Search

Religion was outside the European Union's original remit and the classic secular paradigm predicted it should remain there. However, the opposite happened: religion gradually seeped into the EU legal order. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty created a legal basis and political mandate for EU engagement with religion. This article shows the new treaty provisions represent a shift towards the post-secular paradigm, but implementation of this legal obligation lack coherence and has had mixed success. The case is made for a more systematic and orderly post-secular approach to EU policy and law making, which could help the EU reach certain key objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 121-129 | European Forum Insight of 18 June 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Signature of international agreements: the (in)consistent practice. - III. Solving the indeterminacy of art. 218 TFEU. - iii.1. Scope, institutional balance and sincere cooperation. - iii.2 Signature of non-binding agreements. - IV. Case C-551-21: insights and commentaries. - iv.1. Understanding the arguments. - iv.2. The Court’s Findings. - V. Conclusions | (Abstract) The current Insight analyses the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-551/21, which up-held the Commission's claim regarding its right to exercise the external act of treaty signature. The deci-sion sheds light on the signature procedure outlined in art. 218 TFEU and adds to previous cases, clari-fying the proper contours and roles of each institution in relation to the procedure set in the article. An initial observation of the practice appears to indicate the Permanent Representative of the country holding the Council's presidency as the responsible party to sign international agreements with third parties representing the Union. However, a more in-depth analysis reveals a lack of consistent and standardised practice. The judgment correctly recalibrates the institutional balance and is coherent with the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty, which sought to bring about an evolution of the principles of the Treaties without a formal amendment process.

The article analyses the development of EU security policies. It reveals the development of EU political cooperation and cooperation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. Important milestones are discussed: the development of European Political Cooperation (EPC), TREVI group, the system of EU pillars introduced by the Maastricht Treaty and the changes made by Lisbon Treaty. Lastly, the latest EU policies on security are addressed and the interdependence of internal and external security aspects is illustrated. The article concludes that the development of the EU's competence in security matters began with European Political Cooperation and efforts to address terrorism, serving as a transition from an economic to a political union concerned with internal and external security. The Maastricht Treaty established the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar, enhancing EUwide security through cooperation on border controls, terrorism, illegal immigration, and judicial cooperation. The Treaty of Amsterdam and the Lisbon Treaty refined this framework, increasing the roles of EU institutions and prioritizing security coordination. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), established in 1993, aims to preserve peace and enhance international security. The EU policies recognize the interconnected nature of threats arising to the security in the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the Lisbon Treaty, a new page was opened in the development of EU civil procedure. This is so because The Lisbon Treaty has introduced Article 81 (ex-Article 65 EC) as a separate Chapter 3 of Title V on an Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice. With this, civil justice cooperation has gained an autonomous character and become distinct sub-area of the EU policy on Freedom, Security, and Justice.1 More importantly, the approximation of Member States' civil procedural rules, provided for in Article 81 of the Lisbon Treaty, has gained a central role in the establishment and proper functioning of this Area and the EU in general. Precisely because of this, the subject of analysis of this paper is the new trend in the development of the civil procedure of the EU after the Lisbon Treaty, the advantages that this trend offers versus the old regime in EU and the future directions of development of the civil procedural law of the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this research is on the role of the EU Council Presidency - beginning with the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community and continuing with its subsequent evolution and changes, brought on in particular by the Lisbon Treaty, all the way to the possible developments that the Conference on the Future of Europe may bring to bear. The purpose of this paper is to examine how various large-scale crises (Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing military aggression by Russia against Ukraine) might have affected the process of treaty reform after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, including those related to the structure and functioning of EU institutions, with a special focus on the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. In this endeavour, the paper relies on document analysis from official sources of those member states that held EU Council presidencies and on official documents issued by the other EU institutions.

Copyright of Administrative Science / KözigazgatásTudomány is the property of Universitas-Gyor Nonprofit Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was the last policy field to be placed under the Ordinary Legislative Procedure and its 2013 reform was the first to be decided under this rule. This article analyses how rule changes following the Lisbon Treaty have shaped policy outcomes related to ‘greening,’ i.e., making agricultural policy more environmentally friendly. Measuring the policy ambitions of amendments during the different phases of the legislative process (the processing phase within the Parliament and the negotiating phase during trilogues), we find that the European Parliament weakened the Commission’s greening proposals—but did so to support an alternative greening agenda built on different policy instruments. This means that rule change has altered the power balance between the institutions, making the Commission more dependent on the European Parliament. In the 2013 reform, this new balance of power came at the cost of greening the CAP.

While in the previous study we presented the premises of the emergence of what is the economic and monetary Union today, and we demonstrated that in this process the European Council had a fundamental role to play even before it was enshrined in primary Community law, whose manifestation of will takes the form of public international law acts, in the present study we will address the economic and monetary Union after its consecration in the Maastricht Treaty. Normally, this approach should lead us to analyze the institutional structure of EMU in accordance with the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, but, apparently paradoxically, careful analysis shows that even after the said consecration, the mixed use of instruments of international law to fill possible gaps in union law has not been completely abandoned.

The research objective of the paper is to highlight the prospects for the implementation of the main directions of the reform of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) of the European Union until 2025. The caesuras of the work are marked by two events: the adoption of the Global Strategy for the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union by the European Council on 28 June 2016 and the decision of the European Council of 24 March 2022 on the adoption of the Strategic Compass for Security and Defense. First of all, the research hypothesis should be established that the full implementation of CSDP reform, which was initiated with the adoption of the Global Strategy for the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, and the resulting projects can significantly strengthen the position of the EU in the international arena. This will lead to the establishment of the European Security and Defense Union and the EU Rapid Reaction Force (5,000 troops) by the end of 2025. However, since many of the planned reform elements have not yet been completed or initiated, much will depend on the political will of individual member state governments, the level of spending on reform implementation by member states and the EU, and the progress of other reforms already underway (including addressing the economic and social consequences of the pandemic crisis and implementing eurozone systemic reform). The following research questions should then be asked: (1) How has the implementation process of the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy gone so far? (2) How has the implementation of new projects (including the European Defense Fund, PESCO, and the Strategic Compass) affected EU-NATO relations? (3) How do selected EU member states assess these projects? (4) To what extent can the project to establish a European Security Council with the participation of Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Poland compete with and usefully complement the EU Strategic Compass project? The first part of the analysis presents the implementation process of the Global Strategy for the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union until 2022. The second part analyzes the goals, priorities, and assumptions of the Strategic Compass, the implementation of which is intended to lead the EU to strategic autonomy by 2030. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ESDP is always one of the most significant policies of the EU for shaping both foreign relations and the integration process. After security and defense issues have become more important due to political developments since the beginning of 2000s, the ESDP has started to move towards the CSDP. From ESDP to CSDP and today's new initiatives, the EU has taken good steps for further integration. Although new tools brought by the Lisbon Treaty like mutual defense and solidarity clauses and new initiatives which aim to move the CSDP one step further such as EUGS, PESCO, and EDF could lead to long-term results in bolstering the EU's defense capabilities, EU Member States ask for cooperation efficiently in research and acquiring new military capabilities. Analyzing the period from the ESDP to the CSDP by applying neofunctionalist integration theory with a particular focus on new tools and initiatives launched after the Lisbon Treaty came into force, this paper aims to demonstrate that even the pauses in further integration efforts in the defense security and defense issues take place, the EU is continuing to follow a possessed path going to a common security and defense policy.

The authors discuss the complex issues of the geopolitical position of Southeast Europe and the application of the security concept of the European Union. Permanent anomalies are present in all spheres. The subject of the research is the geographical, political and security features of the countries of the observed area with the possibilities of implementing the concept of the Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. The hypotheses are: The geopolitical context of Southeast Europe is the scene of constant interests of great powers and conflicts in the countries of the region, where the adopted concept of security of the European Union is applied. The area of Southeast Europe as a link between the West and the East is of great international importance. The countries of the region are burdened with numerous contradictions and centuries-old confrontations. The European Union is promoting an indigenous security policy project in the process of integrating countries and strengthening its own position in the region. The aim of the research is a comprehensive overview of the complex topic of the geopolitical position of the countries of Southeast Europe and the security strategy of the European Union in the context of resolving the manifested anomalies. Methods of analysis, synthesis and others will be applied. The achieved results have cognitive features, they refer to the explained important aspects of the geopolitics of the given space and the security initiatives of the EU, and they also mark the real segments of the social development of the countries. We conclude that Southeast Europe is a territory of essential geopolitical significance and interest of world hegemons. The European Union is also promoting the security strategy contained in official documents in that area.

European cooperation in the field of defence has registered significant progress in the last years, both from an operational perspective as well as in terms of developing security and defence capabilities. Against this background, several initiatives have been launched to address the issue of capabilities development by gearing multinational cooperation formulas towards filling the gaps identified in the defence planning under the aegis of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), an initiative launched on November 13, 2017, through the Joint Notification signed by the ministers of foreign affairs and defence from 25 EU Member States, plays a decisive role in the success of this endeavor. As an expression of the intergovernmental nature of the security and defence dimension at EU level, PESCO has rapidly evolved into a platform for cooperation between Member States in the development of defence capabilities, covering a wide range of areas. Thus, in less than five years, PESCO encompassed 60 cooperation projects. Moreover, at the end of February 2022, the first capability developed under this initiative was activated in an operational context. These aspects were meant to highlight the potential that the Permanent Structured Cooperation can employ in supportting the process of developing the EU's security and defence profile and contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), on the basis of which the EU builds its defence identity, has a broad spectrum. It focuses not only on the defence component of the CSDP, but also on associated areas such as defence industry and market, defence research and development, and supports them with related legislation and various policy and financial instruments. On the one hand, this prevents the issue of European defence from being easily confined. On the other hand, this reflects the robustness of the EU’s approach to European defence and its willingness to mobilize all available resources. The article describes the evolution of European defence, its major milestones and actors, related processes and rules, and the key tools that are now largely concentrated under the umbrella of the CSDP. Current issues of European defence, including scenarios of its possible future development, are also addressed, as well as the contribution of the Czech Republic.

The Common commercial policy of the European Union expanded in its scope after the Lisbon Treaty by codification of previous case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (or the European Court of Justice) and an inclusion of foreign direct investment. Still, its boundaries have remained unclear. This state regularly created competences disputes between the European Commission and the Council on which parts of new ambitious free trade agreement negotiated by the Union are of exclusive or shared nature. Finally, in case of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), the European Commission decided to request an opinion of the Court on the legal nature of the agreement. Due to its precedential value, the Court’s opinion has had significant implications on current and future development of the EU common commercial policy.

Economic voting is one of the most studied aspects of electoral behaviour. The dominant view is that sociotropic economic considerations are more important to voters in national elections. However, other research suggests that utilitarian motivations are key to understanding support for the EU. An EU integration referendum offers the opportunity to explore whether and when sociotropic or utilitarian motivations are more important in determining vote choice. The unusual combination of two successive referendums in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, either side of the global financial crisis, provides the ideal opportunity to test these assumptions. Using data from two post-referendum surveys, we demonstrate that the economy mattered in both referendums but that different economic motivations drove vote choice in each, with sociotropic motivations more critical as a result of the global financial crisis. Our study has implications for economic voting and referendums and demonstrates that context is crucial in determining a voter’s economic motivations in a plebiscite.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was the last policy field to be placed under the Ordinary Legislative Procedure and its 2013 reform was the first to be decided under this rule. This article analyses how rule changes following the Lisbon Treaty have shaped policy outcomes related to 'greening,' i.e., making agricultural policy more environmentally friendly. Measuring the policy ambitions of amendments during the different phases of the legislative process (the processing phase within the Parliament and the negotiating phase during trilogues), we find that the European Parliament weakened the Commission's greening proposals--but did so to support an alternative greening agenda built on different policy instruments. This means that rule change has altered the power balance between the institutions, making the Commission more dependent on the European Parliament. In the 2013 reform, this new balance of power came at the cost of greening the CAP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Przeglad Prawa Rolnego is the property of Adam Mickiewicz University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The people of the European Union perceive the field of defence and security more through the national security than the security of the Union as a whole. The aim of the study is a legal analysis of security after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. To this end, the study sets out the basic starting points for the adoption of this primary document of the European Union, analyses the change it has brought about in the competences of the European Union and acquaints the reader with the classification of its competencies, with emphasis on security. At the same time, it deals with the method of monitoring of respect for the division of competences between the Union and the member states, as well as the peculiarities that primary law of the European Union connects with this area of social relations. The presented analysis shows that there would be no fundamental change in the issue of the common security policy brought about by the Lisbon Treaty in the near future. This could only be caused by a major change in global security policy that requires an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a qualitative analysis of the Lisbon Treaty and its institutional and political implications for the international political identity of the European Union as a global actor. The Lisbon Treaty makes an institutional-political effort for integration of the European foreign policy capacities, followed by the installation of the President of the European Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy institutions. This Treaty also constitutes the single legal personality of the EU which differs for the EU on the international political scene in relation to others. With the integration of the EU’s foreign policy capacities and the fusion of the (former) three pillars, the Lisbon Treaty makes some sort of rationalization of the institutions in terms of providing efficient and simplified decision-making, suitable for implementing a coherent foreign policy. Thus, considering the prerogatives and credentials of the aforementioned institutions, regarding their contribution to the international political identity of the EU and its decision-making, we conclude that the Lisbon Treaty does not represent a finalité politique of the EU integration process, but just a step towards its achievement.

‘When I was your age, Pluto was a planet’ was a popular joke after the celestial body’s reclassification as a ‘dwarf planet’. In many ways, the story of Pluto is an appropriate metaphor for the United Kingdom after Brexit. Just as textbooks on astronomy had to be updated to reflect Pluto’s changed status, legal scholarship needs to adapt to the fact that the UK is relegating itself into the outer orbits of the European system of integration and cooperation, yet remains unable to break free from the centre’s gravitational pull. Crucially, the UK has become an object of EU external action, rather than a subject that can manipulate the levers from the inside. This change is also of particular significance for the scholarship of EU external relations. Highlighting, organising, and explaining the changes that Brexit causes for the field and with a view to charting its way forward, this article argues that the UK’s withdrawal will contribute to the further normalisation of EU external relations law as a field of scholarship. Following a brief explanation of why EU external relations law is a doubly peculiar area of scholarship and an overview of the origins and development of EU external relations law as a field, the article elaborates on three main consequences of Brexit for EU external relations law research and explains how each contributes to normalisation: disposing of the most ‘awkward member’, boosting reforms for greater effectiveness, and infusing a sense of geopolitical realism.

The establishment of the Permanent Structured Co-operation (PESCO) in defence in 2017 is one of the most important European initiatives of recent years, aiming at enhancing effectiveness in addressing security challenges and advancing towards further integrating defence cooperation within the EU framework. The article describes the genesis of PESCO and explains its functioning, including its legal framework, objectives, the role of the main actors and the dynamics of the whole process. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate the scope and strength of the more binding commitments that the participating Member States have decided to fulfil in the name of strengthening Europe’s defence under the umbrella of the Common Security and Defence Policy.

The authors’ intention is to present findings to which they came while analysing the implementation process of the EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), especially in the area of EU operations planning and development of capabilities required for achieving the EU level of ambition. Only issuing the EU Global Strategy in 2016 and its subsequent implementation process seems to be a momentum for specifying commitments stemming from PESCO. At present, there is a list of common binding commitments which 25 of 28 EU member states have signed to. This list includes specific commitments as for development of required capabilities needed for achieving expected objectives of CSDP operations. Nevertheless, a very critical point related to the current PESCO implementation process is whether the present level of EU member states integration allows fully completing all highly ambitious commitments as declared by political leaders.