The Principle of Solidarity and Fairness in Sharing Responsibility: More than Window Dressing?

The lack of fairness in asylum responsibility sharing within the EU has been a persistent problem demanding an urgent solution. This article seeks to inform the on‐going debate on European solidarity instruments from a constitutional law perspective by taking the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility pursuant to Article 80 TFEU as its reference point. The article sees this principle as an important mechanism in both the enhancement of fairness in responsibility sharing and the protection of refugees. It argues that the combined reading of Article 80 TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides a strong reason to doubt the constitutionality of the Dublin III Regulation, and any decision reforming the asylum regime should take this view into account. Despite its limited enforceability, Article 80 TFEU can play an important role as an interpretation tool, in particular in the assessment of the legality of solidarity instruments.     

Electoral accountability in the developing world

Do citizens of the developing world behave as economic voters? Do they blame and reward incumbent governments for their perceived economic performance? In addressing these questions, the current paper fills an important void left by the extant literature by adopting a large-n approach with the use of public opinion survey data and by focusing on emerging democracies of the developing world. The proposed analysis develops a series of incumbent support models to assess the impact of economic assessments. It relies on the use of public opinion survey data from countries of Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia, and the Arab world. The paper contributes to the extant literature at the empirical, methodological, and theoretical levels. Empirically, it provides a unique and systematic account of the phenomenon through a large-scale comparative approach. Theoretically, it contributes to the debate on the value of economic voting to explain electoral behavior in the developing world. Methodologically, it shows that using presidential approval is a fair alternative to vote choice and that a full model specification is not absolutely necessary to estimating the economic effect.     

Pouvoir royal et représentation provençale du XVIIème au XVIIIème siècle

SUMMARY

This paper examines assemblies of the clergy in early modern Castile and France. It provides a short overview of the representative nature of these assemblies, their functions, and their power over the ecclesiastical purse strings. In the process it argues that, in addition to secular representative institutions, historians need to take a closer look at ecclesiastical assemblies in order to understand politics, finance and representation in Catholic polities.     

Illegal access to information systems and the Directive 2013/40/EU

Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013, on attacks against information systems, came into force on 3 September 2013, replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA. It maintains existing offences and criminalizes new activities such as illegal interception and the usage of certain tools for committing offences. The offence that is the focus of this article – illegal access to information systems – is set out in Article 3. It represents a change from the wording of Art 2 (2) of the Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA in that under Art 3 of the Directive the incrimination of illegal access to information systems now depends upon whether such access infringes a security measure. This paper provides an overview of the impetus for the introduction of cybercrime laws and analysis of the key provisions of the Directive before exploring whether the wording of Art 3 is a sensible legislative approach.     

Victor’s Justice: The Next Best Moral Theory of Criminal Punishment?

In this essay, I address one methodological aspect of Victor Tadros’s The Ends of Harm – namely, the moral character of the theory of criminal punishment it defends. First, I offer a brief reconstruction of this dimension of the argument, highlighting some of its distinctive strengths while drawing attention to particular inconsistencies. I then argue that Tadros ought to refrain from developing this approach in terms of an overly narrow understanding of the morality of harming as fully unified and reconciled under the lone heading of justice. In a final and most critical section, I offer arguments for why this reconciliatory commitment, further constrained by a misplaced emphasis on corrective justice, generates major problems for his general deterrence account of the core justification of criminal punishment.