EU Home Research Articles

Extradition Between the UK and Ireland After Brexit—Understanding the Past and Present to Prepare for the Future

The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have a long, close and difficult history. The most recent phase of which dates from 1998 and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. Since 1921, however, there has been unique practice between Ireland and the UK as regards the transfer of accused and convicted persons from one to the other. Indeed, there has been a special and close relationship between the two in that regard; albeit one not without difficulties. In recent times EU Justice and Home Affairs measures and the Good Friday Agreement have supplemented and strengthened the relationship. These include, since January 2004, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW has been particularly important in streamlining the extradition process between the Ireland and the UK. This phase of history and co-operation is coming to an end. The UK’s membership of the EU has now ceased, and a transition period during which the UK remains part of the EAW will end on 31st December 2020. The extradition relationship between the two is therefore facing a considerable challenge. There are several options open to Ireland, the UK and the EU as a replacement. Time, political will and the interests of third states, however, may well stand in the way of the conclusion of an agreement that optimally serves the interests of all parties and criminal justice. This paper considers the origins of extradition between the UK and Ireland and the alternative methods of extradition open to the UK and Ireland after Brexit. Consideration is given to the likely operation of a Norway-Iceland style agreement and whether such an agreement will be in place by the end of the transition and, if it was, whether its terms are likely to be sufficient for the needs of Ireland and the UK. The possibility of a bilateral arrangement on extradition between Ireland and the UK is also explored. Underlying the discussion is the critical point that the future extradition relationship must retain its ‘special’ characteristics, and therefore maintain the trust and good will that has developed over the years and given rise to an effective extradition relationship between the two countries. In other words, the lessons of history must be remembered.

The 20 years anniversary of the Tampere programme: Securitization, intergovernmentalism and informalization

The end of 2019 coincided with two anniversaries with profound implications for EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) cooperation. First, it has been 20 years since the adoption of the Tampere Programme under the Finnish Presidency of the EU (October 1999). Following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Council provided for the first time a multi-annual EU policy agenda for the progressive creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Second, it has been 10 years since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (December 2009), and the EU Charter of Fundamental rights becoming legally binding. In light of this background, this Editorial critically examines some of the latest key developments in the EU AFSJ law and policy.

OUTPUT VOLATILITY IMPACTS ON FISCAL POLICY SUSTAINABILITY, CASE OF GEORGIA

EU Home(current) About Us Services Blog ვაჟა კილაძე Create Posts Title Body The article discusses how fiscal stability affects macroeconomic sustainability and whether stability means strong economic growth in Georgia.The results of the analysis conducted in the article is supported by those numerous studies which indicate that fiscal stabilization reduces output volatility. Based on the existing analysis, we can say that fiscal policy can make a significant contribution to stabilizing output. Fiscal Stability Indicator (FISCO) for Georgia has been calculated and cross-country analysis has been performed. It has been found that fiscal policy contributes more to stabilization of output in developed economies than in transitional markets and developing countries. The fiscal stabilization indicator for Georgia is 0.42 and is statistically significant, which indicates that one percentage point change in output causes 0.42 percentage point change in the total budget balance (as a share of GDP). The FISCO indicator is 0.41 for developed countries and 0.24 for transitional markets and emerging economies. Based on the correlation analysis, it has been revealed that higher fiscal stability is associated with lower output volatility. However, here also, the difference between the groups of developed and transition and developing countries is significant: in developed countries- the relationship between fiscal stabilization and output fluctuation is stronger and sharply negative than in transition and developing economies. More often, fiscal policy is used as a stabilization mechanism when the economy lags behind the desired pace of growth; And are less likely to resort to policy mechanisms when booming. Due to the proven importance of the fiscal stabilization in economic sustainability it can be concluded that the use of fiscal stabilization as a mechanism only in the «black days» can greatly worsen the sustainability of government debt, as governments appear to lack the advantage that they can reduce deficits and create fiscal buffers to better address future negative shocks in times of growth.

Florian Trauner, The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: EU Justice and Home Affairs in Croatia and Macedonia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011): a Comment

"Florian Trauner, The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: EU Justice and Home Affairs in Croatia and Macedonia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011): a Comment" published on 26 Jun 2018 by Brill | Schöningh.

Florian Trauner, The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: eu Justice and Home Affairs in Croatia and Macedonia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011): a Response to Georgi Dimitrov and Marko Kmezić

Florian Trauner, The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: eu Justice and Home Affairs in Croatia and Macedonia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011): a Response to Georgi Dimitrov and Marko Kmezić

Cooperation of Europol and Eurojust with External Partners in the Fight Against Crime: What are the Challenges Ahead?

The paper addresses the cooperation of Europol and Eurojust with external partners in the fight against crime. Like other EU Justice and Home Affairs agencies do within their respective mandates, Europol and Eurojust take part to the EU’s efforts to promote and strengthen cooperation with third countries and international organisations in criminal matters, and the tools and expertise they developed make them interesting and valuable partners with whom to cooperate. Their external activities are essential in the current criminal landscape, marked by the globalisation of crime and the necessity to conduct cross-border investigations and prosecutions involving non-EU countries. The issue also gains a new interest with the perspective of Brexit, as the question arises whether the negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship will allow the United Kingdom to continue to cooperate closely with the two agencies. The paper discusses the legal framework currently organising the modalities of Europol and Eurojust’s external cooperation, which is marked by the revision of their constitutive instruments in order to modernise them, and a move towards the harmonisation of the relevant provisions. The two agencies face two challenges that may limit their external activities: 1) the importance of diversity and variable geometry in their relations with both EU Member States and external partners, and 2) the need to ensure an appropriate balance between efficient cooperation and protection of fundamental rights. Concerning the latter, mechanisms of political and judicial accountability are particularly important to monitor the agencies’ external activities and ensure the absence of fundamental rights’ violations.

The dynamics of institutional behaviour in EU justice and home affairs: roles, representative claims, and varying policy positions

This article investigates the reasons behind varying institutional positions in the European Union’s (EU) area of justice and home affairs (JHA). It argues that such instances of institutional behaviour cannot be fully understood without examining how each institution seeks to legitimize its role in the EU political system. A novel theoretical framework on institutional behaviour is advanced, connecting individual policy positions and governance choices to (1) institutional roles developed within different types of organizational structure, and (2) the representative claims made by officials involved in decision-making. The framework draws on insights from organizational theory regarding institutional role expectations and a constructivist approach to representation borrowed from the work of Michael Saward. Using three cases of JHA legislation from the post-Lisbon period, it is shown that the framework can explain varying patterns of institutional behaviour by exploring lines of justification present in the institutional discourse.

Denmark and the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Scandinavian Arrangement

The famous Danish writer Karen Blixen once described in her story Babette’s feast , how the most amazing meal was served but none of Babette’s guests realised the price of the dinner with all its imported continental, luxurious, gourmet food and drinks, unt il Babette tells them: it is a life’s savings. 1 Highly shocked by the unexpected expenses of the dinner the guests tell her she will stay poor for the rest of her life whereby Babette replies: ‘An artist is never poor.’ Denmark seems to have a different relationship to the EU imported project: it is too costly and not worth its price, particularly with regard to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). EU justice and home affair cooperation is simply not deemed tasty enough as it encompasses too many half -baked dishes...

Book Review: EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (3rd Edition), by Steve Peers. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)

Book Review: <i>EU Justice and Home Affairs Law</i> (3rd Edition), by Steve Peers. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)

The Peculiar Nature of EU Home Affairs Agencies in Migration Control: Beyond Accountability versus Autonomy?

Abstract This article analyses the development paths and practices of three EU Home Affairs agencies: Frontex, Europol and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). Particular attention is given to those tasks and forms of inter-agency cooperation raising fundamental rights sensitivities in the scope of migration controls. The article argues that the specific Home Affairs focus of these agencies and their ways of working, including the use of ‘experimental governance’ strategies, poses particular challenges to individuals on the move, specifically in relation to their right to an effective remedy. These findings are linked to the academic debate on the balance between accountability and autonomy of EU Agencies. Due to their peculiar nature, evidenced by several cross-cutting commonalities potentially impacting on basic rights of individuals, we argue that this balance metaphor is not appropriate for these Agencies; instead higher standards of accountability should apply with closer on-going control over their activities.

The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: EU Justice and Home Affairs in Croatia and Macedonia – By F. Trauner

The Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: EU Justice and Home Affairs in Croatia and Macedonia – By F. Trauner

The External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs after the Lisbon Treaty: Analysing the Dynamics of Expansion and Diversification

The article introduces a research framework for analysing the external dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs after the Lisbon Treaty. The dynamics of expansion and diversification, discernable for both the EU policy-making and the scholarly work dedicated to it, are at the centre of the article and constitute a common reference point for the present Special Issue. These dynamics have been triggered through deliberate decisions of involved policy-makers as well as through unintended spillover effects from other policy areas and/or decisions. The article also engages with the theoretically informed literature on the subject, which struggles with the definition of what this dimension actually constitutes, as well as how to best capture the practices of this field. We take stock of the scholarly debates by comparing the diverse approaches and discussing how much they complement each other and/or present different dimensions of a single 'policy universe'.

A Different View on the ‘Making’ of European Security: The EU Passenger Name Record System as a Socio-technical Assemblage

Most of the academic research on the developments of EU Justice and Home Affairs (EU JHA) tends to overlook the role played by technologies in their relations with classical 'human' and institutional actors. This is particularly problematic because in official discourses, technologies are requested, designed, and built as cornerstones of European security and its external dimension. Still, apart from 'technicalities', their use and design are generally assumed as politics-free. On the contrary, this contribution brings technologies to the forefront of the research and reframes them in terms of socio-technical assemblages. From this perspective, it analyses the role of the 2011 EU Passenger Name Record project in the making of European security and its external dimension. The lesson learned is that human institutions are neither the only players nor the passive victims of technological determinisms. Rather, focusing on a socio-technical assemblage means to inquire the effective participation of different actors and thus critically discuss the making of European security in terms of politics.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Law * by Steve Peers * and * The External Dimension of the European Union's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice * by Marise Cremona, Jorg Monar, and Sara Poli (eds)

Once part of the realm of the sovereign State, and deliberately excluded from the competence of the European Community, Justice and Home Affairs (hereinafter JHA) have become an area considered worthy of interest by the European Union. From the period of informal cooperation between Member States in the 70s to the recognition of a shared competence and the development of a common policy on these matters, the legal corpus founding the EU’s ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (hereinafter AFSJ) has steadily expanded. Even a quick glance at the number of academic publications related to this field demonstrates that the subject has gathered increased interest. New legal journals essentially or even exclusively devoted to this area have appeared, while a number of monographs, collected works, and textbooks have been published on the subject in the last ten years. A closer look at some of these writings shows that beyond the...

EU enlargement and the evolution of European production networks

We analyse the regionalisation of the European Union's production networks and the impact of enlargement by looking at trends in trade in intermediate and final products in different types of technology between 1995 and 2007. We find that enlargement has coincided with quite major changes in the structure of trade within and beyond the EU. Overall we find that the new member states of the EU12 have become a more important source of goods both for the sub-region itself and for the EU15.We look at trends in different types of products and technologies. We find that there has been greater regional consolidation of production networks in lower tech goods, while in high tech goods global sources of inputs – especially ASEAN+3 – are becoming more important. Overall the EU12 is becoming a more important source of both intermediate and final products, especially within its own sub-region. This evolution makes the companies in the sub-region very dependent on the EU home market.

Depillarization and the Shaping of AFSJ

This article concerns the Treaty of Lisbon and its impact on the development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The background of the study is the discussion of the so-called pillar structure of the European Union, its dismantling and the features of the constitution of the EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), which have legitimized its characterization as a special field of integration within the architecture of the Union. The depillarization is considered to be one of the main achievements of the Treaty of Lisbon. For this reason, the focus of the article is on the special features of integration in the AFSJ. It is noted that it would indeed be meaningless to characterize AFSJ as a separate field of integration. However, there still are remains of the features which made it possible to consider JHA and the third pillar as different. Pillars continue their life in certain aspects. The AFSJ mode of integration is still based on a rationale of cooperation. Certain possibilities for the differentiation indicate the same attitude. Another important point in the same direction is the status of the individual: for this part the constitution seems not to be primarily rights-based.

Mission accomplished? EU Justice and Home Affairs law after the Treaty of Lisbon

The legal framework regarding EU Justice and Home Affairs Law was changed fundamentally by the Treaty of Lisbon, so that the usual rules on decision-making, jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, legal instruments and legal effect are now largely applied to this area of law. The various issues falling within the scope of JHA law are now set out in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is divided into five chapters, beginning with general provisions, followed by chapters on immigration and asylum, civil law, criminal law and policing law. This paper examines the application of the new rules in practice, in particular the impact of extending QMV; the extended legislative powers of the European Parliament; the role of the Commission as compared to the Member States; and the role of national parliaments. It concludes that this area of EU law is now fully part of the mainstream, with the exception of the special opt-outs for three Member States. However, it now follows that some of the general problems of EU law apply to JHA legislation, and there are emergent problems ensuring that JHA legislation is applied in practice by Member States, in particular from the perspective of the ECHR.

The JT-60SA Toroidal Field Conductor Reference Sample: Manufacturing and Test Results

In the framework of the JT-60SA design activities, EU home team has defined a reference layout for the Toroidal Field conductor: it is a slightly rectangular Cable-In-Conduit NbTi conductor, operating at 25.7 kA with a peak field of 5.65 T. ENEA has assigned LUVATA Fornaci di Barga the task to produce the strands and to perform cabling, whereas jacketing and compaction have been carried out in its own labs. The sample, successfully tested at the CRPP SULTAN facility, has been assembled in such a way as to avoid the bottom joint between the two legs, thus using a single conductor length (about 7 m). An ad-hoc developed solution to restrain the U-bent conductor section (where jacket is not present), consisting in a stainless steel He-leak tight box with an inner structure designed in order to completely block the cable, has been also developed and manufactured by ENEA, where the sample has been also assembled. Instrumentation installation and final assembly of the sample have been performed by the SULTAN team. The main aspects of the sample manufacturing and characterization are here presented and discussed.

The External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs: Governance, Neighbours, Security – Edited by T. Balzacq

JCMS: Journal of Common Market StudiesVolume 48, Issue 3 p. 762-762 The External Dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs: Governance, Neighbours, Security – Edited by T. Balzacq VICKY REYNAERT, VICKY REYNAERT Ghent UniversitySearch for more papers by this author VICKY REYNAERT, VICKY REYNAERT Ghent UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 04 May 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02072_4.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume48, Issue3June 2010Pages 762-762 RelatedInformation

Strategy by Stealth? The Development of EU Internal and External Security Strategies

Despite lively debates about the institutional development of the European security architecture, the larger question of the strategic aims it should serve has received less attention. This chapter serves to mitigate this lack. It asks how the EU developed its strategic choices in the security field. Comparing the emergence of both internal and external security strategies, the chapter argues that the process has been capability-driven and not strategy-led, resulting in a ‘capability–strategy’ mismatch. As a result of this strategic void at the heart of the European security project, actors within several policy arenas in the complex EU architecture have been able to develop different – and sometimes conflicting – strategic ends: counter-terrorism, human security, common defence, crime-fighting and stability. Particularly in areas where the EU's Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) agendas overlap, the chapter finds that EU actors follow diverging strategic ends. The chapter finally assesses the effects of this strategy-building process ‘by stealth’ rather than ‘by design’, and concludes that the incremental development of EU security strategies has led to the emergence of fault lines in the EU's security policies.