The coordination of policy priorities among regional institutions from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic: the institutions – coordination dilemma

We examine the coordination of policy priorities among the Arctic Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Council of Baltic Sea States, and the Nordic Council of Ministers. The member states of these groups established these institutions to coordinate their regional cooperation. However, the member states ended up having to coordinate the parallel work of these institutions. This coordination effort influenced their cooperation, creating an institutional coordination dilemma. We analyze how interests, leadership, and identity politics influence this dilemma and how negative, problem-solving, and positive forms of coordination can amend its effects regarding the temporal consistency of policy priorities and their sectoral overlap.     

Strasbourg,the House of Lords or Elected Politicians: Who decides about rights after Re P?

In Re P , the House of Lords decided that art 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which prohibited unmarried couples from being eligible to adopt, violated articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Apart from its significance for adoption law and anti-discrimination law, Re P is also important in understanding the constitutional role of the courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Re P recognizes that if Strasbourg has determined that an issue falls within states' margin of appreciation, this does not prevent municipal courts from enforcing those rights. This comment will discuss the meaning and scope of the courts' obligation under section 2 of the HRA, the status of the rights protected by the HRA and the appropriate role of the courts in a rights dispute which is subject to moral, social, religious or political controversy.     

CASES: Special Advocates,Control Orders and the Right to a Fair Trial

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3), the House of Lords decided that Article 6 ECHR requires a ‘core irreducible minimum’ of procedural fairness such that ‘the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate’. This case‐note will discuss the challenges facing Special Advocates in control order proceedings and the impact AF may have on the measure of procedural fairness owed to individuals in closed proceedings. It will also address the judicial use of sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in arriving at the outcome in AF.