1,721,089 research outputs found
Introduction
Get PDFThe relationship between the European Union (EU) and United States (US) tends to be complex and multifaceted. Relations are variously depicted as cyclical, intergovernmental and fundamental to multilateralism and crisis-driven. They are driven also by and tend to ‘ignite’ geopolitics, as much as complex domestic issues and themes. The transatlantic partnership may well be an iconic partnership for a long time, fundamental to the global economy and world security. Yet, it has long been one of the ‘problem children’ of international economic law for over decades. Moreover, the EU and US have consistently shaped international approaches to public international law, albeit distinctively and differently. The transatlantic partnership is significant for its regular, high-profile and many experiments in transnational governance, mainly failed ones, often failed through components thereof rather than the sum of its parts. The failings and failures of transatlantic cooperation through law are plentiful, doomed to failure through non-compliance, plagued with sub-optimal remedies
Introduction: On Framing Convergence of the EU with the Global Legal Order
Get PDFThe EU’s place in the global legal order can be understood as arguably a highly dynamic and complex process which is the antithesis of static which is about convergence. Arguably, convergence fits neatly with understandings of EU global actorness and global ambitions. A form of convergence ethic dominates the EU’s actions. Convergence has a prevalence to it but yet may be also said not to be well understood in the context of EU studies and political science with respect to its legal peculiarities. Analytical blind spots may not be easily ‘taxonomised’. Arguably, today much convergence of EU law and the EU in the world comes from the mimicking/ transfer/ copying or integration of European rules, practices or ideals into other third party contexts, from the formal to the informal, direct to the indirect. Yet who and what should be the form of study of these analytical blindspots of the world? Some argue that the CJEU is the main agent of divergence practices as to internal matters, internal competences and internal views of EU integration. From a legal perspective placing the Court inside and outside of the narrative can have a dramatic impact on convergence narratives. It also may depend upon a particular moment in (political) space and (political) time(s). For example, the EU’s responses to the demise of the WTO has been to formulate divergence therefrom. The most significant dimension of the new political strategy of the European Commission of late 2019 is a ‘Green New Deal’, predicated ultimately upon convergence of all EU policies as to the environment. This book project seeks to delve into the forms and action component of EU convergence and isolate its meaning and plot its direction in context. All authors subscribe to the notion of EU as an exceptional convergence actor within the global legal order. The book isolates the methodology of this exceptionalism as a normative and descriptive state of affairs. All authors subscribe to the idea that the EU practices and preaches convergence in the global legal order increasingly with an explicitness, openness and directness which is sometimes at odds with international law and/ or international politics in its own unique way
Introduction: Institutionalisation beyond the nation state: new paradigms? Transatlantic relations: data, privacy and trade law
No full textThe chapter explores how we should understand the development of institutionalisation beyond the Nation State. It focuses largely but not exclusively upon a possibly ‘hard case’ of global governance, EU-US relations, long understood to be a non-institutionalised space, in light of recent legal and political developments in trade and data law How should we reflect upon ‘progress’ as a narrative beyond the Nation State? What is the place of bottom-up led process? The lexicon and framework of institutionalisation is argued to be both important and a valuable one worthy of being developed out of the shadows of many disciplines. Institutionalisation may be the antithesis of the desired political outcome and simultaneously also the panacea for all harms. Contrariwise, it is a highly provocative lexicon in its own right for its capacity to provoke questions of sovereignty and sensitivity towards embedded institutionalised frameworks. Transatlantic relations provide a vivid multi-disciplinary example of the relationship between institutionalisation and private power and quest for new forms of institutionalisation across a range of subjects. Exploring ‘de-institutionalisation’ may not capture adequately developments taking place between the EU and US in trade and data privacy. A broader context of extreme volatility in the global legal order is arguably also difficult to capture and pin down as to its specific temporal or conceptual elements. Strong internationalised institutionalisation appears to constitute the outcome of the ‘trade’ case study whereas weak localised institutionalisation appears to constitute the outcome of the ‘data’ case study. Nonetheless, they both represent important evolving concepts of power, rights and authority beyond the State
Introduction: Framing the methodology of justice, injustice and Brexit
Get PDFThis chapter explores, and attempts make more explicit, the diversity of methodological and analytical approaches within legal studies to Brexit as to its just or unjustness. It asks what are the diversity of perspectives and methodological approaches to Brexit and what do they tell us about the intellectual robustness of our study of Brexit? The chapter makes the case that legal issues of Brexit are challenging to explore because of different approaches to justice and injustice, and seeks to be more explicit about the existence and nature of these approaches in our study of Brexit
Introduction Special Issue: EU law in the era of digitisation: on strategic litigation causes, actors and processes
Get PDFThis Special Issue has been prepared in the framework of EUFutures, a research network funded by UACES and the James Madison Charitable Fund, whose main objective is to forge an interdisciplinary network of scholars working on EU law from the perspective of different disciplines, and interested in cross-disciplinary approaches to law and EU integration.
The Special Issue aims to assess the litigation strategies of interest groups in the digital field, at EU level and in the Member States, to analyse why these strategies were chosen, to explain the successes and failures of these interest groups, bottom-up, with a view to assessing the chances of success of future litigation. In doing so we seek to bridge the gap between the literature focusing on the most recent developments of digital law and the literature dealing with strategic litigation. The Special Issue has the overarching aim of demonstrating how integration through law in the EU has shifted decidedly towards a court-centric perspective
A Postnational Marketplace: Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
No full textThe Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the new trade agreement between the EU and the US, has a great ambition: not only if measured by the size of the emergent market, but also the potential spill over of its regulatory standards to the global level. The cooperation between the partners is envisaged on an ongoing basis in a range of fields-such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, public procurement or motor vehicles.The TTIP differs from the standard trade agreements. Not only by the size of the market it intends to create, or the potential spill over effect of its regulation, but foremost by the level of envisaged institutionalisation. While the negotiations themselves are ambitious in its scope, the most contentious and salient issues will be left as a future agenda to the new institutions of the TTIP, such as the Regulatory Cooperation Council with rule-making capacity.This raises a number of questions. First whether this agreement may be legitimately classified as a conventional international trade instrument at all, not least for the purposes of the procedures that apply to its approval and ratification, pursuant to Article 218 TFEU. Secondly, and more fundamentally, it poses the question as to who sets the normative agenda for these far-reaching negotiations and how this specific agenda reflects EU values and standards as an aspiring democracy.The paper considers who has set the normative agenda in the negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), reflecting upon both the actors and processes thereof. We focus on the questions of 1) participation in crafting the TTIP, 2) the role of knowledge in justifying this enterprise, 3) the objectives of the TTIP and 4) the institutions that should underpin it. We argue that the parliamentary legitimation, including approval and information rights, are inadequate in light of the institutionalisation processes which forms the goal of the TTIP
Towards a Transatlantic Community of Law? The Use of Law between the EU and US Legal Orders: Questions of Legal Form and Characterisation
No full text- …
