Treaty Of Rome Research Articles

The United States of Europe: A Gravity Model Evaluation of the Four Freedoms

One of the pillars of the 1957 Treaty of Rome that ultimately led to the European Union is the commitment to the four freedoms of movement (goods, services, persons, and capital). Over the following decades, as the members expanded in numbers, they also sought to deepen the integration amongst themselves in all four dimensions. This paper estimates the success of these policies based primarily on a gravity framework. Distinct from past evaluations, we augment the traditional equation for international flows with the corresponding intra-national flows, permitting us to distinguish welfare-improving reductions in frictions from Fortress-Europe effects. We complement the gravity approach by measuring the extent of price convergence. We compare both quantity and price assessments of free movement with corresponding estimates for the 50 American states.

Maximum sustainable yield in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy - a political history

Abstract The incorporation of MSY into the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is traced from the original fisheries objectives in the Treaty of Rome of 1957 through its first mention in the CFP basic regulation of 2013 up to the recent Baltic Sea management plan, in which it has become operationalized. Emphasis is placed on the dynamics of the EU’s political processes, the impact of non-fisheries-related institutional power struggles and the consequences of political negotiations that include scientific concepts. Criticisms by Sidney Holt, of both MSY as a management objective and the use of surplus production models, are included.

Court of Justice of the European Union: historiography of European sources published in the period 1957-1992

Before proceeding to the analysis and characterization of foreign publications, all the sources we found were systematized according to the time criterion, according to which all the publications found, which in one way or another examined the Court of Justice, we divided into three periods, namely: I period (1957–1992); II period (1992–2007); III period (2007-present). The division was based on the periodization of the development of European integration, or rather its main stages. And the period – the creation and functioning of the European Communities (from the Treaties of Rome to the signing of the Maastricht Treaty); II period – the formation of the European Union (signing of the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice treaties); Period III – the functioning of the European Union in its modern form (after the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and until now). Thanks to this systematization, we were able to demonstrate what topics were relevant among scholars in a particular period of development of integration and functioning of the Court of Justice. The main presentation of the material is devoted to the results of the analysis of foreign scientific publications concerning the principles of organization and functioning of the Court of Justice published in the period 1957–1992. We found that most scientific papers were published by scientists from Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France which account for a significant share of the work of judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice. All foreign sources published in this period were analyzed by us on the subject of research and grouped by subject. Thus, we found that in the period 1957–1992.current research topics on the Court of Justice of the EU were: protection of individuals in the EU law and order; methods of interpretation in the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU; judicial control in the EU; the legal nature of the interaction between national judicial institutions and the Court of Justice and their impact on the uniform application of the Community legal order and its organic combination with the national legal order; judicial activism; principles of EU law; the role of EU judges in the development of European integration. Keywords: EU Court, judicial activism, EU legal order, principles of EU law, EU court decision.

‘Europe Gets More Game Everyday’. Professional Basketball, Transatlantic Sports Models and European Integration since the 1950s

This paper examines the current feud between the two main actors of professional basketball in Europe - FIBA Europe and Euroleague Basketball - from a socio-his­torical perspective. It aims to delineate the diplomatic negotiations and organiza­tional shifts in European sport competitions in relation to the growing influence of US basketball during the Cold War. Through an analysis of official reports and the press, as well as interviews with members of the European Parliament, this paper shows that basketball has acted as an informal sporting corollary to the 1957 Treaty of Rome, promoting the European community by way of a meritocratic system of sports competitions between teams or nations. The rivalry under study shows that the hegemonic post-Cold War US market-based model has challenged the ideas be­hind a “European model of sports”, ultimately putting the recent legislatures in a quandary about the initial consensus behind European integration.

Testing the Second-Order Elections Model on the 2019 European Elections in Romania

"The Treaty of Rome adopted in 1957 included provisions on the elections of the then European Parliamentary Assembly elections, but it took more than two decades for the members of the European Parliament to be directly elected. Immediately after the first direct elections of the European Parliament in 1979, the second-order elections model was conceived in order to understand the new type of supranational but less important elections. The model includes several hypotheses deriving from the idea that in the European elections there is less at stake, so instead of having genuine EU elections, in reality there are now 27 simultaneous national elections. The paper tests the second order elections to see whether its hypotheses are valid in the case of 2019 EU elections in Romania. Keywords: European Union, European Parliament, elections, Romania, 2019."

Freedoms or Rights? A Court Deciding While Comfortably Numb

EU was quite a lot valiant back in 1957, when the Treaty of Rome established the dogma of free movement, paving the road for what was considered to be an economic integration. The dogma was founded on the principle of freedom relating to goods; and the subsequent EU Treaties strengthened the freedom of movement for services, persons and capital. However, they were not all the freedoms equally developed. For many years, it seemed that the European Union gave a fairly obvious advantage to the economic significance instead of focalizing on its people and the parameters of their needs. Subsequently, striking a balance between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights has become a frequent exercise for the CJEU ever since, as well as a difficult puzzle. Bearing in mind that the digital era brings new challenges for both the circulation of commodities and the preservation of rights, the puzzle gets more and more complex: a tug-of-war between the tech-giants and our information privacy. By using the proportionality principle as its most effective weapon, the CJEU has built a convincing case-law, one step at time. However, does it really find the appropriate balance, or the conundrum is more complex than it seems? The present paper attempts to answer this question.

The Europe of Jean Monnet: the road to functionalism

ABSTRACT Jean Monnet was the inventor of the community method; by placing economic integration before the political one, he reversed the criteria of unification that had characterised the development of nation-states in the Old Continent. He was never a government or party leader; despite this, he engaged on an equal footing with the most prestigious statesmen of the twentieth century, influencing their choices: from Viviani in 1914 to Giscard d’Estaing in 1975, passing through Schuman, Spaak, De Gasperi, Adenauer and Kennedy. Monnet favoured the creation of supranational community institutions. Through his foresight he was able to combine ideas and pragmatism and in this way he taught a whole generation of European leaders to debate issues of common interest, thus overcoming national selfishness; from the Schuman Declaration of which he was the main ‘inspirer’ (as he was sarcastically called by Charles de Gaulle) which led to the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) to the first election by universal suffrage of the European Parliament (1979), passing through the failure of the European Defence Community (1954), the Rome Treaties establishing the European Economic Community and Euratom (1957) and his tireless commitment inside the Action Committee for the United States of Europe.

Can We Make the European Fundamental Freedoms Less Constraining? A Literature Review

AbstractThis article reviews the legal and political science literatures on the extensive interpretation of the European fundamental freedoms and on possible ways out. The common market rules were originally laid down in an international treaty, the Treaty of Rome. In functional terms, this treaty became ade factoconstitution, implying that its content, including the fundamental freedoms, were constitutionalised. We review how this constitutionalisation constrains legislators at the Member State and European levels. In order to identify possible ways out, we also review several reform options: institutional reforms of the European judicial system; the de-constitutionalisation of the fundamental freedoms; counterbalancing these freedoms with further strengthened social rights; and contestation of over-constitutionalisation within the given primary law framework. We conclude that reform options are available that could gradually free the legislators from the over-constitutionalisation of the common market rules. Such options should become part of the ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’ process and debates about EU reforms in general, as more flexibility is warranted in a heterogeneous EU.

Brexit and the Differentiated European (Dis)Integration

Abstract On 25 March 2017, the European Union celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, which established ‘an ever-closer union’ as a fundamental principle for European regional integration. Only four days later, the United Kingdom delivered an official letter triggering its withdrawal process from the Community. How could we comprehend Brexit integrative and disintegrative dynamics to the EU? The UK’s decision to leave the EU alongside recent crises in the Community and the spread of Eurosceptic movements fostered studies about disintegration dynamics. This article presents the current debate about differentiated (dis)integration based on up-to-date related literature. Next, it proposes a framework to assess the recent shifts in the UK-EU relationship and its contradictory effects on the EU project. The main argument of the paper is that the UK’s relationship with the European Union moved from an internal differentiated integration to a proposal of internal differentiated disintegration and, thereafter, to a process of external differentiated disintegration. Moreover, although Brexit means disintegration by one Member State, its effects on the EU project are mixed, initially promoting an integrative boom among the EU27 members, while at the same time neglecting disintegrating forces that could undermine the traditional European integration model.

Legislative and Judicial Politics of LGBT Rights in the European Union

Since the 1980s, the law of the European Union (EU) has become a substantial transnational source of political empowerment for LGBT actors in Europe. The Rome Treaty (1957), which established the European Economic Community, contained a gender equality clause. In the 1990s, this provision was used to protect employment rights of intersex individuals via litigation schemes based on EU law. Yet the subsequent attempts to push forward a similar legal protection for gay and lesbian equality at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based on the EU sex-equality clause, failed. Since then, the position of the LGBT community in EU legislative politics has evolved significantly through two dimensions. First, the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) extended the number of grounds protected against discrimination in EU law, adding sexual orientation, among others, to this palette. The Amsterdam Treaty permitted the EU Council to adopt the Framework Equality Directive 2000/78/EC, an instrument of secondary Union law that has safeguarded minimum standards of protection against homophobia in relation to matters of employment in all member states. This framework EU legislation has been used by LGBT litigants in their fight for equal working opportunities and pension rights at the CJEU. Second, the introduction of EU citizenship by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and the respective secondary law (the EU Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC) have paved the way for status recognition of same-sex spouses in the member states that have not previously recognized same-sex partnership or marriage. The future of LGBT legislative politics and the LGBT community in Europe will largely depend on whether EU law is able to extend protection beyond the current confines of the employment area, broaden its scope to cover social dimensions such as health and education, and fully recognize same-sex marriages and partnerships throughout the EU.

Rethinking the historical trajectory of ECE: From the “original sin” in democratization to redemocratization

Abstract This paper treats East-Central Europe as a region and investigates its common historical trajectory in the last decades. After 30 years of systemic change and 15 years of EU membership, it is high time for the re-evaluation and reconceptualization of the Europeanization and Democratization process in ECE. It is the key to understand the false start as the original sin in democratization and the reasons of ECE divergence from mainstream EU developments in order to prepare the redemocratization process. The progress of the Europeanization and Democratization process in ECE has been widely described in official documents, but for a balanced and complete picture it is necessary to present also the De-Europeanization and De-Democratization process from the very beginning. Basically, after the collapse of the bipolar world order in 1989, the Eastern enlargement was an economic and political necessity as a substantial part of the EU deepening and widening policy. The EU needed the extension of its economic space and political system that had also been pre-programmed in the mission statement of the Rome Treaty. At the same time, the new member states (NMS) needed the “Return to Europe” for their reintegration into the Western world. However, the capacity for this extension was actually missing on both sides, and it has remained so during the last 30 years of systemic change or the 15 years of EU membership. Altogether, this controversial process has produced a colorful picture of successes and failures in all NMS that will be analyzed in an ECE context.

The European Union After the Rome Declaration: A New Opening or a New Euro-pessimism?

AbstractThe European Union has been a rare feat achieved by the continent’s societies. Today, almost 15 years since its biggest enlargement and 10 years since the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, Europe is facing unprecedented challenges, both globally and internally. It long seemed that the way to take on the challenges of the changing world was through united diversity—a stance that is no longer a given. Adopted on the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the Rome Declaration was supposed to address the greatest challenges lying ahead of the EU and its member states.Based on an analysis of the Rome Declaration in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon, this paper outlines the biggest threats and possible scenarios of the European integration process. The ruminations below indicate that the declaration signed by the leaders of the 27 member states by and large successfully determined the key problems of European integration. However, contrary to the appearances, it fails to address them in substance. The overriding research method adopted in this study was a critical analysis of the subject literature, as well as EU studies and documents.

A Long Time Coming

The commentary, especially from abroad, on the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment concerning the bond-buying programme undertaken by the European Central Bank (ECB) conveys the impression that something unimaginable has occurred. The German court has refused to follow the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thereby setting “a bomb under the EU legal order.”1 Yet there is nothing new about the risk of conflict between the two courts. It came about when the Court of Justice of the European Union implicitly presumed, in 1963,2 and explicitly declared, in 1964,3 that European law takes precedence over domestic law, even over domestic constitutional law. This view was by no means without alternative, given that the Treaties of Rome do not address the precedence of Community law. The Member States involved in the dispute denied having agreed to any such precedence in the Treaties. Even the CJEU’s Advocate General was unable to find any basis in the Treaties for the precedence of European law.4 The CJEU derived the precedence of European law from the purpose of the European Economic Community.5 It argued that there could be no common market if each Member State applied and interpreted European law however it saw fit.

Dyskrecjonalna władza administracji publicznej i kontrola długu publicznego: obywatel i sędzia między prawem a precedensem

<p>Discretionary power, a central feature of administrative power, comes into play when administration is called to select an option between two or more solution and a way of balancing between public and private interests. After the 20<sup>th</sup> century, devastated by wars, public deficit and debt, most State models circumscribed their markets to the detriment of the global one, turning the old economic models into new ones after the 1958 Treaty of Rome and, after the phase following the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, and the crisis of 2008, the final concept is that the EU Members States should restructure the public finances, facing the increase of the public goods and services demand and with the rested rights. The purpose of this article was to enquire whether the European and national rules may limit the discretionary power while expanding the administrative one.</p>

Public Procurement Principles Generated by the Treaty of Rome

Abstract In order to understand the principles of public procurement in Romania, it is necessary to analyze, on the one hand, the European directives that regulate the actual public procurement and, on the other hand, the context in which the European directives were adopted. Even with the directives in force, the more general provisions contained in the Treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC) in Rome, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, are applied, as well as many more general principles of law that will guide the interpretation of these directives. The Treaty was adopted in Rome, in 1957 and became applicable from January 1, 1958. It is considered that the source of the principles of public procurement is the Treaty. Even if in Treaty contained no specific provisions regarding the field of public procurement, it reflects the principles and the general framework for the functioning of the single market, a market characterized through the prism of the fundamental freedoms established by the Treaty: the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. As the field of public procurement is closely linked to the free movement of goods, this principle is promoted and implemented in the practice of this field based on the regulations, directives and decisions of the Community institutions. The role of the free movement of goods is to harmonize the relationships involved in the process of purchasing goods, but also to ensure the homogeneity, coherence and balance of this process.

Strategy development in the framework of waste management.

Taking into account the declaration from the Treaty of Rome (back in 1957), on environmental protection "the harmonization of environmental legislations and uniformity in the fight against certain forms of aid, so that technical barriers to the free circulation of goods would not arise due to different national links", there is a need to develop Strategy(ies) in the Framework of Waste Management in order to reach the targets on 2050. Those Strategies aim to increase quality of life and change the way that citizens react in the great debates. Those Strategies should reduce the impact of several processes on the environment through product, processes, and corporate policies using green applicable sustainable resources and environmental management systems (such as ISO 14001, EMAS) as well as a number of activities (prevention, reduced, reused etc) measuring at the same time the impact on society. This paper provides a holistic approach processing how to develop, implement, monitor and improve a strategy (even an existing one) in the framework of waste management at a local level and or at a central level. The proposed methodology could be a useful tool for any policy makers, consultants, engineers, urban planners, academics etc., in order to develop and apply strategy related with household and/or food waste prevention, material reuse, waste reduce (i.e plastics, food, recyclables etc)., in the framework of household solid waste management and beyond. Moreover, the adoption of Strategy(ies) also aims to protect and enhance the Union's natural capital and to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy in the nearest future taking into acount also the European Green Deal stategy.

Institutions, Power and Institutional Balance

The EU institutions have always been ‘singular’. From the very inception of the EEC it has been difficult to fit the principal institutions within any neat ordering that corresponds to that within the traditional nation state. The very location of legislative and executive power in the Rome Treaty was problematic, and these problems were exacerbated over time as new institutions developed, often initially outside the strict letter of the Treaty, in response to a complex set of political pressures. Institutional balance, as opposed to strict separation of powers, characterized the disposition of legislative and executive power in the EEC from the outset. The concept of institutional balance has a rich history. It was a central element in the republican conception of democratic ordering, embodying the ideal that the form of political ordering should encapsulate a balance between different interests, which represented different sections within civil society. This balance was perceived as necessary to ensure that decision-making served the public good rather than narrow sectional self-interest. The concept of institutional balance was an important part of republican discourse in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, shaping the desired structure of government in the Italian republics, exerting later influence in England and the emergent United States. Institutional balance is not however self-executing. It presumes by its very nature a normative and political judgment as to which institutions should be able to partake of legislative and executive power, and it presumes also a view as to what constitutes the appropriate balance between them. These normative underpinnings have, not surprisingly, altered over time in the EU, and continue to do so. These changes are charted throughout the subsequent analysis and form the underlying theme of the chapter, which is divided into three temporal periods. The initial period runs between the Rome Treaty and the Single European Act 1986 (SEA). The second section covers the period between the SEA and the Nice Treaty. And the third covers the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. Treaty reform is a continuation of politics by othermeans. It is not therefore surprising that institutional issues on the agenda in the previous decade dominated debates on more comprehensive Treaty reform, including in particular the appropriate distribution of legislative power, coupled with contestation as to the locus of executive power. These were the prominent themes in the debates on Treaty reform. It is clear that while most if not all protagonists in this debate believed in institutional balance, they nonetheless differed markedly as to what this should entail.

The Chronology of the Negotiations that Led to the Historic Moment of the Signing of the Brexit Agreement

The reality is that we have witnessed in the last 4 years, since the procedure of negotiating the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in 2016 has started, a real political impasse on the stage of European relations. Who would have imagined on the 1st of January 1973, when England became a member of the European Union after many indecisions – some of them more arrogant than others that in 47 years' time it will be the first Member State to avail itself of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which for the first time provided for the right of a Member State to withdraw voluntarily from the European Union? If we look a little at the historical context of England's accession to the EU, we may see similar hesitations that have delayed it so much in joining the EU. Although after the end of the Second World War the economic situation of England was precarious, it still manages to become one of the great world powers. However, in 1951 it refused to join the founding group of the ECSC and also refused to sign the Treaty of Rome in 1957. England believed that the status of leader of the Commonwealth offered you a privileged status compared to other European states in international affairs, especially those with the United States of America, but, nevertheless, it did not bring benefits in the relations with the 6 European states, that were going to establish the European Union. When it realized that this was not a good way for things to happen, in 1961 announced its intention to join the European Economic Community, only that in 1963 France voted against the request. It was only after Charles de Gaulle's resignation in 1969 that the United Kingdom's path to accession was opened. Political and economic integration seemed to be the best solution for achieving a stable economic future.

Caminhos da construção da União Europeia: Tudo que nasce, morre?

Depois de mais de sessenta anos da assinatura do Tratado de Roma que deu origem à Comunidade Econômica Europeia, o bloco europeu vive ainda hoje uma grande crise. Não é uma crise apenas econômica. Buscamos expor uma releitura de diferentes componentes do processo de integração europeu que culmina nesta crise, e tentaremos indicar elementos analítico-metodológicos sobre os caminhos da União Europeia fundamentado na relação entre capital e trabalho. O fio condutor deste artigo se encontra na divergência entre capital e trabalho no processo integrativo, pois persistiu um modelo integrativo no qual a economia é o fator hegemônico.
 
 
 Abstract: After more than sixty years ago, the signature of the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Economic Community, the European bloc is still suffering a significant crises. This is not merely an economic crisis. In this paper the aim is to expose different features of the European integration process, which culminated in the current crisis, and to indicate methodological analytical aspects concernd the paths of the European Union based on the relationship between labour and capital. This article points out the idea that exist a divergence between capital and labor in the integration process, as persisted an integrative pattern in which economy is the hegemonic feature.
 Key-words: European Economic Community; European Union; integration; crisis.
 
 
 
 Recebido em: outubro/2018.
 Aprovado em: outubro/2019.

IL RILANCIO DEL PROGETTO EUROPEO A 60 ANNI DAI TRATTATI DI ROMA

Written on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of 1957 Treaties of Rome, the essay reviews the main stages of Europe’s integration process, its achievements and failures, its crises and strategies for a necessary revival. The essay argues that the evolution toward an ever greater and diversified union was made possible by a compromise between the supranational-communitarian and the intergovernmental method of governance. The essay criticizes the fact that the transfer of quotas of national sovereignty to the supranational level has not be accompanied by an equivalent transfer of loyalty and commitment by member states’ citizens, who are at the same time EU citizens. The main cleavages within the EU are then analysed, which can be traced to different goals, interest and expectations of member states: the cleavage between those who view the union just as a single market and those who conceive it also as a supranational politiical project; and the cleavage between Northern creditor countries who hold fiscal austerity as a policy priority and Southern indebted countries who are mostly concerned with economic stagnation and unemployment. And it is argued that these cleavages have deepened because of three interconnected challenges: the economicfinancial crisis and its social implications (growth of inequalities, unemployment and underemployment), the migration pressure, and the threat of fundamentalist terrorism. The essay then analyses the upsurge of national-populism and euroscepticism and traces these phenomena to the democratic deficit of EU institutions and the inadequate development of a common European identity. Finally, the alternative strategies for the EU renewal, ougtlined in the Commission’ s White Paper are discussed, arguing that the one oriented toward a federal union to be achieved through the method of reinforced cooperation is to be preferred.