Evaluating EU responsiveness to the evolution of the international regime complex on climate change

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics - Over the past decades, the international governance of climate change has evolved from a singular forum—the...     

Essential and Non-essential Measures: Delegation of Powers in EU Securities Regulation

This article examines the new regulatory process in the regulation of EU securities markets, as proposed by the Wise Men Committee and welcomed by the Council and the Parliament. The new structure involves inter alia the creation of a 'comitology' committee and recognises two layers of legislation: essential measures that will be enacted through the normal co-decision process on the one hand, and more detailed technical and 'non-essential' measures, which will be decided by the new committee and the Commission, on the other. It is believed that the new structure will respond to the need for speed, efficiency and flexibility in securities regulation. However, the starting point for discussion and the decisive question is how one can distinguish between these two levels of legislative measures. Although the Wise Men Committee does not give sufficient guidance on this issue, it is alleged that the success of the proposed regime will heavily depend on the clear definition and distinction between essential and non-essential measures. The theoretical exercise of this article involves an analysis of the delegation issues arising from the proposal and the identification of some potentially useful guiding principles and criteria derived from primary and secondary Community legislation and case law as well as from inter-institutional agreements. Its ultimate goal is a proposal for the adoption of common principles, criteria and dividing lines at EU level.     

我国促进中小企业技术转移的公共服务措施研究——基于欧盟IRC计划

欧盟委员会于1995年正式推出IRC计划，该计划以网络协调欧盟各国创新驿站的服务资源，并通过各站点及专业技术经纪人的服务，为中小企业的技术需求提供个性化的解决方案，有效地促进了欧盟各国中小企业之间的技术合作和转移。我国应在借鉴欧盟IRC成功经验的基础上，结合我国实际，建立中国创新驿站，进一步提升我国促进中小企业技术转移的公共服务措施。     

Crime Trends in the EU

The paper’s aim is to show to EU policy makers, academics, journalists and the general public what the available information tells us about crime levels, trends in crime and public opinion about crime among Member States. The paper centres on an analysis of current trends on crime levels and trends based on the data available both from victimisation surveys and police statistics. The victimisation survey source is the published data collected in the International Crime Victimisation Survey. A separate analysis based on the Eurobarometer was also carried out. Data on police statistics present two separate sources i.e. the Council of Europe Sourcebook and the crime data published annually by the UK Home Office. These two sources both add considerable value to the raw police statistics by their choice of data, their commentary and their technical explanations and definitions. The paper compares data on three crime types (robbery, domestic burglary and theft of a motor vehicle) across the 15 Member States of the European Union (as in 2003). These three types were selected in line with the priorities of the EU Commission and as types of crime that are a major concern for EU-citizens. The paper has been modified from a report produced by the European Crime prevention network for the EU Directorate of Justice and Home Affairs with the permission of the EU. The members of the network are listed in the appendix.     

Pathologies of Deliberation in the EU

The article explores the ‘dark side’ of deliberation with regard to the EU. In contrast to the dominant apologetics of deliberation, it argues that even though deliberation might have benevolent effects on decision making in the EU, the convention method cannot be viewed as a democratic alternative to the intergovernmental conferences. This is due to the pathologies of deliberation that can only be corrected by applying additional mechanisms. The article explores the pathologies of deliberation by referring to recent experience with the convention method applied within the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (1999/2000) and the Convention on the Future of the European Union (2002/2003). It discusses two types of deliberative pathologies including the false will‐formation and the rational hijacking of deliberation which question the validity of democratic claims made by deliberation theory.     

欧盟劳动法在欧盟政治经济一体化中的作用

一、欧盟政治经济一体化与欧盟劳动法关系之缘起自1951年《建立欧洲煤钢共同体条约》(简称《巴黎条约》)揭开了欧盟一体化的序幕开始,欧盟政治经济一体化的进程已经走过了五十余年。所谓一体化(Intergration),最早是源于经济一体化,后拓展认为是由不同的社会、国家及经济体跨越     

一体化进程中的欧盟税法

欧盟税法反映了欧盟税制协调的成果。欧盟税法在目标、功能、法律渊源等方面都不同于某一主权国家的税法;它的实现主要取决于其成员国的意志。就世界范围而言,欧盟一体化的税法在调整范围和调整深度方面也已经远远走在了各区域经济体的前面,但尚未达到任何一个联邦国家的联邦税法发展的程度。展望未来,欧盟税法一体化的发展仍将经历一个漫长而曲折的过程。     

Personality under EU Law: A Conceptual Answer towards the Pluralisation of the EU

Although the trend towards pluralisation within the institutional framework of the EU is somewhat reflected in theoretical efforts, legal scholarship's answer remains incomplete. Acknowledging that legal personality is always relative—ie related to a particular legal system—personality under EU Law should be recognised and developed as a distinct category. This allows for reconsideration and rearrangement of inter‐ and intrapersonal relations in EU Law: inter‐institutional agreements can gain firmer legal ground, the recognition of hierarchical structures within the EU executive branch can advance the maintenance of the rule of law, legal protection of the Union's citizens shall be advanced, and options as well as limits to privatising organisation at the EU level shall be formulated. On the whole, methodological self‐reflection along these lines is bound to lead to a valuable contribution of legal research in times of EU crisis.     

《欧盟宪法条约》对欧盟人权保护的影响

《欧盟宪法条约》的通过和生效将从根本上矫正欧盟经济、政治、军事和人权的不对称性,并使欧盟的人权保护从政治层面提升到司法层面。这一条约还从根本上弥补了欧盟的“人权赤字”,并使欧盟的人权保护制度与欧洲理事会的人权保护制度相连结,使欧盟的人权保护由点扩大到面。可以期待,随着条约的生效和施行,欧盟的人权保护将逐步处于区域性和全球性人权保护的领跑地位。     

欧洲联盟体制内的发展权

20世纪80年代以来国际社会所关注的发展权问题其关键意义不在于理论创新,而在于实践指导。社会的公正与协调、持续发展在很大程度上取决于较为贫困、经济欠发达的地区和人口的生活程度。欧洲联盟通过一系列外部和内部政策为这一领域的实践提供了可资参考的范例。在这方面,中国可以结合自身的情况,分析其可以借鉴的方面,为促进发展权而做出贡献。     

Regional parliaments in the EU multilevel parliamentary system

ABSTRACT

European integration has created a multilevel political system that is dominated by executive actors. Despite the increasing competences of the European Parliament, a growing EU-awareness of national assemblies and an emerging attention of regional parliaments for EU affairs, the EU polity still lacks a sound parliamentary representation. As the EU presents itself as a representative democracy, the current set-up raises questions from the perspective of democratic legitimacy. The establishment of multilevel parliamentarianism may be part of the remedy. This introduction focuses on the position that regional parliaments take in such a European multilevel parliamentary system. The authors address three relevant questions: what roles do regional parliaments take up in terms of legislation, scrutiny and networking? To what extent are they empowered by the Lisbon Treaty? And what explains the variation in their activities? The authors develop hypotheses that are, to varying degree, addressed by the contributions in this special issue.     

Productivity measures in the criminal investigation function

The authors served as evaluators of a Managing Case Investigations (MCI) demonstration project in a major urban police department. Such projects were funded by Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) as a follow-up on the Rand Corporation study of the criminal investigation process. This article uses a framework of economic analysis to evaluate the efficiency of the demonstration project. Evaluation shows that the clearance rate of cases rose during the project without the use of additional resources. Impressions gained concerning the appropriate criteria for judging the work of detectives are discussed.     

Bounded Discretion in EU Law: A Limited Judicial Paradigm in a Changing EU

Against the background of the reinforcement of the EU executive pursuant to the post‐2008 economic and financial market regulatory reforms, this article deconstructs the prevailing distinction between an executive body's discretion to make policy choices and its discretion when conducting technical assessments. This distinction, which arises out of the current judicial paradigm for discretion, has contributed to the re‐allocation of executive authority within the EU (sanctioned in UK v Parliament and Council and Gauweiler v Deutscher Bundestag). The article traces the distinction's roots in legal conceptions that have shaped legal‐administrative thinking since the early days of the Etat de Droit or Rechstaat. It proposes a public‐interest‐regarding conception of discretion where, in an institutional context where courts’ reviewing role may be limited, discretion's relationship to law is a matter of how legal norms may operate in the spheres of discretion that they attribute to decision‐makers, rather than how courts may review an exercise of discretion.     

Horizontal Liability for Damages in EU Law—the Changing Relationship of EU and National Law

The article focuses on damages liability between private parties—referred to as horizontal liability—that is based on EU law. Generally, this kind of liability may be based on EU secondary legislation or be derived from substantive EU law and legal principles. The article seeks to analyse the latter: liability in an area of EU law where so‐called procedural autonomy still, at least apparently, prevails. Special attention is paid to the lively interface between EU law and national remedies and to the increasing EU law requirements for the enforcement of EU law in national courts. Recent case‐law on private liability for damages caused by competition infringements is discussed as part of a more general question concerning the ways in which the relationship of EU law and national enforcement frameworks is developing.