Security policies and the weakening of personal data protection in the European Union

In recent years, the reinforcement of security policies alongside the expansion of information systems for law enforcement and crime prevention entailed growing restrictions to personal data protection principles and procedural rights in the European Union. This paper seeks to elucidate this trend, while matching it with an EU institutional discourse based on balancing and proportionality. Indeed, EU institutions regularly present security measures and fundamental rights as somewhat symmetric values to be easily conciliated through balancing and proportionality. Considering the raising of the protection of personal data to the status of a fundamental right by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its effect on a possible rebalancing of the values at stake is discussed. Yet, we conclude, for the time being, the potential for just and democratic solutions provided by the ideas of balancing and proportionality does not appear to be properly used.     

Mind the Gap: Lacunae in the International Legal Framework Governing Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

This article examines the common claim that there are gaps in international law that undermine accountability of private military and security companies. A multi-actor analysis examines this question in relation to the commission of international crimes, violations of fundamental human rights, and ordinary crimes. Without this critical first step of identifying specific deficiencies in international law, the debate about how to enhance accountability within this sector is likely to be misguided at best.     

Gender Equality, Citizenship, and the EU's Constitutional Future

Abstract:  While gender equality has been a matter of some concern for EU law and policy makers over the past half century, this concern has tended, at least historically, to focus upon equal treatment in employment and has not yet materialised into the delivery of a broader package of civil, political, and social rights for women. Taking the concept of EU citizenship as a framework within which to view the promotion of gender equality, this article assesses the debate on the constitutional future of the EU. This is with a view to examining the possible amelioration of women's social position through the exploitation of opportunities that the constitutionalisation of EU law presents. Looking at women's citizenship through the lens of political rights to participate in the debate on the EU's future, together with examining substantive aspects of the Constitutional Treaty for their gender equality content, the article suggests that a more comprehensive endeavour by all institutional actors to engage in gender mainstreaming is needed in order to give effect to a broader form of equality between women and men.     

The Way We Do Europe: Subsidiarity and the Substantive Democratic Deficit

The new institutional framework of subsidiarity is expected to lower the EU democratic deficit. In contrast to this optimistic scenario, I argue that the success of subsidiarity depends on its capacity to unravel the EU's ‘substantive’ democratic deficit. Linked to the Union's functionalist institutional design, this dimension of the democratic deficit has developed due to two limitations of EU‐level politics. First, the EU functionalist design has narrowed the range of topics open to democratic debate (horizontal substantive democratic deficit). Second, the proportion of the debate which we could genuinely describe as being political is declining as a result of the de‐politicisation of EU goals, underpinned by a massive accumulation of allegedly apolitical expert knowledge (vertical substantive democratic deficit). Against this background, I contend that by involving actors relatively alien to the EU functionalist thinking, subsidiarity could offer an opportune ground for the re‐politicisation of democratic ‘blind spots’ in EU policy making.     

Exploring Definitions of Serious Crime in EU Policy Documents and Academic Publications: A Content Analysis and Policy Implications

In recent years the term “serious crime” has gained prominence in EU policy on internal security. This article analyzes how the EU policy and scientific communities have conceptualized and operationalized the term. Through a content analysis, it evaluates the articulation and use of “serious crime” in EU policy documents published from 1995–2013 and scientific articles published from 2004–13 that include the term (n?=?93 and n?=?104, respectively). The analysis demonstrates deficits of conceptualization and operationalization and a correspondingly weak foundation for policy. While the EU’s increasing emphasis on serious crime could represent an opportunity to improve the accountability of EU crime control policies, it is up to academics and policy-makers to address these deficits.     

“Hand-to-mouth” citizenship: decision time for the UK Supreme Court on the substance of Zambrano rights,EU citizenship and equal treatment

UK benefit rules strip Zambrano residence rights, for UK national children and their third country national primary carers, of equal treatment entitlement. These rules are challenged in a case pending before the UK Supreme Court. This piece argues that Zambrano creates an EU-citizenship-based right to reside which necessarily entails equal treatment. UK national children in Zambrano families fall within the scope of EU law so are not prevented by the wholly internal rule from claiming equal treatment with EU national children in Teixeira families. And they are protected by equal treatment as a general principle of EU law, which requires equal treatment with other UK national children. The justifications for automatic unequal treatment put forward before, and accepted with alacrity by, the Court of Appeal, are poorly reasoned and ill-matched with the rules in question – most notably because Zambrano families may have strong connections with the UK. A CJEU reference is likely; a Zambrano right is the right to reside in the Union – it is the right to have EU rights. The substance of EU citizenship is at stake.     

Challenging Executive Dominance in European Democracy

Executive dominance in the contemporary EU is part of a wider migration of executive power towards types of decision making that eschew electoral accountability and popular democratic control. This democratic gap is fed by far‐going secrecy arrangements and practices exercised in a concerted fashion by the various executive actors at different levels of governance and resulting in the blacking out of crucial information and documents – even for parliaments. Beyond a deconstruction exercise on the nature and location of EU executive power and secretive working practices, this article focuses on the challenges facing parliaments in particular. It seeks to reconstruct a more pro‐active and networked role of parliaments – both national and European – as countervailing power. In this vision parliaments must assert themselves in a manner that is true to their role in the political system and that is not dictated by government at any level.     

Security,privacy and freedom and the EU legal and policy framework for biometrics

The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon and the granting to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the same legal force as the Treaty has lent a new impulse to the consideration of fundamental human rights by the European Union (EU). The question remains, however, as to how this legal discourse, centred upon human rights, is actually shaping the EU regulatory framework in specific policy domains. The aim of this paper is to critically appraise the ways that the fundamental rights of security, privacy and freedom guaranteed by the Charter are being construed in the context of EU law and policy on biometrics, an ethically and morally sensitive security technology whose development and use are being actively promoted by the EU. We conclude that the interpretation of the pertinent rights, as well as their balancing, owes a great deal to the goals of EU policies for research and development, and under the auspices of Freedom, Security and Justice, shaped largely by political and economic considerations. These considerations then tend to prevail over ethically or morally-based legal claims.     

Rule of law,national judges and the Court of Justice of the European Union: Let's keep it juridical

The debate on the rule of law in the EU is mainly taking place from an EU law point of view, stemming from the analysis of CJEU judgments and its interpretation of general principles and primary EU law. This article argues that only by comprehending the global context of rise of populism and delegitimation of the judiciary may we realise the risks that national judges and the CJEU started to take when they entered the stage of this discussion. An overview is made of the global trend of delegitimation of the judiciary, referring to the example of Poland. The author then analyses how the CJEU and national courts, while defending the rule of law, are also mutually contributing to their own protection against external threats, and why that dialogue is essential to keep the debate juridical, as a way of avoiding what the author identifies as the “populist trap to the judiciary”.     

Promoting Whole-Process People’s Democracy Following the Rule of Law

Whole-process people’s democracy profoundly reflects the features of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics, and comprehensively and systematically reveals the concept of people’s democracy as providing important mechanisms of national and social governance. Based on the traditional democratic understanding of democracy as majority rule, whole-process people’s democracy emphasizes the universality and extensive range of democratic governance, but also has the natural value defects of democratic value itself. Therefore, we must organically combine democracy with the values of the rule of law and human rights, to build a well-defined governance order based on people’s democratic value. The whole process in the “whole-process people’s democracy” has really resolved the situation of people’s “absence” from many links of state power operation caused by over-emphasizing the election-democracy in the Western capitalist democratic system. Through the people’s extensive participation and effective supervision, the state power operation mechanism based on the fundamental political system, the people’s congress system, has been ensured to be always in the framework of people’s democratic governance. This effectively realizes the people’s sovereignty and is consistent with the declaration that “all power in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) belongs to the people,” stipulated in the Constitution of China. To improve the governance efficiency of whole-process people’s democracy in practice, we must bring it onto the rule of law, and use the rule of law philosophy and methods to reasonably and effectively resolve all kinds of theoretical and practical problems.     

When Worlds Collide: Enforcing United Nations Security Council Asset Freezes in the EU Legal Order

Asset freezes are since 2000 being applied by the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) to non-state actors. This came about as a 'mutation' of the sanctions program initiated by Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1390 (2002): currently the targets are only supected terrorists or terrorism financiers.
This 'mutation' has created perplexities and problems, namely for the EU, which enforces UN SC Resolutions by a combination of first and second pillar methods. The main problem concerns issues of fundamental rights, currently being litigated.
The debate on the compatibility of the current practice of UN SC asset freezing within EU law takes place amidst a fundamental lack of clarity as to the exact purposes and operational objectives of such freezes. It is argued that this practice amounts to an ad hoc (para-)criminal procedure measure, enacted by political bodies rather than courts, and without judicial oversight.
The current UN SC practice of asset freezing against non-state actors breaches the right to judicial review, as well as the presumption of innocence. If this practice it is to continue at all, methods that make it fully compatible with the rule of law must be adopted. Especially, their renewal ad aeternum should not be possible.     

The progressive policy shift in the debate on the international tax challenges of the digital economy: A “Pretext” for overhaul of the international tax regime?

This contribution presents a critical overview of the policy and legal debate (primarily from a tax treaty law perspective) surrounding the challenges raised by the digitalisation of the economy for the international tax regime. The article addresses some key policy challenges inherent in the proposals for reform currently under consideration. It focuses in particular on the difficulties associated with fitting the concept of “value creation” within the pre-existing framework based on “source” and “residence”; a gradual transition from a primarily “supply” approach to a “supply and demand” approach in the understanding of “source”; and an implicit drift in the policy debate on the tax implications of the digitalised economy from a targeted analysis aimed at incrementally reforming the existing regime to a full-blown reconsideration of some of its fundamental tenets.     

Advancing Direct Corporate Accountability in International Human Rights Law: The Role of State-Owned Enterprises

Resorting to the immensely state-centric international legal system to regulate corporate human rights abuses is often viewed as inadequate. Among many proposals aiming at filling the international regulatory gaps, imposing international human rights obligations directly on corporations is a bold one, which, due to profound doctrinal and practical challenges, is yet to be materialized. However, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), given their prima facie “state–business nexus” that blurs the traditional public–private divide, might provide a renewed opportunity to push forward the “direct international corporate accountability” campaign. This study investigates whether SOEs represent a golden chance for direct corporate accountability in the international legal regime. This study provides a legal analysis supported by case law, and by comparative and empirical research when appropriate. After providing a definitional account of SOEs, it examines the legal status of SOEs under international law. Then, in the reverse direction, it proceeds to explore if the state–business nexus of SOEs as non-state actors could render the argument toward direct international corporation accountability more convincing. Major findings reveal that SOEs, to a limited extent, represent a renewed opportunity to rethink direct corporate accountability under international law.     

Looking for some light through the lens of “cryptowar” history: Policy options for law enforcement authorities against “going dark”

As companies and end-users increasingly deploy end-to-end encryption, law enforcement and national security agencies claim they “go dark”, i.e. lose in practice the power to legally intercept and gain access to information and communications. This has revived a debate that seemed closed by the late 1990s, namely whether backdoors should be embedded in encryption systems. This paper provides a historical overview of the policy debates surrounding encryption, to identify the potential regulatory options for policy-makers, based on the lessons that can be learned from “cryptowar” history. We discuss the First Cryptowars (1990s, focusing on backdoor schemes), the Interbellum (featuring a rise in powers to order decryption), the Second Cryptowars (2010s, renewed backdoor discussions) and their aftermath: the newly emerging battlefield of legal hacking. The latter can be seen as a condition for the truce with which – for now – the Cryptowars seem to have ended. Cryptowar history teaches us that the two main policy options for decryption by government agencies – ensuring access to keys ex ante (backdoors) or ex post (decryption orders) – both suffer from fundamental flaws. Therefore, legal hacking powers – if human rights standards are sufficiently taken into account – could be the only realistic policy option to preserve some light in an era of dark communication channels.     

The Dual Nature of Law

The argument of this article is that the dual‐nature thesis is not only capable of solving the problem of legal positivism, but also addresses all fundamental questions of law. Examples are the relation between deliberative democracy and democracy qua decision‐making procedure along the lines of the majority principle, the connection between human rights as moral rights and constitutional rights as positive rights, the relation between constitutional review qua ideal representation of the people and parliamentary legislation, the commitment of legal argumentation to both authoritative and non‐authoritative reasons, and the distinction between rules as expressing a real “ought” and principles as expressing its ideal counterpart. All of this underscores the point that the dual nature of law is the single most essential feature of law.     

“A State in the disguise of a Merchant”: Tech Leviathans and the rule of law

The rule of law is a check on power, requiring equal subjection of everyone to the law, irrespective of wealth or status. Power is not the exclusive preserve of the state, however, especially where rivalled by private entities that rise, in effect, above the law. Today’s tech giants throw the rule of law out of kilter by assuming the trappings of the state— one even has its own “supreme court”— while shunning its accountability. They seek to dissuade, capture and evade any attempt by the state to mitigate the harms arising from their business models. Policy makers scrambling for innovative legislative techniques are unlikely to repair the consequences of extreme concentration of corporate power so long as underlying social injustices and over-deference in democratic institutions go unchallenged. Leviathan, whether in the form of govern mentor corporation, cannot coexist with the rule of law.     

Challenging EU constitutional law: The Italian Constitutional Court's new stance on direct effect and the preliminary reference procedure

This article seeks to examine the relationship between EU law and the Italian legal order in light of the recent Italian Constitutional Court (ICC)’s jurisprudence attempting to redefine EU core principles. When fundamental rights are at stake, three assumptions are challenged: the determination of direct effect shall be a prerogative of the ECJ; EU directly effective provisions entail the disapplication of conflicting national law; judges have the discretion to refer preliminary references to the ECJ where a clarification on EU law is needed. The contribution argues that the judicial search for a balance between sovereignty and supranationality is undermined by the ICC's new resistance to the well‐established EU jurisprudence. In that respect, the paper posits that the ICC's activism is the result of an unjustified ‘argumentative self‐restraint’ of the ECJ vis‐à‐vis the evolution of EU foundational principles.     

Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Criminal Law? Explaining and Defending the Distinction

This article makes six points. First, under any plausible normative perspective, the distinction between mistake (and ignorance) of criminal law and mistake of fact must at least sometimes be drawn. Second, the fundamental distinction is between a mistake about the state’s authoritative statement of what is prohibited (“M Law”), and a mistake about whether that prohibitory norm is instantiated in a particular case (“M Fact”). Third, when an actor makes a mistake about an evaluative criterion whose content the fact-finder has discretion to elaborate, it is impossible both to allow this discretion and to faithfully realize a jurisdiction’s policy of treating M Fact and M Law differently. Fourth, the claim that every unreasonable M Fact is really a M Law elides important differences between the two kinds of mistake. Fifth, various borderline objections, such as the famous Mr. Fact/Mr. Law example, do not undermine the fundamental distinction, although in rare instances, they do constitute genuine counterexamples that do not effectuate the principles and policies that the distinction ordinarily serves; and even here, they are exceptions that prove (the rationale for) the rule. Sixth, specification or evolution of a criminal law norm, such as the criterion for nonconsent in rape law, can convert a legally relevant M Fact into a legally irrelevant M Law. This phenomenon does not undermine the fundamental distinction between these types of mistake; to the contrary, it reveals the significance of that distinction.     

Balancing Liberty and Security? A Legal Analysis of United Kingdom Anti-Terrorist Legislation

This paper traces developments in Great Britain related to counter-terrorism during the last few years and highlights the challenges to the rule of law raised by it, in particular, for the judiciary. It portrays the British constitutional order finding its feet after the fundamental changes made by the 1998 Human Rights Act, describing the tension arising with the judicial role changing whilst facing controversial measures such as 90-days detention, detention orders, shoot-to-kill policy, etc. An analysis of case law, government action and academic debate ends with a call for a new formula to be found by which security interests can be measured against human rights.