Mapping Human Rights, Reading the European Union

Abstract: The EU's human rights policy has provoked increasing scholarly attention over the last decade. Yet rarely has it been subjected to rigorous analysis in the context of any integration theory. This article is an attempt to rectify the omission. By building on the approach of historical institutionalism, whilst at the same time recognising its analytical deficiencies, a method of reading the EU and interpreting its human rights policies is promoted. Specifically, the article contends that an analysis based on the textual nature of the EU and the configuration of this text through ‘institutional narrative’ will enable a better understanding of the institutional logic behind the construction of human rights policy. An agenda for research and analysis is thus suggested that might map the development of human rights in the EU and predict the compass of future policy direction more effectively.     

公民身份的扩展与欧盟区域人权保护原则

在全球化的推动下,区域政府间的政治联盟和公民身份都获得巨大发展,成为区域法治的重要力量.承载着自由权利、政治权利和社会权利的公民身份,为区域法治提供了合法性基础,从而成为区域人权保护原则的主体性力量;公民身份的结构性联系和基本权利的内在勾连意味着,公民身份的理念与制度的扩展必然要求在区域人权保护中坚持一体保护原则、多重保护原则和司法保护原则.     

The European Union and Human Rights: Towards A Post-National Human Rights Institution?

There is growing evidence that the European Union (EU) is becomingmore involved in human rights protection and has the capacityto turn into an unprecedented post-national human rights protectioninstitution. Based on that evidence, this article suggests differentarguments in favour of a further development in this direction.These arguments stem not only from a general global justiceapproach to post-national institutions’ responsibilities,but also from the concept of human rights itself and the specificneeds of human rights protection at the post-national level.The EU's institutional framework presents advantages that fitthe general criteria of institutional design in the human rightscontext. Of course, many doubts and critiques may be raisedagainst an entity which started primarily as a functional andeconomic institution, and important reforms, some of which areventured in the present article, are still needed to get theEU closer to this institutional ideal. More generally, the articleemphasises the unique example and precedent the EU may constitutefor normative institutional thinking about global justice atthe post-national level.     

European Union Citizenship: Writing the Future

Abstract:  EU citizenship has matured as an institution, owing to a number of important interventions by the European Court of Justice and legislative initiatives, such as the Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC, which has recently entered into force. In this article, I critically examine minimalist and cosmopolitan conceptions of European citizenship and argue that once we dispense with the preoccupation of assigning primacy to a specific level of citizenship and establishing some kind of hierarchy among them, we can begin to address the questions and issues that really matter. Among these are the future governance of citizenship and the design of a more inclusive, multilayered and multicultural conception of citizenship. European citizenship entails a number of fruitful ideas for a more ambitious transition to a post-national tableau and can be the prototype for institutional experimentation on citizenship on a global scale.     

On the Right to Have Nationality Rights: Statelessness,Citizenship and Human Rights

Netherlands International Law Review - This article considers contemporary predicaments of nationality rights against the background of reflection on Arendt’s phrase ‘the right to have...     

The “Conventionalization” of Safety Crimes in the Post-Communist New Member States of the European Union

This article begins by presenting a brief overview of the neglected area of “safety crime” in the post-communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. Quantitative and qualitative evidence is reviewed, suggesting both the widespread nature of safety crimes, and a deteriorating work environment, in which safety crimes are routinely tolerated. Evidence of the “institutionalized tolerance of non-compliance” is provided through a case study of labor inspection in the new member states, focusing on Latvia, currently the worst performer in health and safety in Europe. Against a background of general violations of labor rights, current innovations in European-level regulatory strategies are critiqued, in particular, the shift towards “soft law” and compliance-based strategies, relying on appeals to corporate social responsibility, together with the encouragement of various forms of voluntary initiatives. It is suggested that such (self)-regulatory strategies may be inappropriate as forms of crime control in the new member states of the European Union. In effect, a convergence domestic and European Union policies may open the door to the further “conventionalization” of safety crimes in the new member states.This article is based on a paper first presented to a seminar, “Regulating Corporate Crime and White-Collar Crime: Developments across Europe”, Finnish Police College, Helsinki, 3–4 September, 2004. Financial support for the research was provided by a European Commission Marie Curie chair award (no: 509727). The author would like to thank Kit Carson and Steve Tombs, as well as the participants in the Helsinki seminar for their helpful comments. Any errors remain those of the author alone.     

Promoting Human Rights within the Union: The Role of European Private International Law

Abstract:  This article aims to contribute both to the 'Refgov' project, which is focused on the ambition to find ways of promoting human rights within the EU, but also, more in general and apart from the project, to an improved understanding of the crucial place conflict of law rules occupy in the building of a common Europe—a highly political question behind apparently technical issues. In the study the author deals with the parameters, points of interest, etc in relation to private international law which should be heeded if European Member States 'look at' each other's laws, and—in the context of the 'Refgov' project—if the idea is to exchange 'best practices' or harmonise substantive law, or to harmonise private international law, etc further through a type of open method of coordination. The contribution also shows that private international law issues are decisive in respect of every evaluation of the impact of European integration on human rights, both if this integration process takes place through 'negative' harmonisation (for example by falling back on the principle of mutual recognition) and through 'positive' harmonisation.     

Rules for Rights: European Law,Health Care and Social Citizenship

Social citizenship is about equality. The obvious problem for European social citizenship in a very diverse Union is that Member States will not be able or willing to bear the cost of establishing equal rights to health care and similar aspects of social citizenship. Health care is a particularly good case of this tension between EU citizenship and Member State diversity. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) strengthened the right to health care in other Member States, but this cannot create an equal right to health care when Member States are so different. In its efforts to balance a European right, the Court has formulated ‘rules for rights’—not so much European social citizenship rights, as a set of legal principles by which it judges the decisions of the Member States.     

Independence of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Unchecked Member States power after the Sharpston Affair

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the apex of the EU legal order, and is the supreme arbiter of EU law. For decades, it has delivered judgments, collectively shaping European integration and ‘integration through law’. It has undoubtedly been an authoritative leader in entrenching a European judicial culture, and has benefited from the cardinal principle of judicial independence enshrined in the EU Treaties, which in turn, it has insisted on being upheld as regards national courts. Questions have rarely arisen, however, about judicial independence of the CJEU. The Sharpston Affair of 2020–2021 opened the door to questioning such judicial independence. Is the CJEU at the mercy of the Member States? If so, what are the consequences for the EU legal order? This article reflects on the judicial independence of the CJEU, and offers reflections on how it can be preserved in the future.     

论欧盟法在成员国的适用

欧盟法主要由欧盟与成员国签订的基础性条约、欧盟与第三国或国际组织签订的条约和欧盟通过的条例、指令和决定组成。在欧盟内部,欧盟法可以直接适用,具有直接效力,并处于优先地位。欧盟法与成员国法的关系既不同于国际法和国内法关系,也不同于联邦法与成员邦法的关系。欧盟成员国各自适用欧盟法的实践,反映了欧盟法独特的适用方式,表明国际法日益得到普遍的尊重与遵守,主权国家自觉灵活适用国际法以维护国家利益,国际组织在国际法国内适用方面发挥重要作用。这是对现代国际法的丰富与发展。     

Heteronormativity and the European Court of Human Rights

This article examines a recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (E.B. v France) that upheld the complaint of a homosexual woman who alleged that her application for authorization to adopt a child had been refused by domestic French authorities on the grounds of her sexual orientation. I argue that the judgment constitutes an innovative and atypical legal consideration of, and challenge to, the heteronormative social relations of contemporary European societies. After exploring the evidence presented by the applicant, and the Court’s interpretation of it, I argue that in order to reach its judgment it was necessary for the Court to make a significant departure from its established jurisprudence in relation to sexual orientation. An essential element of this involved the adoption of a distinctive critical approach, strongly resonant with aspects of ‘queer theory’, which focused attention on the social, cultural and political construction of normative heterosexuality. Whilst a number of commentators have assessed the importance of the judgment in terms of its evolution of ‘gay rights’ in the area of family life, I argue that the Court’s reconceptualized ‘theoretical’ understanding of, and critical approach to, heteronormativity offers the potential to expand the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights across a number of areas of social life—in marriage, public assembly, freedom of expression, as well as family life—where non-heterosexuals continue to face discrimination in contemporary Europe.