Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Judicial power – European Union countries'

Judicial activism of the CJEU finds its particular expressions in the case-law concerning public international law. The pro-integrationist tendency of the CJEU often raised in the literature concerning the Court’s role in the process of EU integration, translates into a substantial and an institutional dimension of judicial activism. The substantial articulation of judicial activism in the case-law concerning international law is the Court’s emphasis on the autonomy of the EU legal order. This internal perspective is adopted not only for virtuous reasons, but also in defense of definitely not universal European interests. The institutional dimension refers to the Court’s position within the EU structure of governance. The case-law concerning international law is marked by a close alignment with the European Commission and the integration of the EU goals in external relations. Moreover, the pluralist veil can cover the extent to which the Court’s decisions concerning international law are influenced by considerations completely internal to the EU.

In my analysis I proceed in three steps that are reflected in three chapters of the thesis. There is no clear and prevalent definition of judicial activism, but instead rather multiple possibilities of approaching the concept. While the general intend of the research project is to critically reflect on the concept of judicial activism of the highest courts within a legal order, the particular focus will be on the CJEU dealing with international law. I proceed in three steps. First, I assess different understandings of the role of the judge and the concept of judicial activism in legal literature in view of ascertaining the relevance of the debate and distilling some general components of a possible definition. Secondly, I identify the factors particular for the position of the CJEU within the EU legal order and with regard to international law. The particular characteristics of the CJEU result in a limited applicability of the general definitions of judicial activism. Finally, I analyze the case-law in view of identifying examples as well as counter-examples of the particular symptoms/attributes. Because judicial activism broadens the scope of the factors guiding judicial decision-making, it enables us to better understand the contingencies in the Court´s jurisprudence.
Doctorat en Sciences juridiques
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

A Linkage Power at Work?

(Summary)

The central aim of this thesis is to improve our understanding of the EU’s power, in particular in its external trade relations/negotiations. Our hypothesis is that the EU is a distinctive kind of linkage power, defined as an actor relying on linkage as a crucial modus operandi in its external relations. We explored how, to what extent and in which distinctive ways the EU is such a linkage power.

Our analysis was based on three logically interrelated concepts – power resources, linkage and linkage power. Linkage refers to a leveraging strategy, with an aim of packaging relevant power resources, so as to increase leverage in bargaining, or more generally attain a policy objective. I identified seven types of linkages that the EU used: political-economic issue linkage, economic-economic issue linkage, conditionality, contextual linkage, linkage with a third party, cognitive linkage and synergistic linkage. Linkage can hardly work without proper power resources. The latter, as Dahl (1970) defined, refers to all the resources-opportunities, acts, objects etc – that an actor can exploit in order to affect the behaviour of another. So, linkage is a bridge between power resources and impacts – meaning affecting or changing the behaviour of another party. By putting linkage and power together, we created a new term – “linkage power”, referring to a power based on linkages. The EU, the US, China or any other power can all be such labelled, though these actors may diverge in power resources, linkage strategies and the variables affecting linkage effectiveness. When applying such an analytical framework to the EU, we gave particular attention to the implications of the EU’s sui generis nature on its linkage power.

Our case study is the EU’s trade relations with China (1975-2008), which were punctuated by two critical historical junctures – the Tian’anmen Square Incident in 1989 and the EU-China Textile Crisis in 2005. In 1975, The EEC’s successful strategy by linking political issues (Europe-China balancing the Soviet Union and recognising China’s sovereignty over Taiwan) with economic issues (signing the EEC-China Trade Agreement) played a crucial role in securing the establishment of diplomatic relations between the EEC and China. Different types of linkages were then applied to the EEC’s negotiations with Beijing on the 1978 Trade Agreement and the 1979 textile agreement, which effectively prompted the Chinese side to agree to the EU’s terms.

Immediately after the 1989 Tian’anmen Square Incident, the EC imposed economic sanctions with an aim of coercing China to accept Western world’s human rights conditions. This linkage did not last long or pay off due to divergent political and economic interests among the Member States and the EC’s institutional handicaps (foreign policy competence was largely in the hands of Member States, collective foreign policy action was non-binding), and soon de-linked.

Having realised that confrontational approach did not work well, the EC/EU and its Member States started to change their China policies in 1993-95. The period of 1993-2004 witnessed the EC/EU’s power through partnership. The strategic partnership was seen as a complex of different pairs of issue linkages, ranging from political-strategic issues to economic and human rights issues. The partnership, once established, had fostered new linkages and consolidated old ones. China’s WTO accession was seen as a once-in-a-century opportunity for the EU to exercise linkage through conditionality, so as to extract market access concessions from the Chinese side. Moreover, by linking with China could the European Commission garnered international support for advancing the Galileo project within the Union and ward off some of the US pressure in 2003.

The Year 2005 was singled out since an unprecedented trade row on textiles broke out, confronting the EU against China’s export prowess resulting from globalisation and China’s WTO accession. Linkages were used as a predominant strategy to help the EU to persuade and press the Chinese side firstly accept voluntary export restrictions and then share the burden of allowing the blocked textiles in European ports to be released. In 2006-08, the trade deficit problem emerged, coupled with a series political spats between Europe (France and Germany) and Beijing on the Tibet issue. As the EU-China honeymoon was over, the Commission toughened its approach towards China. Although linkage was again used to redress the trade deficit, its effects were not satisfactory, as the EU power resources were eroded.

Our conclusions are (1) linkage is a crucial modus operandi in the EU’s internal bargain and its external relations with China; (2) Linkage was generally effective vis-à-vis China, but with variations, either over time or across different linkage types; (3) The EU is a sui generis linkage power, resulting from its institutional characteristics and heterogeneity of interests among the Commission and Member States. We find that the EU’s increased institutionalisation (both regional and bilateral) and competences generally facilitated its use of linkage strategies. The EU’s sui generis structure and its internal interest divergences have mixed implications on its linkage effectiveness. On one hand, the EU’s linkage power was weakened accordingly. But on the other, the Commission could tactically make use of some Member State government’s row with Beijing and advance its own economic agenda (such as the EU-China High-level Economic and Trade Dialogue, HED). Moreover, our research also confirmed Andrew Moravcsik’s argument that issue linkage is more easily made within an issue-area than across issue-areas. But we differ from him on the reason behind that. We find that this was largely attributable to the EU’s pillar structure and competence divisions.

The theoretical contributions include: (1) Linkage power provides a distinctive prism to look into the EU’s concrete strategies in internal bargains, and external commercial negotiations. Linkage serves as a crucial strategy for the EU to handle its relations with a far-abroad country like China, including establishing diplomatic relations, negotiating trade deals, forging strategic partnerships and holding high-level dialogue. (2) Giving some insights to the EU’s actorness. We find that the EU, though institutionally not a unitary actor, was somehow able to present its power to the extent like a sovereign state on some occasions using linkage strategies. (3) Contributing to the understanding of the EU’s means to spread its governance model. We find that the EU’s norm-setting goals have often been achieved through non-normative ways – such as interest exchange and trade-off, and other deliberate ways of persuasion and even coercion, mainly based on linkage. (4) Shedding light on the interactions between the Commission and the Member State governments and on the Commission’s autonomy in external trade relations.

Two future directions of research have been identified: (1) comparative studies: the EU’s linkage practices vis-à-vis the US, Russia and middle powers, or other actors’ linkage strategies vis-à-vis China; (2) post-Lisbon linkage strategies used by the EU.

Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

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

This thesis identifies two major factors in the courts’ reasoning that inhibit the fruitful discussion of the substantive human rights questions brought up by the cases: the reference to “culture” and the focus on their institutional relationship with the balancing of possibly conflicting interests. By way of analysing practical cases against a legal- and political-theoretical backdrop, this work develops how these two factors contribute to the obstruction of a constructive interaction between the courts and to the shielding of controversial views from being discussed and challenged. In response, also by reference to the concrete practice of the courts, this thesis puts forward an approach to the interaction which avoids this inhibiting effect and therefore allows for a comprehensive, deep and critical discussion on how to solve the specific human rights problems raised by the cases./La présente thèse soutient que l’interaction judiciaire peut bénéficier à des solutions constructives des problèmes concrets de droits de l’homme comme une forme spécifique d’intégration de la protection européenne des droits de l’homme. Cette affirmation est corroborée par des études de cas qui examinent l’interaction de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme avec la House of Lords et la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni d’un côté et avec la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale de l’Allemagne de l’autre. Pourtant, la manière dont les cours procèdent dans leur interaction, notamment au vu de leurs points de vue potentiellement conflictuels, peut détourner l’attention de la solution constructive des problèmes substantiels des droits de l’homme auxquels les cours font face. En conséquence, il se peut que les cours soient susceptibles de préserver le statu quo de leurs positions initiales et d’avoir recours à un simple compromis entre les différents intérêts en cause.

Cette thèse identifie deux facteurs majeurs dans le raisonnement des cours qui entravent la discussion fructueuse des questions substantielles soulevées par les cas :la référence à la « culture » et la concentration sur leur relation institutionnelle avec le balancement des intérêts possiblement conflictuels. Au moyen de l’analyse des cas pratiques sur le fond de la théorie juridique et politique, ce travail fait ressortir comment ces deux facteurs contribuent à l’obstruction d’une interaction constructive entre les cours et à la protection des opinions controversées contre leur discussion et défi. En réponse, également en se fondant sur la pratique concrète des cours, cette thèse avance une approche quant à l’interaction qui évite cet effet inhibant et, par conséquent, permet une discussion complète, profonde et critique de comment résoudre les problèmes spécifiques de droits de l’homme posés par les cas.

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