This book examines the European system for the protection of fundamental rights. The aim is to identify the constitutional dynamics that occur as a result of the interaction between state and transnational human rights standards. Fabbrini compares the European system with the US federal system based on four case studies.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This text examines the European system for the protection of fundamental rights. The aim is to identify the constitutional dynamics that occur as a result of the interaction between state and transnational human rights standards. Fabbrini compares the European system with the US federal system based on four case studies.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
In: Legal issues of economic integration: law journal of the Europa Instituut and the Amsterdam Center for International Law, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Band 51, Heft 4, S. 349-376
Russia's aggression in Ukraine has caused a severe energy crisis for the European Union (EU). The purpose of this article is to examine the core legal measures that the EU deployed since the start of the war to address a spike in energy prices, to facilitate the green transition and to develop an industrial policy for the net-zero age. The article argues that the EU measures adopted to respond to Russia's aggression in the fields of energy and industry have exploited potentials of the EU treaties and contributed to mitigate the energy crisis – thus preserving public support for Ukraine's cause too. Nevertheless, the article also discusses how EU interventions in the energy market and efforts to decarbonize industry have caused legal and budgetary issues. In particular, the article assesses the legality of some of the emergency measures, such as a windfall tax on surplus profit for energy companies. Moreover, it considers the challenges to the EU internal market level playing field resulting from the relaxation of EU state aid law – especially in the absence of corresponding supranational spending to fund the green industrial deal – and highlights the risks for EU competitiveness.
This article examines the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP) – a regulation adopted by the European Union (EU) in July 2023 to boost the production capabilities of the EU defence industry with a view to supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia. The article explains the context in which the regulation was adopted, examines its content, and discusses its consequences for EU integration in the field of defence. At the same time, however, it also considers some critical aspects of ASAP, highlighting the limitations of the regulation approved by the European Parliament (EP) and the Council – particularly when compared with the original proposal of the European Commission. As the article argues, the ASAP regulation endeavours to support the capacity of the EU defence industry to live up to the challenges posed by the war in Ukraine, funding with EU money ammunitions' production and procurement. At the same time, ASAP also positions the EU to address in a supranational way a more threatening geo-strategic environment. From this point of view, therefore, the ASAP is a step in the direction of establishing a European defence union, seen both as a combination of military capability and industrial capacity. Nevertheless, ASAP falls well short of an EU equivalent of the United States' Defence Production Act, which suggests that further steps are needed towards the establishment of a real EU defence union. Yet, as the war in Ukraine turns into an ongoing conflict of attrition, the article posits that such a union would be needed – asap. Act in Support of Ammunition Production, European Union, Common Security & Defence Policy, War in Ukraine, Legal bases
The war in Ukraine represented a major geopolitical shock for the EU. In the face of an illegal Russian aggression, EU institutions and member states rallied to support Ukraine. Nevertheless, the war in Ukraine also exposed the limited fiscal capacity of the EU. As a result, EU institutions and member states had to come up with creative ways to financially back Ukraine's military and civilian efforts. This article examines the two key tools deployed by the EU so far to fund Ukraine in its war against Russia, namely the European Peace Facility and the Macro-Financial Assistance Instrument. The article details the legal features of these tools, evaluates their intergovernmental vs. supranational nature, and reflects on their significance for the consolidation of an EU fiscal capacity. As the article argues, the war in Ukraine quickly prompted the EU to replicate some of the novelties it used to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic, namely the use of common borrowing and spending. Nevertheless, structural fiscal and governance weaknesses still limit the ability of the EU to mobilize resources and leverage power on the international stage.
AbstractThe article examines the legal structure and constitutional consequences of 'Next Generation EU' (NGEU)—the innovative recovery fund that the European Union (EU) established to address the socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The article sheds light on the complex normative constellation that was used to erect NGEU, and explains how this was satisfactorily done within the existing Treaty framework, by resorting to current legal bases. At the same time, however, the article underlines the profound constitutional consequences that NGEU has on the EU's architecture of economic governance. To this end, the article contrasts the strategy chosen to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic to that embraced to tackle the euro-crisis a decade ago, and concludes emphasising how NGEU significantly contributes to the federalisation of the EU, endowing its fiscal union with a fiscal capacity analogous to that of other federal regimes.