Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Minorities – Legal status, laws, etc. – European Union countries »

The peninsula of Athos in Chalkidiki became a center of organized monachal life in monasteries in the year 963, when with the initiative of the Byzantine emperor Nichephorus Phocas the Monastery of Great Laura was founded. Since that time Mount Athos (=MA) became the "Holy Mountain" and has attracted the moral and material support of the Byzantine emperors, various Orthodox countries and the flock till today. During this long period of more then one thousand years, MA was armed with a privileged legal status, the existence of which continues till now. The legal status of MA is based on three foundations: I. The law of the Hellenic Republic, II. The Public International Law, and III. The European Law. I. Fundamental significance for the status of MA have the provisions of article 105 of the Greek Constitution. Then is the Charter of MA, which is drawn up and voted by the Athonite monachal authorities and afterwards ratified by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek Parliament. The Charter is a law of superior formal force in comparison to the other laws. According to the Constitution and the Charter, MA has an ancient privileged status and is a self-governed part of the Greek State, whose sovereignty remains intact. Spiritually MA is under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, direct in the sense that the Ecumenical Patriarch is also the local bishop of MA The territory of the peninsula is exempt from expropriation and is divided among the twenty Athonite monasteries exclusively. The administrative power lies in self-administration of the first and the second degree. The first is exercised by the ruling twenty monasteries. This number may not be changed, nor may their position in the preeminence, nor towards their dependencies (skates, cells, hermitages). Nowadays all the monasteries are coenobitic, i.e. the monks share a common life and have no private property. The monasteries are administered by the abbot, the Elders' Assembly and the Brotherhood. Second degree administration is operated by: 1. the Holy Community. It is comprised by twenty monks members, each of whom represents one monastery, 2. the Holy Community's executive organ is the Hiera Epistassia, which comprises four monks drawn annually from four monasteries in rotation. The leader of the Hiera Epistassia is called the First (= Protos). The Hiera Epistassis also performs specific duties as police force, police court and municipality of Karyes, the capital town of MA The legislative power is in the hands of: 1. The Holy Community as far as concerns the Charter of MA, 2. the Extraordinary Biannual Twenty-Members Assembly, which draws up the regulative provisions, and 3. the Greek State, as far as concerns: a) the rights and the duties of the (civil) Governor of MA, b) the judicial power of the Athonite authorities, and c) the custom and taxation privileges granted by the State to MA The judicial power belongs to: 1. the monastic courts (the abbot with the Elders' Assembly), 2. the Holy Community, 3. the Hiera Epistassia, and 4. the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The observance of the regimes is in the spiritual field under the supreme supervision of the Patriarchate and in the administrative under the supervision of the State, which is also exclusively responsible for safeguarding public order and security. These responsibilities of the State are exercised through the (civil) Governor of MA, whose rights and duties are determined by common law. All persons leading a monastic life in MA acquire the Greek citizenship without further formalities, upon admission in a monastery as novices or monks. Also persons who are not Orthodox Christians or they are schismatic Orthodox are prohibited from dwelling in MA II. The first international treaty that recognized an international protection of the MA status was that of San Stefano (1878), but only for the Russian monks. The Treaty of Berlin (also 1878) recognized the same protection for all the monks who were not borne in the Ottoman empire. Its article n? 62,8 was as follows: "Les moines du Mont Athos, quel que soit leur pays d'origine, seront maintenus dans leurs possessions et avantages ant?rieurs et jouiront, sans aucune exception, d'une enti?re ?galit? de droits et prerogatives". This provision was repeated in the special treaties of S?vres (1920) and then in the protocol of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). These treaties safeguarded the rights and the liberties of the non-Greek monastic communi ties in MA as follows: "La Gr?ce s'engage ? reconna?tre et maintenir les droits traditionnels et les libert?s, dont jouissent les communaut?s monastiques non grecques du Mont Athos d'apr?s les dispositions de l'article 62 du trait? de Berlin du 13 juillet 1878". The same provision has been repeated in the Legislative Decree of 29.9/30.10.1923 "On the Protection of Minorities in Greece", article 13. III. Because a lot of provisions of the MA law are opposite to the principles of the European Union (for example the clausura to women, the special license in order to visit the peninsula, the taxation and customs privileges etc.), Joint Declaration n? 4 concerns MA was included in the Final Act (1979) of the Agreement concerning the accession of the Hellenic Republic in the European Economic Community, now-a days European Union. According to this Declaration, recognizing that the special status granted to MA, as guaranteed by the Greek Constitution, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Community will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of pro visions of Community law, in particular in relation to customs franchise privileges, tax exemptions, and the right of establishment. .

Within contemporary geopolitical processes, respect for the rights of national minorities is no longer the discretion of a state, but rather is an indirect or direct international regulation of the minority issue. In the beginning of the 1990s, the political economical crisis and disintegration of the former SFRY opened the national question, that was considered to be permanently and successfully solved, in the most dramatic way, and ethnic conflicts and clashes followed the desintegration of the country. With the formation of a new states on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the existence of numerous and different national minorities ("old" and "new") required a different approach to their protection and integration in complex political circumstances. Thus, the position of the so called new minorities drastically changed since they formed constituent nations in the former SFRY, while after secession they remained separated from their home nations and became national minorities almost overnight. Out of Serbia, in former Yugoslav republics live nearly half a million persons belonging to Serbian nationality as new national minority. The paper discusses the position and rights of the Serbian minority in the post Yugoslav states (Slovenia, Croatia, Northern Macedonia, Montenegro) as well as in some neighboring member states of the European Union (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria). In addition to the analysis of basic demographic indicators (number and spatial distribution) that determine the realization of the rights and freedoms of each minority, the paper examines the issue of protecting the national, cultural and linguistic identity of Serbs, as well as the ways of its preservation and improvement. Although the social and legal status of the Serbian minority is determined by European standards, the analysis points to their undefined status, since they still do not recognize the status of a national minority in some countries, and that they are in practice faced with more or less assimilation. In order to fully realize minority rights and improve the position of the Serb minority, ratified international documents, bilateral agreements, national laws, as well as well-designed policies and assistance from the home state are of great importance.Respecting basic human rights and freedom, as well as national minority protection, represent the basic factors of stability, security and democratic and socio-economic development of every country.

The situation of Muslim immigrants in certain West European countriesThe article argues that the significant mobility of Muslim minorities in France, Germany and the United Kingdom resulted from an increasing need to improve the economic life of immigrants, family reunification, and the possibility of getting permanent residence through marriage with permanent residents of the mentioned countries. The situation of Muslim immigrants in the host country is regulated by individual state and European union law. Each country establishes its own laws concerning social and religious life and the possibility of obtaining citizenship. Muslim populations acquire legal status and uphold the law of the host country, often defending themselves against ill-treatment by referring to abuses in criminal cases.The integration of Muslim immigrants with Europeans has numerous difficulties as a result of cultural and religious differences. Immigrants tend to live in their own tight grouping, often isolating themselves from the society of the host country. The Muslim community will exceed 20% of population over the next 40 years. Europe will become a continent with a significant Muslim minority. This will contribute not only to major demographic changes but also cultural, economic, political and social ones in Europe in the future.

In the framework of modern reform of competition laws in the European countries, that has arisen due to increasing attention to markets in the field of IT services, in particular software and IT-solutions for business, the nature of competition law and its place in the legal system of each separate state became as one of the most topical issues. Such features are revealed through several characteristics, including the peculiarities of historical development, the level of market concentration, the development of individual industries etc. Even though the fact that basic principles of the competition regulation in the European Union are stipulated at the supranational level, their historical basis is the process of development of competition law in individual Member States. The existence of two models of competition regulation at the theoretical level, i.e. European and American, allows, in turn, to distinguish such concepts as "competition", "antimonopoly", "antitrust" and "cartel" law. By the way of definition of the range of legal relations, the question arises as to the affiliation of competition law to the public or private sphere. Due to the specifics of the subject of regulation, the issue of the place of competition law in the general legal system remains open, which leads to a large number of problems, both on the theoretical and practical levels. As for the example, we can indicate, inter alia, the definition of the status and scope of powers of authorities, the nature of sanctions imposed in a result of violation of competition laws and the nature of such liability. In addition, there is a question regarding the nature of the processes carried out within consideration of cases of violation of the legislation on protection of economic competition or review the applications for granting approval on concentration or concerted practices, participants’ rights and obligations in such processes, etc.

The article covers current legal issues on implementing the institution of an authorized economic operator (AEO). The directions for developing the domestic economic and transport legislation are outlined. According to the International Monetary Fund data, supply chain disruptions have become a major challenge for the global economy since the start of the pandemic caused by COVID–19. Shutdowns of factories in China in early 2020, lockdowns in several countries across the world, labour shortages, as well as demand for tradable goods, disruptions to logistics networks have resulted in big increases in freight costs and delivery times. It is noted that the ongoing problems in the supply chain have caused some changes in the development of trade relations of Ukraine with other countries due to its transit state status. The institute of authorized economic operator was established in Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine «On the amendments to the Customs Code of Ukraine on certain issues of functioning of authorized economic operators» adopted in October 2, 2019. It is emphasized that implementing the institution of the authorized economic operator corresponds to Ukraine’s obligations under the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. It is noted that more than 80 % of all customs clearance in the EU is carried out by companies with AEO authorization. A resident business entity as a participant of the international supply chain (including manufacturer, exporter, importer, customs representative, carrier, freight forwarder, warehouse keeper) may be authorized economic operators due to multi-stage conformity assessment system. In addition, the current legislation should be updated, in particular relevant provisions of the Economic Code of Ukraine, transport codes and laws in order to provide legal basis for authorized economic operators’ activities as the participants of freight transportation, as well as unifying the legal requirements for the AEO and carriers, freight forwarders, etc.

Problem setting. One of the most important tasks of modern science of public management and administration is the further improvement of management technologies, management decisions in banking in particular and the increase of their efficiency and effectiveness. Accordingly, the scientific interest is not only in the study and the analysis of banking legislation of certain countries, but in the adaptation of national legislation to the directives of the European Union. The urgency of improving the mechanism of state regulation of the market for the provision of services for the collection of funds and transportation of currency valuables in the banking system of Ukraine is undeniable, the implementation of which should include the mandatory establishment of real requirements and measures of responsibility of managers of both individual financial institutions and regulatory bodies. Recent research and publications analysis. The organization of central banks of the world, their legal status, main functions, comparative aspects, regulatory activities in the field of the organization of cash circulation and cash collection were studied in the works of L. Voronova, D. Hetmantsev, V. Krotyuk, S. Yehorychev, M. Starynsky, P. Melnyk, S. Laptev, I. Zaverukha. Legal problems of legalization of firearms circulation in Ukraine were studied by А. Kolosok, P. Mitrukhov, P. Fries, S. Shumilenko and others. The works of V. Baranyak, V. Меzhyvy, М. Pinchuk, T. Pryhodko, V. Rybachuk, В. Tychyi, etc. are devoted to the study of legal problems of illegal handling of weapons. However, these works do not reflect the peculiarities of the use of firearms in subdivisions of collection of funds. Native and foreign scholars generally have not paid due attention to the study and the analysis of the existing model of cash circulation in Ukraine, its advantages, risks and disadvantages as well as the effective functioning of the market of collection of funds and transportation of currency valuables in the banking system of Ukraine. Highlighting previously unsettled parts of the general problem. The purpose of this article is to analyze the innovative foreign experience of state regulation of the market of collection of funds and transportation of currency valuables in the banking system of Ukraine (hereinafter – collection of funds) and to justify the need for its implementation in Ukraine. Another important problem in collection activities is the lack of legislative regulation of firearms trafficking as there is no law on weapons in Ukraine, there are only regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which greatly complicates its regulation by the state according to P. Fries. Paper main body. The market of collection of funds and transportation of currency valuables (hereinafter – the market of collection) is one of the most closed segments of the banking system of any country as a whole. The most popular way to pay for services and goods during the last few years, according to annual surveys conducted by the Swiss central bank, is cash. The important factor is that even with the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, the demand for cash and cash flow has increased significantly. The National Bank of Ukraine carries out regulatory activities in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Field of Economic Activity”. Collection of funds has never been a particularly profitable activity, for the subdivisions of collection of any country along with the staff and transportation costs, that is why to ensure the proper security of cash transportation is a very costly item of the estimate. In this regard, there is an urgent need for the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On collection of funds and transportation of currency valuables” and “On firearms”, which would define the basic foundations, principles, forms of activities in the field of collection services, rights, duties and responsibilities of all participants in the collection market, in order to increase their reliability, safety and efficiency. In the countries of the European Union (EU), services for the collection and transportation of currency valuables are provided by public and private enterprises. In many EU countries there is no legal definition of the concept ‘collection’. In most cases, collection falls under the general legislation on the basics of security, except for Austria and Germany, which regulate such activities through professional organizations, insurance and collective agreements. Today, five foreign global CIT companies account for almost 60% of the global CIT market for cash collection and cash handling services. They are: – Brinks (USA) – 23%; – G4S (England) – 15%; – Loomis (Sweden) – 12%; – Prosegur (Spain) – 7%; – Garda (Canada) – 4%; – GSLS – 0.01%; – Other regional independent companies – 39%. In six EU countries (Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands) the presence of firearms during collection of funds is prohibited. In Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain, the presence of a weapon in the performance of professional collection duties is mandatory. Safe collection of funds largely depends on the fast, without delays, safe travel by road. Ukraine needs to reform its transport system to gain access to the European Union’s rail, road, river and air transport markets and to financial resources for building safe infrastructure of high quality. Conclusions of the research and prospects for further studies. Unfortunately, there are no well-known world CIT collection companies in the Ukrainian market of collection services and therefore Ukrainian banks and legal entities have to deal with local CIT companies, the authorized capital of which in some cases may be significantly less than the amount of the collected cash. In accordance with the mentioned above, for the effective functioning of the Ukrainian market of collection of funds and a balanced regulatory policy of the state, we suggest making appropriate changes and additions to the Laws of Ukraine on “Banks and Banking”, “National Bank of Ukraine”. To initiate the development and adoption of the Laws of Ukraine “On Collection and Transportation of Currency Valuables” and “On Firearms” which will ensure equal competitive conditions in the collection market for all its participants, reliable labor protection, social guarantees and rights of employees of collection divisions.

Photo by Jo-Anne McArthur on Unsplash ABSTRACT The UK-based campaign group Scrap Factory Farming has launched a legal challenge against industrial animal agriculture; the challenge is in the process of judicial review. While a fringe movement, Scrap Factory Farming has already accrued some serious backers, including the legal team of Michael Mansfield QC. The premise is that factory farming is a danger not just to animals or the environment but also to human health. According to its stated goals, governments should be given until 2025 to phase out industrialized “concentrated animal feeding organizations” (CAFOs) in favor of more sustainable and safer agriculture. This paper will discuss the bioethical issues involved in Scrap Factory Farming’s legal challenge and argue that an overhaul of factory farming is long overdue. INTRODUCTION A CAFO is a subset of animal feeding operations that has a highly concentrated animal population. CAFOs house at least 1000 beef cows, 2500 pigs, or 125,000 chickens for at least 45 days a year. The animals are often confined in pens or cages to use minimal energy, allowing them to put on as much weight as possible in as short a time. The animals are killed early relative to their total lifespans because the return on investment (the amount of meat produced compared to animal feed) is a curve of diminishing returns. CAFOs’ primary goal is efficiency: fifty billion animals are “processed” in CAFOs every year. The bioethical questions raised by CAFOs include whether it is acceptable to kill the animals, and if so, under what circumstances, whether the animals have rights, and what animal welfare standards should apply. While there are laws and standards in place, they tend to reflect the farm lobby and fail to consider broader animal ethics. Another critical issue applicable to industrial animal agriculture is the problem of the just distribution of scarce resources. There is a finite amount of food that the world can produce, which is, for the moment, approximately enough to go around.[1] The issue is how it goes around. Despite there being enough calories and nutrients on the planet to give all a comfortable life, these calories and nutrients are distributed such that there is excess and waste in much of the global North and rampant starvation and malnutrition in the global South. The problem of distribution can be solved in two ways: either by efficient and just distribution or by increasing net production (either increase productivity or decrease waste) so that even an inefficient and unjust distribution system will probably meet the minimum nutritional standards for all humans. This essay explores four bioethical fields (animal ethics, climate ethics, workers’ rights, and just distribution) as they relate to current industrial agriculture and CAFOs. l. Animal Ethics Two central paradigms characterize animal ethics: welfarism and animal rights. These roughly correspond to the classical frameworks of utilitarianism and deontology. Welfarists[2] hold the common-sense position that animals must be treated well and respected as individuals but do not have inalienable rights in the same ways as humans. A typical welfare position might be, “I believe that animals should be given the best life possible, but there is no inherent evil in using animals for food, so long as they are handled and killed humanely.” Animal rights theorists and activists, on the other hand, would say, “I believe non-human animals should be given the best lives possible, but we should also respect certain rights of theirs analogous to human rights: they should never be killed for food, experimented upon, etc.” Jeremy Bentham famously gave an early exposition of the animal rights case: “The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?” Those who take an animal welfare stance have grounds to oppose the treatment of animals in CAFOs as opposed to more traditional grass-fed animal agriculture. CAFOs cannot respect the natural behaviors or needs of animals who evolved socially for millions of years in open plains. If more space was allowed per animal or more time for socialization and other positive experiences in the animal’s life, the yield of the farm would drop. This is not commercially viable in a competitive industry like animal agriculture; thus, there is very little incentive for CAFOs to treat animals well. Rampant abuse is documented.[3] Acts of cruelty are routine: pigs often have teeth pulled and tails docked because they often go mad in their conditions and attempt to cannibalize each other; chickens have their beaks clipped to avoid them pecking at each other, causing immense pain; cows and bulls have their horns burned off to avoid them damaging others (as this damages the final meat product, too); male chicks that hatch in the egg industry are ground up in a macerator, un-anaesthetized, in the first 24 hours of their life as they will not go on to lay eggs. These practices vary widely among factory farms and among jurisdictions. Yet, arguably, the welfare of animals cannot be properly respected because all CAFOs fundamentally see animals as mere products-in-the-making instead of the complex, sentient, and emotional individuals science has repeatedly shown them to be.[4] ll. Climate Ethics The climate impact of farming animals is increasingly evident. Around 15-20 percent of human-made emissions come from animal agriculture.[5] and deforestation to create space for livestock grazing or growing crops to feed farm animals. An average quarter-pound hamburger uses up to six kilograms of feed, causes 66 square feet of deforestation, and uses up to 65 liters of water, with around 4kg of carbon emissions to boot – a majority of which come from the cattle themselves (as opposed to food processing or food miles).[6] According to environmentalist George Monbiot, “Even if you shipped bananas six times around the planet, their impact would be lower than local beef and lamb.”[7] The disparity between the impact of animal and plant-based produce is stark. Not all animal products are created equally. Broadly, there are two ways to farm animals: extensive or intensive farming. Extensive animal farming might be considered a “traditional” way of farming: keeping animals in large fields, as naturally as possible, often rotating them between different areas to not overgraze any one pasture. However, its efficiency is much lower than intensive farming – the style CAFOs use. Intensive animal farming is arguably more environmentally efficient. That is, CAFOs produce more output per unit of natural resource input than extensive systems do. However, environmental efficiency is relative rather than absolute, as the level of intensive animal agriculture leads to large-scale deforestation to produce crops for factory-farmed animals. CAFOs are also point-sources of pollution from the massive quantities of animal waste produced – around 1,000,000 tons per day in the US alone, triple the amount of all human waste produced per day – which has significant negative impacts on human health in the surrounding areas.[8] The environmental impacts of CAFOs must be given serious ethical consideration using new frameworks in climate ethics and bioethics. One example of a land ethic to guide thinking in this area is that “[it] is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”[9] It remains to be seen whether CAFOs can operate in a way that respects and preserves “integrity, stability, and beauty” of their local ecosystem, given the facts above. The pollution CAFOs emit affects the surrounding areas. Hog CAFOs are built disproportionately around predominantly minority communities in North Carolina where poverty rates are high.[10] Animal waste carries heavy metals, infectious diseases, and antibiotic-resistant pathogens into nearby water sources and houses. lll. Workers’ Rights The poor treatment of slaughterhouse workers has been documented in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic, where, despite outbreaks of coronavirus among workers, the White House ordered that they remain open to maintain the supply of meat. The staff of slaughterhouses in the US is almost exclusively people with low socioeconomic status, ethnic minorities, and migrants.[11] Almost half of frontline slaughterhouse workers are Hispanic, and a quarter is Black. Additionally, half are immigrants, and a quarter comes from families with limited English proficiency. An eighth live in poverty, with around 45 percent below 200 percent of the poverty line. Only one-in-forty has a college degree or more, while one-in-six lacks health insurance. Employee turnover rates are around 200 percent per year.[12] Injuries are very common in the fast-moving conveyor belt environment with sharp knives, machinery, and a crowd of workers. OSHA found 17 cases of hospitalizations, two body part amputations per week, and loss of an eye every month in the American industrial meat industry. This is three times the workplace accident rate of the average American worker across all industries. Beef and pork workers are likely to suffer repetitive strain at seven times the rate of the rest of the population. One worker told the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that “every co-worker I know has been injured at some point… I can attest that the line speeds are already too fast to keep up with. Please, I am asking you not to increase them anymore.”[13] Slaughterhouses pose a major risk to public health from zoonotic disease transmission. 20 percent of slaughterhouse workers interviewed in Kenya admit to slaughtering sick animals, which greatly increases the risk of transmitting disease either to a worker further down the production line or a consumer at the supermarket.[14] Moreover, due to poor hygienic conditions and high population density, animals in CAFOs are overfed with antibiotics. Over two-thirds of all antibiotics globally are given to animals in agriculture, predicted to increase by 66 percent by 2030.[15] The majority of these animals do not require antibiotics; their overuse creates a strong and consistent selection pressure on any present bacterial pathogens that leads to antibiotic resistance that could create devastating cross-species disease affecting even humans. The World Health Organization predicts that around 10 million humans per year could die of antibiotic-resistant diseases by 2050.[16] Many of these antibiotics are also necessary for human medical interventions, so antibiotics in animals have a tremendous opportunity cost. The final concern is that of zoonosis itself. A zoonotic disease is any disease that crosses the species boundary from animals to humans. According to the United Nations, 60 percent of all known infections and 75 percent of all emerging infections are zoonotic.[17] Many potential zoonoses are harbored in wild animals (particularly when wild animals are hunted and sold in wet markets) because of the natural biodiversity. However, around a third of zoonoses originate in domesticated animals, which is a huge proportion given the relative lack of diversity of the animals we choose to eat. Q fever, or “query fever,” is an example of a slaughterhouse-borne disease. Q fever has a high fatality rate when untreated that decreases to “just” 2 percent with appropriate treatment.[18] H1N1 (swine flu) and H5N1 (bird flu) are perhaps the most famous examples of zoonoses associated with factory farming. lV. Unjust Distribution The global distribution of food can cause suffering. According to research commissioned by the BBC, the average Ethiopian eats around seven kilograms of meat per year, and the average Rwandan eats eight.[19] This is a factor of ten smaller than the average European, while the average American clocks in at around 115 kilograms of meat per year. In terms of calories, Eritreans average around 1600kcal per day while most Europeans ingest double that. Despite enough calories on the planet to sustain its population, 25,000 people worldwide starve to death each day, 40 percent of whom are children. There are two ways to address the unjust distribution: efficient redistribution and greater net production, which are not mutually exclusive. Some argue that redistribution will lead to lower net productivity because it disincentivizes labor;[20] others argue that redistribution is necessary to respect human rights of survival and equality.[21] Instead of arguing this point, I will focus on people’s food choices and their effect on both the efficiency and total yield of global agriculture, as these are usually less discussed. Regardless of the metric used, animals always produce far fewer calories and nutrients (protein, iron, zinc, and all the others) than we feed them. This is true because of the conservation of mass. They cannot feasibly produce more, as they burn off and excrete much of what they ingest. The exact measurement of the loss varies based on the metric used. When compared to live weight, cows consume somewhere around ten times their weight. When it comes to actual edible weight, they consume up to 25 times more than we can get out of them. Cows are only around one percent efficient in terms of calorific production and four percent efficient in protein production. Poultry is more efficient, but we still lose half of all crops we put into them by weight and get out only a fifth of the protein and a tenth of the calories fed to them.[22] Most other animals lie somewhere in the middle of these two in terms of efficiency, but no animal is ever as efficient as eating plants before they are filtered through animals in terms of the nutritional value available to the world. Due to this inefficiency, it takes over 100 square meters to produce 1000 calories of beef or lamb compared to just 1.3 square meters to produce the same calories from tofu.[23] The food choices in the Western world, where we eat so much more meat than people eat elsewhere, are directly related to a reduction in the amount of food and nutrition in the rest of the world. The most influential theory of justice in recent times is John Rawls’ Original Position wherein stakeholders in an idealized future society meet behind a “veil of ignorance” to negotiate policy, not knowing the role they will play in that society. There is an equal chance of each policymaker ending up poverty-stricken or incredibly privileged; therefore, each should negotiate to maximize the outcome of all citizens, especially those worst-off in society, known as the “maximin” strategy. In this hypothetical scenario, resource distribution would be devised to be as just as possible and should therefore sway away from animal consumption. CONCLUSION Evidence is growing that animals of all sorts, including fish and certain invertebrates, feel pain in ways that people are increasingly inclined to respect, though still, climate science is more developed and often inspires more public passion than animal rights do. Workers’ rights and welfare in slaughterhouses have become mainstream topics of conversation because of the outbreaks of COVID-19 in such settings. Environmentalists note overconsumption in high-income countries, also shining a light on the starvation of much of the low-income population of the world. At the intersection of these bioethical issues lies the modern CAFO, significantly contributing to animal suffering, climate change, poor working conditions conducive to disease, and unjust distribution of finite global resources (physical space and crops). It is certainly time to move away from the CAFO model of agriculture to at least a healthy mixture of extensive agriculture and alternative (non-animal) proteins. - [1] Berners-Lee M, Kennelly C, Watson R, Hewitt CN; Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene. 6:52, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.310 [2] : Lund TB, Kondrup SV, Sandøe P. A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation – Developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211656. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0211656 [3] Fiber-Ostrow P & Lovell JS. Behind a veil of secrecy: animal abuse, factory farms, and Ag-Gag legislation, Contemporary Justice Review, 19:2, p230-249. 2016. DOI: 10.1080/10282580.2016.1168257 [4] Jones RC. Science, sentience, and animal welfare. Biol Philos 28, p1–30 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9351-1 [5] Twine R. Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure. Sustainability, 13, 6276. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13116276 [6] Capper JL. "Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems" Animals 2, no. 2: 127-143. 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2020127 [7] Monbiot, George. “In Trying to Reduce the Impact of Our Diets, … Their Impact Would Be Lower than Local Beef and Lamb.” Twitter, Twitter, 24 Jan. 2020, twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1220691168012460032. [8] Copeland C. Resources, Science, and Industry Division. "Animal waste and water quality: EPA regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)." Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, 2006. [9] Leopold A. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. 1949. [10] Nicole W. “CAFOs and environmental justice: the case of North Carolina.” Environmental health perspectives vol. 121:6. 2013: A182-9. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.121-a182 [11] Fremstad S, Brown H, Rho HJ. CEPR’s Analysis of American Community Survey, 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. 2020. Accessed 08/06/21 at https://cepr.net/meatpacking-workers-are-a-diverse-group-who-need-better-protections [12] Broadway, MJ. "Planning for change in small towns or trying to avoid the slaughterhouse blues." Journal of Rural Studies 16:1. P37-46. 2000. [13] Wasley A. The Guardian. 2018. Accessed 08/06/2021 at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/05/amputations-serious-injuries-us-meat-industry-plant [14] Cook EA, de Glanville WA, Thomas LF, Kariuki S, Bronsvoort BM, Fèvre EM. Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in western Kenya. BMC Public Health. 17(1):14. 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3923-y. [15] Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, Teillant A, Laxminarayan R. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2015, 112 (18) 5649-5654; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503141112 [16] Resistance, IICGoA. "No Time to Wait: Securing the future from drug-resistant infections." Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations: p1-36. 2019. [17] Espinosa R, Tago D, Treich N. Infectious Diseases and Meat Production. Environ Resource Econ 76, p1019–1044. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00484-3 [18] “Q Fever Fact Sheet.” Pennsylvania Department of Health, 4 Jan. 2003. https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Documents/Diseases%20and%20Conditions/Q%20Fever%20.pdf [19] Ritchie, Hannah. “Which Countries Eat the Most Meat?” BBC News, BBC, 4 Feb. 2019, www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47057341. [20] Reynolds, Alan. “The Fundamental Fallacy of Redistribution.” Cato.org, 11 Feb. 2016, 1:22 pm, www.cato.org/blog/fundamental-fallacy-redistribution. [21] Patricia Justino Professor and Senior Research Fellow. “Welfare Works: Redistribution Is the Way to Create Less Violent, Less Unequal Societies.” The Conversation, 20 Aug. 2021, theconversation.com/welfare-works-redistribution-is-the-way-to-create-less-violent-less-unequal-societies-128807. [22] Cassidy E, et al, “Redefining Agricultural Yields: From Tonnes to People Nourished Per Hectare.” Environmental Research Letters, V. 8(3), p2-3. IOPScience. 2013, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034015 [23] Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), p987-992. 2018.

Defence date: 17 March 2022
Examining Board: Prof. Stefan Grundmann (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin & European University Institute); Prof. Martijn Hesselink (European University Institute); Prof. Katharina Boele-Woelki (Bucerius Law School); Dr. Ruth Lamont (University of Manchester)
Cross-border child relocation cases are among the most difficult disputes that family judges need to face. Commentators across the globe disagree on the interpretation of the child's best interests and the relevance of adults' autonomy in this context. As relocations are directly concerned with free movement, the literature has expressed an interest also in the European Union's influences in this area. However, considering its lack of competence in family law and the limited jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on such issues, some questions about the scope and nature of obligations imposed by EU law remain open. This thesis investigates, therefore, the following question: What is the (nature of) EU law's influence on cross-border child relocation and what are its effects on national legal systems? Its contribution is two-fold. Methodologically, it proposes a constructively oriented investigation of European influences in child relocation law. Cross-border movement constitutes the main raison d'être of EU law, and a defining feature of its community. Hence, a mixture of traditional values and new ways of life - sanctioned by a supranational entity - might lead to new dilemmas regarding children's interests and adult autonomy and complicate relocation decisions. The suggested approach allows contextual influences to be analysed together with legal doctrines, at both the EU and the national level. Substantively, the thesis builds on existing research to refine the understanding of child relocation in the context of supranational fundamental rights and freedoms in the EU, in their doctrinal and ideational dimensions. Finally, using case law from Germany, Poland, and England and Wales, it qualitatively investigates how national judges encounter the EU and draw from its ideational and legal features. This thesis demonstrates how the normatively inflicted EU context is occasionally used in courts but does not seem to consistently reorient national approaches towards the EU.
Chapter 3 ‘Child relocation and the European framework of human rights' of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as an article 'Child relocation, soft law, and the quest for umiformity at the European court of human rights : part one' (2020) in the journal ‘Prawa prywatnego’
Chapter 3 ‘Child relocation and the European framework of human rights' of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as an article 'Child relocation, soft law, and the quest for umiformity at the European court of human rights : part two' (2021) in the journal ‘Prawa prywatnego’

Defence date: 17 December 2018
Examining Board: Professor Claire Kilpatrick, EUI (EUI Supervisor); Professor Ruth Rubio, EUI; Professor Kees Waaldijk, Leiden University; Professor Iyiola Solanke, University of Leeds
In Europe, the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) develop influence that transcends the particular case at hand. While this development has been criticised by progressive scholars, this thesis argues that it also enables civil society to participate in judicial decision making processes. In the context of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender (LGBT) rights, this thesis investigates whether "strategic litigation" before the European High Courts can be a feasible and emancipatory endeavor. The concept of "strategic litigation" - developing long-term litigation strategies in order to induce legal, social and/or political reform - is based on the recognition that adjudication is, to a large extent, a political process. To this end, strategic litigation as a (political) strategy is introduced and positioned within legal theory and the literature on "cause lawyering." Within Europe, this thesis focuses on the ECtHR and the CJEU as potential fora for strategic litigation. In order to assess their case law from an activist point of view, a "strategic litigation opportunities" framework is designed. This framework both illuminates indicators for activist intervention, and highlights the agency of LGBT rights advocates in litigation. By doing so, it challenges the view of adjudication as a purely “top-down” process. Lastly, a case study on the US LGBT rights movement, and the effective strategic litigation on (same-sex) marriage equality it has engaged in, serves as an example for the successful application of a long-term cause lawyering approach. Ultimately, this thesis will conclude that strategic LGBT rights litigation at the European High Courts can, indeed, be a feasible and emancipatory endeavour, by establishing: 1) European High Courts exert quasi-legislative power. 2) European High Courts provide procedural spaces for activist LGBT rights lawyers. 3) The European High Courts’ case law can be analysed and utilised in a progressive LGBT-rights enhancing way.
One Chapter of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as an article 'Jenseits der Kernfamilie 'funktionale Elternschaft', eine progressive Alternative aus den USA' (2010) in the journal ‘Juridikum
One chapter of the PhD thesis draws upon an earlier version published as chapter 'Activating the courtroom for same-sex family rights : windows of opportunity for strategic litigation before the European Court of human rights (ECtHR)' (2014) in the book ‘Rights on the move : rainbow families in Europe : proceedings of the conference : Trento, 16-17 October 2014’

Defence date: 23 May 2012
Examining Board: Professor Adrienne Heritier (EUI/RSCAS) (Supervisor); Professor Lisa Conant (Univ. Denver); Professor Bruno De Witte (formely EUI/Univ. Maastricht); Professor Daniel Sabbagh (CERI, Sciences Po, Paris).
First made available online on 7 November 2019
Ten years after its enthusiastic adoption in 2000, the Race Equality Directive (RED) - a deeply innovative and indeed overall far-reaching piece of equal treatment legislation – seems to be still little enforced at the level of European courts. Why? Neither a sudden retrenchment of race discrimination in Europe, nor the inaptitude of the policy to generate European Union (EU)-law litigation, can easily explain the scarce signs of the extensive judicial enforcement that characterise other EU equal treatment policies, such as those on EU-nationality, gender and age. This study zooms in on the realm of domestic politics and judicial enforcement to inquire into cross-sectional and cross-national variations in the implementation of EU equal treatment policy. To do so, I rely upon analytical tools developed by three branches of EU studies scholarship — Europeanization, compliance and judicial politics literature — and I apply them to the yet unexplored domain of race equality policy. Tracing the process of transposition, in the first place, and analysing case law databases and expert interviews with legal practitioners, in the second place, I inquire into compliance and judicial enforcement in three EU countries: France, Germany and Italy. The findings of this comparative study confirm a very limited judicial enforcement of the RED, especially as domestic patterns of adversarial litigation in the domain of race equality are concerned. I explain this divergence looking at the ‗containment‘ action that domestic policymakers may exert on directives at the moment of transposition. In the case of the RED, this action crucially impinged on aspects likely to determine enforcement dynamics, such as those elements of the process regulating access to judicial redress. This work shows that in the case of a policy measure such as the RED, focused on individual judicial redress and mainly targeted towards disadvantaged end-users, the harmonization of some process elements is crucial to determining converging implementation dynamics. If Europeanization is contained at the moment of transposition, judicial enforcement can be seriously hindered at the national as well as the supranational levels even in presence of domestic legal mobilization. In addition to that, the thesis shows how limited raceconsciousness is to be found in contemporary European jurisprudence as well as in the claims filed by antidiscrimination law applicants.

Award date: 7 December 1999
Supervisor: Prof. Y. Kravaritou
First made available online on 16 December 2019
The traffic in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation has occurred throughout history and is not a new phenomenon to Europe. Indeed, in the sixth century BC, Solon of Athens is reputed to have conscripted slaves to serve as prostitutes in brothels. For almost a century international instruments have been in force with the specific aim of eliminating this pernicious activity. That efforts to put a halt to trafficking began in earnest at the dawn of the twentieth century, the century when human rights and respect for the individual blossomed, seems fitting. Yet, strangely, it is in the last decade of this century that the Member States of the European Union have witnessed an upsurge in trafficking. Far from eliminating the trade in women, it is the abuse of women and girls which has grown to alarming proportions.

Defence date: 10 June 2016
Examining Board: Professor Claire Kilpatrick (EUI Supervisor); Professor Bruno de Witte, EUI; Professor Judy Fudge, University of Kent; Professor Mark Bell, Trinity College Dublin.
Awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the 'Best Thesis in Comparative Law' at the European University Institute conferring ceremony on 9 June 2017
Due to the interplay of factors such as population ageing, women's entry into paid employment and the decline of the welfare state, EU Member State face increasing needs for domestic work services – primarily care but also cleaning and other housekeeping services. The majority of domestic workers in Europe today are migrants, both EU and third-country nationals. They tend to work under precarious conditions that make them vulnerable to day-to-day exploitation. Migrant domestic workers face low wages, long and unregulated working hours, workplace harassment, lack of protection if they become pregnant, and unlawful dismissals. Such vulnerabilities are to some extent attributed to intersections of race, class and gender-based prejudices. Yet law, in particular migration and labour law, has an important role in constructing and sustaining vulnerabilities. My aim in this thesis is twofold: to examine the role of law in structuring vulnerability and to identify legal sources that can challenge and reduce certain aspects of this vulnerability. In the first part of the thesis I identify the key dimensions of migration law that make domestic workers vulnerable to then build a typology of the different migration law regimes of EU Member States. To examine the role of labour law, I compare the labour law regulation of domestic work in four Member States: Spain, Sweden, Cyprus and the UK. The analysis sheds light to labour law's very different ways in structuring and, in certain instances, reducing vulnerability. In the second part of the thesis I examine the treatment of migrant domestic workers under EU law. I first give an overview of EU migration law sources to locate and evaluate norms relevant to domestic workers. Then I revisit a debate on the personal scope of EU employment law and challenge the flawed assumption that it does not apply to domestic work. I finally argue that EU employment law is a useful but largely misunderstood resource for domestic workers.

Defence date: 18 December 2015
Examining Board: Prof. Ruth Rubio-Marin, European University Institute (Supervisor); Prof. Bruno de Witte, European University Institute; Prof. Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, University of Iceland; Ms. Shazia Choudhry, Queen Mary University of London.
Over the last fifty years, a series of demographic and sociological shifts have resulted in an increasing split of biological families into different households, marriages and cohabitations. This process of disaggregation has proved to be a profoundly gendered phenomenon: it signified and continues to signify, to a great extent, a fragmentation of fatherhood. Vis-à-vis current family realities, this thesis attempts to establish to what extent the European Court of Human Rights deviates from or replicates the model of 'conventional fatherhood' when determining whether the refusal to grant the status of legal father or parental rights to the applicant amounts to a violation of his right to respect for family life (Article 8 ECHR), taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 ECHR. For present purposes, 'conventional fatherhood' presupposes the coexistence of the following features within the same individual: a biological link between the father and his child, a marital relationship with the child’s mother, economic provision, heterosexuality and, more generally, compliance with heteronormative standards. The jurisprudential analysis points to, at least, four main findings. Firstly, rather than abandoning a conventional understanding of fatherhood, the Court tends to simply add a new layer to it: the father's interest and commitment to the child. However, this combination of change and continuity and, more specifically, the increased importance attached to nurturing bear a partial exception: the definition of fatherhood and, more generally, of parenthood endorsed in the jurisprudence pertaining to homo-parenthood. Secondly, the reaction of the Court to the realities of fragmented fatherhood is changeable. In decisions concerning the award of parental rights, the Court overcomes the assumption of exclusivity more easily, provided that the coexistence of more than one paternal figure serves the child's best interests. Differently, when it is the full legal status of fatherhood that is under scrutiny, the Court attempts to maintain the paternal figure as compact as possible, in line with the conventional ideology of fatherhood. Thirdly, the Court has proved generally cautious to impose new legal conditions at the national level; therefore, it seems to understand the role of the Convention as being that of reflecting – more than transforming – national legal realities. At the same time, although to a limited extent, the Court has begun to adopt an anti-stereotyping approach, thus employing the Convention as a tool for asserting a new definition of fatherhood, untied from general assumptions. Fourthly, and finally, the Court tends to focus almost exclusively on the interests of the applicants, thus ignoring the implications of its own decisions on other potentially affected parties, in particular mothers. The position of children is largely disregarded and, when considered, is subject to variable interpretations. While in the domain of homo-parenthood, the child's interests are interpreted according to conventional and, therefore, subjective understandings of 'good' parenting, when dealing with the claims of unmarried fathers, the Court appears to ground its assessment on the specific circumstances of the case.

Award date: 28 November 2013
Supervisor: Professor Loïc Azoulai, European University Institute.
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
The conundrum on the constitution of Union citizenship is progressively coming to the fore with the development of the case law of the European Court of Justice. This thesis delves into the thematic of what the status of EU citizenship and the associated rights to freedom of movement yield for children in the Union. The topic has received little attention and even if discussed, children's issues are frequently tied to the rights of their parents. The dissertation adopts an alternative approach by examining children's independent position in relation to both the status of EU citizenship and the rights to freedom of movement. The method has been inspired by Article 24 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which recognizes the need to care as fundamental in the protection of children's well-being. The research demonstrates that the evolution of the influence of the concept of European citizenship and the related freedoms has strengthened children's autonomous status and secured their specific interests. This development is found in three EU law branches, used as prisms for reflection on children's interests. First, the research examines the types of dependency used by the EU legal domain in relation to child's EU citizenship status. Second, the simultaneous attachment of children to various Member States, exemplified by the formation of novel types of surnames, raises challenges for the effective protection of children's entitlement to care under the different national legislations. Third, by safeguarding children's right to access to education, the ECJ managed to build a specific EU law hierarchy, beneficial to children's well-being and integration rights in the Union. The progress in the protection of children's rights on EU level has mainly been a result of acts of the judiciary. It is therefore a time for the EU legislator to establish a comprehensive and effective EU children-rights protection framework.

Defence date: 20 October 2014
Examining Board: Professor Ruth Rubio Marín, European University Institute (Supervisor); Professor Bruno De Witte, Maastricht University and European University Institute; Professor Massimo Iovane, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II; Professor Siobhán Mullally, University College Cork.
This thesis starts from the consideration that law, mainly but not exclusively immigration law, can disproportionally and negatively affect immigrant women's enjoyment of their rights in conditions of equality with both immigrant men and citizen women. These perverse effects are equally evident in the fields of family life and in that of employment. In the light of this observation, the aim of this thesis is twofold. On the one hand, it seeks to verify the presence of such gendered shortcomings in apparently neutral norms applicable to immigrant women in the European legal space, both at European and domestic level. On the other hand, and most importantly, it aims to verify the transformative potential of human and fundamental rights law in this area, exploring the beneficial effects as well as the defects of this source per se and in its judicial application vis-à-vis biased norms applicable to immigrant women. In order to pursue this objective, this thesis explores three different levels of protection and enforcement of immigrant women's human and fundamental rights in the European legal space. Chapter 1 is devoted to the human rights framework established by the Council of Europe, with a special focus on the European Convention on Human Rights. Chapter 2 discusses European fundamental rights law, with main reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union. In Chapters 3 and 4 the national case studies of Italy and Spain will be analysed respectively, with reference to the multi-level system of fundamental rights protection in force in their legal orders.