Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Criminal justice, Administration of – European Union countries'

Under the competences of the European Union's intergovernmentally controlled Justice and Home Affairs policy, counter-terrorist co-operation and co-ordination of efforts have progressed at a rapid pace following the 11 September attacks on the USA. Given, however, that Europe has experienced entrenched terrorist campaigns for the past three decades, one could be forgiven for questioning, in light of the unique co-operative position of Western Europe, why it has taken so long for the membership of the EU to reach a common definition of terrorism. Also why is it that even now, the EU has failed to develop a common policy against terrorism? Political explanations are traditional responses to such questions, but there is a risk of underestimating the complexities of the European Project, and the effect which this has had on so many areas of transnational co-operation. By focusing therefore on the often-overlooked role played by European integration on counter-terrorist co-operation, in addition to empirical analysis of the efficiency of the co-operative structures, we place ourselves in a more beneficial position to understand the current situation. Intergovernmentalism, the controlling force of JHA co-operation, we find is not mutually exclusive to law-enforcement co-operation. Two theories tested for supranational influences - neo-functionalism and federalism - have also played their part, from the early 1960s onwards, in facilitating co-operation. The historical emphasis is important, because co-operation prior to the regulation of much of this area within the EU, following the Treaties of Economic Union, provides us with ample material for analysis and greater insight into the JHA process and counter-terrorism. Intergovernmentalism has helped push counter-terrorist co-operation along, but equally we find that it now serves as a hindrance in completing its development because of its in-built tendency to retain subsidiarity. Counter terrorist co-operation, we conclude, need not be restricted to intergovernmental control any longer.

La thèse effectue une revue de la littérature scientifique sur la Cour dans le processus d’intégration juridique, en classant les différentes positions selon qu’ils définissent le rôle de la Cour comme réactif ou pro-actif. En faisant cette revue de la littérature, cinq facteurs sont mis en exergue pour ce qui concerne la problématique de l’autonomie de la Cour, qui feront l’objet d’une analyse approfondie dans la suite de la thèse :

I) Limites inhérentes à l’interprétation juridique des Traités tels qu’ils se retrouvent dans les règles institutionnalisées du raisonnement de la Cour ;

II) L’interaction, au niveau européen, entre la Cour et les autres institutions ;

III) Les pressions et les stratégies d’influence des Etats membres vis-à-vis de la Cour comme agent de leurs préférences ;

IV) La dépendance structurelle de la Cour supranationale vis-à-vis ses interlocuteurs judiciaires au niveau national ;

V) Le degré d’obéissance que les appareils administratifs et exécutifs des Etats membres démontrent vis-à-vis la jurisprudence de la Cour.

Par rapport à ces facteurs, et leur importance relative dans la détermination de la ligne d’action de la Cour de Justice, la thèse évalue les changements et les défis auxquels est soumise la fonction de la Cour de justice au niveau de l’Union européenne, en particulier par rapport à l’environnement de plus en plus critique ou évolue la trajectoire jurisprudentielle de la Cour par rapport aux acteurs politiques et juridiques, l’érosion du caractère sui generis du droit communautaire dans le contexte du droit international, le rôle de plus en plus affiché des cours nationales, et le contexte institutionnel dans lequel se trouve à agir cette juridiction.
Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Cette recherche doctorale part de l’hypothèse générale selon laquelle la méthode communautaire classique serait concurrencée dans les faits par de nouveaux instruments juridiques qui, loin de constituer des initiatives isolées, participent d’un modèle alternatif de gouvernance communautaire qui la transforme en profondeur.

Afin d’identifier les caractéristiques, les contours et les nouvelles formes de normativités de ce modèle alternatif, cette recherche a adopté une approche pragmatique de l’étude droit et étudie empiriquement et systématiquement six politiques publiques européennes :la stratégie européenne pour l’emploi (SEE) et la Méthode Ouverte de Coordination (MOC), le programme européen REACH; la politique européenne de l’eau; la politique comptable européenne; la politique de régulation des services financiers; et la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique et le marché européen du carbone. Ces politiques publiques sont étudiées au moyen d’une approche par les instruments d’action publique qui s’inspire de la démarche et des recherches effectuées par Michel Foucault sur la « gouvernementalité ».

Cette analyse nous aura permis de démontrer que la transformation de la méthode communautaire classique se constate à au moins trois niveaux. Au niveau des acteurs, on assiste à un renforcement de la place des acteurs privés et de la société civile dans les politiques publiques étudiées. La transformation de l’action publique européenne réside également dans l’utilisation abondante de nouveaux instruments d’action publique - plus techniques que politiques et plus incitatifs que contraignants (du type benchmarking) - qui impliquent systématiquement une collaboration entre acteurs publics et privés à différents niveaux du processus décisionnel (coproduction normative). Enfin le mode de sanction est devenu une « contrainte par l’image » reposant sur la figure du « mauvais élève de la classe » véhiculée principalement par des publications de classements basées sur une classification des bonnes pratiques. Corrélativement, cette transformation se constate également dans les phases d’élaboration, d’exécution et de contrôle du droit de l’Union européenne.

Une fois les caractéristiques et les contours de ce modèle alternatif dessinés sur base des politiques publiques étudiées, cette recherche s’est ensuite tournée vers une présentation des discours (politiques et juridiques) et écoles de pensées (Law and Economics / New Public Management / Démocratie délibérative / Expérimentalisme démocratique) permettant de justifier son existence et, par là, de fonder sa légitimité. Enfin, si ce nouveau modèle peut prétendre à une certaine légitimité ou nécessité et s’il n’apparaît pas envisageable de revenir en arrière, sa non-concordance avec le traité est problématique. En effet, ce modèle pose une série de questions relatives au manque de contrôle sur l’activité des institutions de l’Union et à la sauvegarde de l’ordre juridique constitutionnel européen. Plus précisément, l’étude de la question de la protection juridictionnelle effective et du respect du principe de l’équilibre des pouvoirs permet d’identifier un certains nombre d’écueils et de proposer des suggestions d’amélioration pragmatique du modèle décisionnel européen au regard des nouveaux instruments juridiques de la gouvernance européenne.

The starting point of my doctoral research is that the Classic Community Method, as described in the Lisbon Treaty, does not enable one to understand the manner in which law is currently produced in the European Union. I claim that the Community Method is in fact challenged and transformed by new legal instruments that, far from being isolated initiatives, are part of an alternative model of governance.

My research adopts a programmatic approach as to identify the features, contours and new forms of normativity of this alternative model. It studies empirically and systematically six European public policies through “an approach by instruments” inspired in the writings of Michel Foucault on "governmentality”.

This analysis shows that the transformation of the Classic Community method occurs at least at three levels. First, there is a strengthening of the role of private actors and civil society in policy making. Second, the transformation of European public action also lies in the abundant use of new policy instruments - rather technical and political incentives than binding rules (benchmarking) - that involve a systematic collaboration between public and private actors at different levels of decision-making (co-regulation). Third, control and sanctions rely greatly on a “constrained by image” system based primarily on publications of rankings and classifications of good practices.

After I present the features and contours of this alternative model, my research analyzes the political and legal discourses, as well as the schools of thought (Law and Economics / New Public Management / Deliberative Democracy / Democratic Experimentalism), that justify its existence and, therefore, its legitimacy.

Finally, my doctoral work rises the question about the lack of control over these regulatory activities and brings to light the safeguards that should be taken by the European Court of Justice to respect European Union’s Constitutional law

Doctorat en Sciences juridiques
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Aujourd'hui les droits des mineurs occupent une place de plus en plus importante dans l'agenda juridique et politique de l'UE. La promotion des droits de l'enfant représente maintenant un objectif de l'UE, consacré dans l'article 3, paragr. 3, du Traité sur l'Union européenne. Les droits de l'enfant sont également cristallisés dans l'article 24 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne. Actuellement l'Union européenne dispose de nombreux actes législatifs et de documents non législatifs relatifs aux droits des mineurs ou qui peuvent avoir des répercussions indirectes sur la vie des enfants. Ce travail analyse la nature, la portée et la valeur des mesures de l'UE dans deux domaines principaux : la protection des enfants et de leurs droits et la justice pénale des mineurs. Le but de la recherche a été d’examiner jusqu'à quel point on peut parler d’une valeur ajoutée de la promotion des droits des enfants au niveau de l'UE, par rapport au niveau national et international et également celui de proposer de nouvelles solutions pour améliorer la promotion et la protection des droits des enfants dans l’Union européenne
Today children’s rights occupy an increasingly prominent place on the EU legal and policy agenda. The promotion and protection of the rights of the child is now an objective of the EU as set out in Article 3.3 of the Treaty on European Union. The rights of the child are also enshrined in the article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The EU has now many legislative documents and non-legislative acts related to children’s rights or that may have the potential to impact on children’s life. This Phd thesis analyzes the nature, scope and value of EU measures in relation to children in two main areas : child protection and juvenile criminal justice. It investigates if there is an added value of children’s rights at EU level and it also makes some suggestions to improve the promotion and protection of children’s rights in the EU
Al giorno d’oggi, i diritti dei minori occupano uno spazio sempre più importante nell’agenda giuridica e politica dell’Unione europea. Attualmente, infatti, la promozione dei diritti dei minori rappresenta un obiettivo dell’Unione, consacrato nell’articolo 3, par. 3, del Trattato sull’Unione europea. I diritti fondamentali dei minori sono poi sanciti esplicitamente nell’articolo 24 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE. Oggi, l’Unione europea può disporre di numerosi strumenti normativi (e non) dedicati espressamente ai diritti dei fanciulli e tanti altri possono avere delle ripercussioni indirette sulla loro vita. La presente ricerca analizza, pertanto, la natura, la portata e il valore delle misure intraprese dall’UE in due settori principali : la protezione dei minori e la giustizia penale. Lo scopo della tesi è esaminare in che termini si possa parlare di un valore aggiunto della promozione dei diritti dei minori a livello UE, rispetto alle normative già in vigore a livello nazionale e internazionale. A partire da tale analisi, essa cerca di proporre nuove soluzioni per migliorare la promozione e la protezione dei diritti dei minori nell’Unione europea

Defence date: 15 June 2012
First made available online on 29 July 2019
Examining Board: Professor Neil Walker, EUI / University of Edinburgh (Supervisor); Professor Marise Cremona, EUI; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary, University of London; Professor Kimmo Nuotio, University of Helsinki.
This thesis shall contribute to European Criminal Procedure, a rapidly evolving area of EU policy that has attracted much attention, but has also been subject to criticism. The research will first identify and analyse the main rationales of this area. Since the Tampere European Council of 1999, mutual recognition has become the most fundamental concept of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and has experienced a steep career, having been adopted by Art. 82 TFEU. When the principle of mutual recognition was introduced, it was based on an analogy to the free movement of goods. This analogy has often been regarded as flawed. Moreover, there has always been a notion of mutual recognition in judicial cooperation as well. The study will show how these two factors have influenced the development of the area, and how policy concepts, such as the principle of mutual trust, have had a greater influence on the development of the law than any legal doctrine. The lack of a coherent approach to the area of judicial cooperation and the unsystematic combination of different legal orders have caused unforeseen frictions for the individual. These will be illustrated by an analysis of the law of transnational evidence-gathering according to the European Evidence Warrant and the proposed European Investigation Order. It will be shown that most of the problems result from the lack of a uniform allocation of jurisdiction and from an overly confined understanding of fundamental rights in the context of judicial cooperation. By analysing the nature and purpose of jurisdictional rules in a national and a European context, the thesis aims at uncovering the theoretic foundations on which a uniform allocation of jurisdiction could be built. Finally, the thesis analyses the role of fundamental rights in judicial cooperation. It will uncover the ineptness of a nation-state oriented interpretation of fundamental rights to adequately address the problems of mutual recognition and argue for a European understanding of transnational judicial rights.

Defence date: 12 September 2008
Examining Board: Professor Marise Cremona, (EUI, Supervisor); Professor Bruno De Witte, (EUI); Professor John Spencer, (University of Cambridge); Professor Judge Françoise Tulkens, (European Court of Human Rights, External Supervisor)
First made available online: 28 July 2021
The principles of the modern criminal law in Europe date back hundreds of years. As we shall see, the first coherent treatises of criminal justice laying down many of the principles to which we still adhere appeared in continental Europe during the mideighteenth century. Enlightenment philosophers, concerned with the relationship between the state and the citizen, between the collective and the individual, found criminal justice a natural area of study. Even before then, however, embryos of principles we today hold as fundamental can be found in charters, bills and constitutions limiting the power of medieval Kings over their subjects. If we then take the concept of the criminal law, the idea that the collective can and should exact punishment for violations of certain pre-determined rules, it dates back to the dawn of civilisation.

Defence date: 10 January 2014
Examining Board: Professor Adrienne Héritier (Supervisor), European University Institute Professor Brigid Laffan, European University Institute Professor Sandra Lavenex, Universität Luzern Professor Wolfgang Wagner, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
An intriguing proposition in the study of the EU’s area of Police and Judicial Cooperation Criminal Matters (PJCCM) has been that Member States’ (governments) institutional choices in this policy area reflect motives to enhance their autonomy/discretion vis-à-vis domestic and/or supranational actors. According to this argument, by cooperating in an intergovernmental setting governments can circumvent domestic institutional constraints, while at the same time keeping the influence of supranational actors at bay. What is the empirical basis of such claims? Do governments’ institutional preferences indeed reflect strategic attempts at increasing their autonomy vis-à-vis domestic actors in law enforcement policies, as suggested by some authors? Moreover, once institutional rules have been put in place, are governments able to use these rules so as to circumvent EU level constraints? To answer these questions this thesis examined institutional preferences and strategies of governments at Treaty negotiations and in the day-to-day policy-making process in the policy area of PJCCM. In the first part of the thesis, the alleged connection between institutional constraints governments face in their domestic arenas and their respective institutional preferences at Treaty negotiations was tested. In a second part, strategic interactions between governments in the EU Council and the European Commission with respect to institutional rules in the legislative process in PJCCM were examined. The empirical results of both parts suggest that while only a moderate connection between domestic constraints and governments’ institutional preference at Treaty negotiations could be identified, there seems to be a systematic relation between rising EU level constraints and strategic institutional choices of actors that reflect motives for autonomy/discretion. The driving factors behind these day-to-day strategic interactions are the ambiguity of and interstitial changes to institutional rules. More specifically, this thesis shows how ambiguous rules over EU competences in PJCCM and changes to these rules via rulings of the Court of Justice lead actors to deploy litigation strategies (Commission), as well as legislative pre-emption strategies (Member States). Furthermore, these conflicts continue to also characterize the policy-making process in PJCCM after formal institutional reforms (post-Lisbon). Going forward, this thesis suggests that more, rather than less, of these strategic interactions will take place in the near future.

Defence date: 26 September 2014
Examining Board: Professor Giorgio Monti, European University Institute (Supervisor); Professor Loïc Azoulai, European University Institute; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary University of London; Professor Damian Chalmers, London School of Economics
The question posed by this thesis is how limits can be constructed to the exercise of EU powers. While there are limits to the exercise of EU competences in the Treaties and in the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence, it is argued that those limits suffer from conceptual and practical problems. In particular, the Court does not have appropriate criteria to examine whether the limits of the Treaties have been exceeded by the Union legislator. The thesis uses one of the new, and controversial, competences that the Union has obtained, the power to impose criminal sanctions, as a case study to propose a mechanism by which legislative powers can be kept in check. This is an illuminating and relevant case study. Firstly, it nicely illustrates the limits to the exercise of EU competences. Secondly, legislative practice and political statements suggest that this competence will be used regularly in the future. The thesis makes two proposals. First, by interpreting the scope of the EU’s powers under the Treaties to impose criminal sanctions the thesis shows the limits to the exercise of EU competences. It demonstrates the scope of EU’s competences by analyzing current and proposed criminal law measures. Secondly, noting that a construction of the limits to EU competences also needs to tackle the institutional challenges of judicial review, it develops an argument for a more intense and evidence-based judicial review. It constructs a procedural standard of legality which demands that the EU legislator shows that it has adequately reasoned its decisions and has taken into account relevant evidence. By testing the legality of discretely chosen criminal law measures on the basis of this standard, it is demonstrated how the Court can enforce the limits of the Treaties.

Defence date: 15/06/2009
Examining Board: Profs. Hans Lindahl (Tilburg University); Kimmo Nuotio (University of Helsinki); Wojciech Sadurski (EUI); Neil Walker (Supervisor, former EUI and University of Edinburgh)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
This thesis sets out to consider the constitutional implications of a policy of legal integration regarding internal security matters in the EU. It argues that constitutional theory is fundamental to addressing the legality and accountability concerns raised about the developing legal practice of the EU’s ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ). Conducting such a study poses important questions about how to pursue a constitutional approach to legal and political practices which do not resemble in any straight forward way the constitutional tradition of the nation state. This thesis advances the argument that constitutional theory cannot properly be construed as a ‘tool-kit’, a set of rules or principles with universal validity to cause a state of affairs or event then dubbed as legality or accountability. Instead it is argued that constitutional theory must work to reveal the issues of restraint, accountability or legality that are in fact part of an ongoing practice, not a one-off settlement; in which the theorist attempts to disclose or reveal the meaningfulness of what is described as the ‘common experience of the political way of life’. Consequently the first part of the thesis outlines how constitutional theory can establish the features of the ‘common experience of the political way of life’ (also referred to as the ‘constitutive function’) and it explains that meaning is situated in a historical background, which is uncovered by the theorist by providing an interpretation of this background. The thesis therefore advances and defends an interpretive theory of legal scholarship. These methodological parameters provide an appropriate means of making sense of the developments in the EU concerning the AFSJ, which thereafter becomes the focus of the thesis. In particular it concentrates on the importance of developing an understanding of public goods that form the basis as to why it is possible to think in constitutional terms about the AFSJ. The approach taken to public goods is that they manifest the meaningful commitments of a political community and therefore cannot be construed in instrumental terms. The thesis outlines that the constitutional issues facing the AFSJ are often collapsed into matters of instrumentalism that conceals the need to engage with the on-going meaning of the practices as forming part of a common political way of life. It is argued in conclusion that the thesis has provided a more robust way of not only considering the challenges facing the emerging internal security policies of the EU but has also provided an appropriate theoretical approach for the study of such issues in constitutional theory.

Defence date: 11 October 2017
Examining Board: Professeur Giovanni Sartor, European University Institute (Directeur de thèse); Professeur Loïc Azoulai, Sciences Po Paris; Professeur Pierre Brunet, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne; Professeur Giulio Itzcovich, Università degli Studi di Brescia
Pour la Cour de justice de l’arrêt Van Gend en Loos comme pour celle de l’avis 2/13 relatif à l’adhésion de l’Union à la CEDH, le droit de l’UE forme encore et toujours « un nouvel ordre juridique ». Entre 1963 et 2014 pourtant, la somme des normes et institutions en vigueur a bien changé. En bonne logique, lorsque les parties changent il ne peut plus s’agir du même tout. Quel est alors ce principe d’unité qui maintient les parties ensemble et autorise la Cour à parler de ce qui change comme étant encore le même ? Si l’ensemble n’est pas réductible à la somme des parties, c’est qu’il forme système, qu’il est doté d’un certain ordre permettant de l’identifier singulièrement, malgré le bouleversement de ses parties. La réponse est donc à trouver dans ces théories pour lesquelles les composants du droit ne sont valides qu’à l’intérieur d’un système. La première partie de la thèse se consacre à la définition du concept de système juridique. Elle montre qu’un système est cet ensemble de normes et/ou d’institutions doté d’une certaine unité et d’une certaine autonomie. « Unité » et « autonomie » varieront selon les auteurs, si bien que l’on identifiera des conceptions du concept de système. Nous montrons que ces conceptions sont opérationnelles pour l’analyse des entités juridiques non étatiques telles que celle constituée par le droit de l’Union européenne. La seconde partie identifie dans quelques grands « moments » de la jurisprudence de la Cour portant sur les relations entre droit de l’Union, droit interne et droit international, le rôle que joue dans le discours du juge « l’argument du système », soit l’argument tiré de ce que le droit de l’Union constitue un ordre ou système juridique. Sur la base de la méthode de l’analyse inférentielle et d’une théorie réaliste de l’interprétation, nous analysons ce que l’argument permet à la Cour de faire et à partir de cela identifions la conception du concept de système qu’elle exprime. Cette recherche entend ainsi contribuer, à travers l’analyse de l’argumentation de la Cour, à une meilleure compréhension du système que le droit de l’Union européenne est, au sens des conceptions traditionnelles du concept de système juridique définies par Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart et telles que renouvelées plus récemment par Joseph Raz ainsi que Neil MacCormick.

Defence date: 11 September 2017
Examining Board: Prof. Claire Kilpatrick, EUI (Supervisor); Prof. Loïc Azoulai, Sciences Po Paris; Prof. Simon Deakin, University of Cambridge; Prof. Mark Dawson, Hertie School of Governance
Awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best thesis comparative law 2018
The argument that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is important in the development of European Union law has been present in legal and political science research for years. At the same time, some under-researched questions remain. Among those is the CJEU’s impact on the lawmaking process at the EU level and the way the development of EU law steers the case law in response. Further, the theoretical implications of any such 'horizontal' interaction remain under-explored, especially since the major theories in this area tend to see the Court’s relationship with the lawmakers (both the member states in their role as Treaty-makers and the EU legislature) in conflictual rather than complementary terms. This thesis analyses the role of the CJEU in constructing EU level social policy and proposes to conceptualise the relationship between the CJEU and lawmakers in a novel way. First, this thesis explores the interaction between the Court and the Union lawmakers, how this interaction operates in practice and whether there is an overlap between what the Court and Union lawmakers are occupied with. By using both large scale process tracing and a detailed case study method, I show that there is a remarkable (but not omnipresent) degree of interaction between the CJEU and the lawmakers at various levels. Second, I consider what my results mean for the constitutional understanding of the CJEU’s role and its relationship with the lawmakers. I argue in favour of adopting a modified version of the theory of constitutional dialogue in order to better accommodate the actual nature of the CJEU’s relationship with the lawmakers and in order to facilitate the interaction from the specific standpoint of the CJEU. In the last part of my thesis, I explore how this interaction could be turned into a conscious, coordinated process – the coordinated construction of EU social policy law.

Defence date: 5 December 2013
Examining Board: Professor Adrienne Héritier, European University Institute/ Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (Supervisor); Professor Bruno de Witte, European University Institute/Maastricht University; Professor Marlene Wind, University of Copenhagen; Professor Alec Stone Sweet, Yale University.
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
This research aims to present a comprehensive analysis of the political and institutional processes that are at work in the judicial application of EU law on a national level. As a main novelty, the research intends to go beyond judicial behaviour models that focus predominantly on explaining the use of preliminary references. One could namely suggest that the way national courts participate in the preliminary reference procedure is not sufficient to assess the available modes for the judicial integration of Europe. Accordingly, the study considers the impact of political institutional and attitudinal factors affecting the judicial enforcement of EU law. This is done by posing new questions, for instance, the relevance of national judges’ preferences towards EU legal order and institutions, as well as by evaluating and reviewing the impact of political and legal institutions on their behaviour and its consequences for policy areas. First of all, the analysis confirms the influence of judges’ evaluation of EU institutions and their national counterparts on their self-perception as EU judges and, subsequently, in the application of EU law. Secondly, the study shows how national institutions, like governments and national high courts, play a prominent role in shaping national courts’ incentives for the application of EU law, as they may use their institutional power to circumvent judges’ decisions. Finally, it reviews the strategic use of European instruments such as the CJEU precedent and its doctrines (e.g. supremacy) to overcome domestic threats when applying EU law. To conclude, the study tries to expand the explanatory power of the middle range accounts of the role national courts played, by integrating the analytical strength of the legalist/ intergovernmentalist theories into neo-functionalism.

Defence date: 15 June 2009
Examining Board: Loïc Azoulay (Université de Paris II), Bruno De Witte (EUI), Michel Troper (External Co-Supervisor, Université de Paris X-Nanterre), Neil Walker (Supervisor, EUI)
First made available online 10 February 2020
The definition of the European Union (EU) from a positivist standpoint depends on the definition of its relationship with the Member States. This definition in turn depends on the way the conflicting interpretations of the principle of primacy of EU law by European and national courts are reconciled. Based on an analysis of European and national case-law, three different positions exist on the matter. According to the European Court of Justice, which has adopted a monist approach with primacy of EU law, the principle of primacy of EU law is absolute, which is reflected in terms of validity in the subordination of Member States to the European Union, which is thus a European state or a monist internal legal system, characterized by its single ground of validity. According to the national courts of Member States, which have adopted a monist approach with primacy of national law, the principle of primacy of EU law is relative only, and the validity of EU norms in the national arena is defined by higher national norms. Whatever the definition of EU law, whether it is defined as an international legal system or a sui generis one, the EU is considered as a sub-system of the national legal system, and thus as an internal monist legal system. According to the national courts of Member States, which have adopted a dualist approach, the principle of primacy of EU law means simply that EU norms take precedence over national norms in terms of implementation, which is determined by national rules. Whatever the definition of EU law, whether it is defined as an international legal system or a sui generis one, the EU and the national legal system are defined as separate albeit coordinated legal systems. This diversity of positions based on the legal system chosen as the frame of reference, reflects the common feature shared by all legal systems: their sovereignty. It is at the basis of their relationship, which is a pluralist one. This does not mean however that EU law is an international legal system, as this characterisation would not reflect the integration taking place between Member states and the EU. A complex system of direct interactions between European and national organs, correlative to the integrated system of EU/Member States material competences, has given to this relationship a tri-dimensional shape. The EU stricto sensu and the Member States are at the origin of a third common legal system: the EU largo sensu which forms a pluralist internal legal system, encompassing both the EU stricto sensu and the Member States, and which is characterised by a plurality of grounds of validity: those of the EU stricto sensu and those of the Member States. The mystery of the legal nature of the European Union is thus solved.

Defence date: 18 June 2009
Examining Board: Gráinne de Búrca (former EUI, now Fordham University - supervisor), Marise Cremona (EUI), Pieter-Jan Kuijper (University of Amsterdam), Marc Maresceau (University of Ghent)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
This thesis assesses the legal effect of Community Agreements, explored through the case-law of the Community courts. It places this issue within the broader setting of the legal effect of treaties in domestic legal orders and how we think about the role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement. It proposes a basic dichotomy between automatic and non-automatic treaty incorporation in preference to the commonly employed, but analytically unhelpful, language of monism and dualism. And it emphasises the need for greater empirical work as to how courts in automatic treaty incorporation states actually deal with treaties when they are invoked; rather than relying on the untested assumption that the particular phrasing of a constitutional provision providing the port of entry for treaties into the domestic legal arena and/or seminal judicial assertions on their legal effect is matched by existing judicial practice. To this end, a data-set of the existing Community Agreements jurisprudence of the Community Courts was created. It is an assessment of this data-set that provides the core empirical work of this study. This study illustrates how the foundational Community Agreements jurisprudence signalled an attachment to an automatic treaty incorporation model and thus erected a central plank of the Community's external relations constitution with profound constitutional ramifications for the Member States. This constitutes a neglected dimension of the constitutionalisation debate, namely, the constitutionalising effect of Community law upon Community Agreements. The data however indicates that there is evidence of a twin-track judicial approach to Community Agreements emerging. The first, where domestic action of the Member States is being challenged, appears to manifest the unleashing of a full treaty enforcement model. In contrast, there are indications of a judicial willingness to shield Community action from review vis-àvis Community Agreements which has significant implications for the EU's commitment to international law.

This study involves a critical appraisal of the legal implications of South Africa’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the context of its international and regional human rights obligations. The dissertation also investigates the history and formation of the ICC, South Africa’s involvement and its role as a guardian of international and regional human rights obligations in Africa. The study reviews the circumstances leading to South Africa’s notice of withdrawal from the ICC, including the legal implications and international human rights obligations. This inquiry considers South Africa’s proposed withdrawal from the ICC which is supported by points of departure and a comprehensive literature review. The decision to withdraw from the ICC is considered to be a political one. However, this study raises questions about the executive’s withdrawal in regard to its domestic, regional and international human rights obligations, irrespective of whether it is a member of the ICC. The study surveys the background to South Africa’s participation in the ICC, its membership of the African Union and the implications of ICC membership including the obligations imposed on member states.
Criminal and Procedural Law
LL. M.