Brexit, and in particular the complex issues relating to free movement and citizenship rights, confirms such contradictions and enables us to consider more carefully the nature of the EU polity and the reasons underpinning its development. In other words, security emerges at the same time as an opportunity for growth and as a threat for the European project. The article suggests that, in order to safeguard EU integration, a move from a self-referential to a heterarchical form of security is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article has a twofold aim. First, it focuses on a particular case study, which has attracted the interest of several scholars from an interdisciplinary perspective: the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Article aims to show how changes in one specific socio-cultural landscape may spill into other contexts as a result of a ripple effect. The idea is to demonstrate how the emergence of a social fact--the increasing demands made by homosexual couples for their union to be recognized in one way or another--may make the process of institutionalization natural. A legal system may sometimes be bound to recognize social facts, and transnational law may enhance this phenomenon. The second aim of the Article is to claim is that, when analyzing change, legal deterministic theories should be dismissed, as they are based upon easy assumptions that do not correspond to empirical observations. Instead, as shown by constructivist approaches, the combined effect of structure and agency in some specific circumstances contributes to social and legal change. However, constructivists perhaps underestimate the relevance of unpredictable events and the (positive or negative) influence that transnational frameworks may have in forming discourses of power. In particular, the EU and the ECtHR systems may facilitate the diffusion of ideas and norms deriving directly from the liberal paradigm that inspire them. However, the liberal paradigm is contradictory, as it does not necessarily provide an incentive for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will analyse two models of criminal law beyond the State, which are here termed 'eunomic' and 'dialogic'. It will then focus on one case study, European criminal law, which was inherently 'dialogic' until the last decade of the past century but has now quite unique features. In accordance with classic liberal views, criminal law has always been conceptualised as one of the most salient attributes of the sovereign State. The monopoly on the use of violence was to be legitimised by the State's concern for the sphere of autonomy of the individual. It is submitted in this article that it is precisely this condition that is lacking in the current European model, which promotes security-oriented paradigms of self-fulfilment and effectiveness. However, criminal law, if properly conceived, could in theory function as a powerful vehicle of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case dealing with the personal liberty of a detainee. The case is recorded as Case C-66/08 Proceedings concerning Szymon Koslowski, which the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled upon on July 17, 2008. The case asked the Court to rule on the interpretation of provisions of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dealing a detainee's personal liberty. Based on records, this ruling is the second by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on EAW-related matter.

The article aims to analyse the extent to which mutual recognition and mutual trust in the criminal law area are developing in the EU in the context of the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). First, an overview of the decisions of the Constitutional Courts in Germany, Poland, Cyprus and Czech Republic will be given. These decisions are evidence of a tension, on the one hand, between mutual recognition and state sovereignty and, on the other hand, between the powers of the European institutions in criminal matters and the fundamental rights of the individual. Second, national case-law in the UK, Belgium, Spain and Italy will be examined. Third, an analysis of the recent decision of the European Court of Justice of 3 May 2007 will be carried out. Finally, a global assessment of the EAW will be made. Is this instrument effectively promoting normative mutual trust among the judicial authorities in the EU? Should it be amended or is it the wrong response at the wrong time? Some suggestions will be put forward, in light of what is considered to be the nature of the EAW and the birth of this instrument as part of the mutual recognition agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]