In the article, the EU as a Promoter of Preventative Criminal Justice and the Internal Security Context, Ester Herlin-Karnell argues that the European Union (EU) has drifted from the objectives of the first implementation of the European Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ). The AFSJ was originally created to promote general EU values such as human rights. However, Herlin-Karnell states that the broad objectives and focus on ensuring a high level of security have left the AFSJ to focus solely on security while abandoning freedom and justice.
The author discusses the problems of a blurred distinction of internal and external security. As the world has become more globalized, complex issues that cross both internal and external
…show more content…
Three examples are used which show that the broad language used to set up the AFSJ and its focus on security, have blurred the division between internal and external security. In each of the examples, money laundering, intelligence, and cybercrime, the EU itself has justified its right to police these areas using broad definitions in regulations. The author argues that security is too broad and any situation could be morphed to fit under that large umbrella. Further focus on security without concern for justice and freedom (the other tenants of the AFSJ) in the author’s view, has the potential to undermine the legitimacy of the union, the system, and the stated goals of justice and human rights (Herlin-Karnell, 2016).
Upon first reading it becomes clear that Herlin-Karnell is writing to an audience with a thorough understanding of the EU and its structure. This results in undefined terms and assumptions about the bloc as a whole. An individual without a baseline knowledge of the EU would have some difficulty determining the meaning of some terms and concepts based solely on the writing at hand. The context of these assumptions is given more justice when we consider that Herlin-Karnell is a professor of law in the Netherlands. An example of undefined terminology that might bring confusion to the reader is “risk-based approach” and “pillar structure” found on page 217 (Herlin-Karnell, 2016). These
The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,
The legitimacy of the ECJ to uphold EU legislation is a necessary component of effective human rights policy. The history of its increase in power is worth noting. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the ECJ’s location in Luxembourg, far from the political fray in Brussels and Strasburg, prevented it from becoming a strong body of the EU. Yet, throughout that time the court methodically built case-law that would lead to its surge in influence in the 1980s. The two most significant developments of the court during this time period were direct effect and supremacy. These twin pillars clarified the relationship between the national and EU legal orders.
There is strengths and weaknesses; threats and vulnerabilities of every organization’s security system. These issues tend to be those of the same at national and global levels; crime and criminology tend to have an impact on it.
In Farmer’s Response 2: Criminal law as a security project (2014), the author proposes that criminal law has been evolving from far more traditional roles of securing social order, individuals, and property to a more modern role of providing security. This role of security provider was only accomplished if certain conditions were met. Farmer (2014), outlines that traditionally, the offender (law-breaker) must be situated in the location where the law was meant to protect the sovereign state’s interests and that this individual must have committed a causal act to another individual or object. In addition the offender must have been familiar with the state’s laws as restricting a certain behavior and it was emphasized that criminal behavior and activity being punished had already occurred. With these conditions met, only then could the accused be considered for trial for breaking criminal law.
With regards to the claim that the European Parliament is too weak (the second of Weiler's standard version claims), Moravcsik (2002; 2003) emphasises the fact that during the last twenty years, the European Parliament is the institution which have experienced the most reforms, regarding its increase of powers, compare to the Council and the Commission. The latter argument is in fact accurate because ever since the Single European Act (1986), the European Parliament gains more and more power by reforms in every signed Treaty (Moravcsik, 2003, p. 7). Despite that, however, the Parliament is still considered to be weak compared to the other institutions, as it will be analysed later in the essay.
There is a close relationship between human rights and criminal law. The scope of my paper will surround human rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addition to human rights and international crimes. International criminal justice in this context speaks to those interested in prosecuting against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. The use of criminal law has many positive effects and pursues many goals that are worth considering. For example, deterrence, accountability and punishment are important principles that will be discussed in the context of human rights. Is the International Criminal Court an effective method to promote and protect human rights internationally? If so, why and how?
From a macro scope it is evident the EU is strong promoter democracy and has deeply embedded democratic features, however, as Peterson and Shackleton point out that “understanding politics always begins with understanding institutions not at least the EU”. Taking this advice the essay will seek to examine the two main legislative bodies within the EU,
This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.
Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In
The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or
(Labyle and Long 2009 as cited by Bures, Ten Years of EU’s Fight against Terrorist Financing: A Critical Assessment 2015)”
It is important to set the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights in context by examining the development of rights within the European Union. The embryo organisation that commenced the EU (The Coal and Steel Community 1951) was introduced in the wake of World War II to rebuild Europe by economically tying previously warring nations together. The consensus amongst the "heavy weights" of the EU was, if member states were economically invested in each other to ensure financial stability within their own state, future conflicts would be avoided. The EU had taken the role of a purely economic organisation which explains why it was not focused on social issues such as human rights, leaving such matters to individual member states to determine. Then came the political advancement of the 1990s, as evidenced by Weiler; ‘[The Maastricht Treaty] appropriates the deepest symbols of statehood: European citizenship, defence and foreign policy’. Naturally, the issue of human rights became prominent within the EU, and after much debate and a Convention the Charter was passed and given legally binding status under the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. The Charter has proved to be a controversial issue within European politics, with doubts being voiced about the functionality of the European Union’s own “Bill of Rights”. To effectively assess the question at hand, this essay will evaluate the extent to which the Charter is a necessary and desirable development, before reaching an overall
The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.
The European Union (EU) was established in order to prevent the horrors of modern warfare, experienced by most of Europe during the World Wars of the 20th century, from ever ensuing again, by aiming to create an environment of trust with the countries of Europe cooperating in areas such as commerce, research and trade (Adams, 2001). The EU has evolved into an economic, trade, political and monetary alliance between twenty-eight European Member States. While not all Member States are in monetary union (i.e. share the currency of the euro), those that are form the ‘Euro-zone’ (Dinan, 2006). The EU can pass a number of types of legislation, with a regulation, act, or law, being the most powerful. Its ‘tricameral’ (European Union, 2007)
Furthermore, Francis Jacobs - Privy Counselor and former Advocate General of the European Court of Justice had this to say: