No description available.

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of the trade-development nexus in economic relations between the European Union and Pacific island states. Two interrelated but competing International Relations theories are utilised as tools for analysis: the dependency theory and realist theory. The research consists of analysis of the approaches, assumptions and applicability of both theories in the wider context of North-South relations, with a focus on recent changes in the relationship between the European Union and Pacific island states. The thesis revealed that the lack of success in reaching policy objectives throughout a long-lasting relationship was a key driving force for several policy shifts; these resulted in the implementation of the trade-development nexus into new foreign policy instruments, the Economic Partnership Agreements. Research demonstrated that new dependency theory forecasts more emphasis on the internal development dimension and a development-friendly trade-development nexus. Realist theory however estimates that, depending on power projections and self-interests involved, the trade-development nexus may lead to either more co-operation or more conflict in relations between the European Union and Pacific island states. In order to test the theoretical propositions, the thesis turned to the analysis of two case studies. It looked at the sugar sector in Fiji and the fisheries sector in the South Pacific. Both case studies demonstrated how the trade-development nexus selfadjusts to a given situation or changes through a set of conditions present at any given point in time— a phenomenon that is a defining feature, and possibly the actual essence of the nexus. This flexibility may positively contribute to the European Union's aspirations of becoming an influential global actor through trade and development policies. However, flexibility renders the trade-development nexus unpredictable as policy instrument and therefore less desirable from the perspective of Pacific island countries than it would appear in light of the case-studies.

Univ., Diss.--Tilburg, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [503]-522).

No description available.

The rule of law is declared to be a foundational and guiding value of the European Union in Article 2 Treaty on European Union. The European Commission claims to be the 'guardian of the rule of law', and the concept has been determinative in judgments in the Court of Justice of the EU. However, the EU has not defined what exactly is meant by 'the rule of law'. This leads to the question: how can the EU claim to be guided by the rule of law, 'common to all Member States', but not provide an account of what that means in practice? To determine such an account, I examine contemporary accounts of the rule of law and identify the specific nature of the EU. I conclude that while the rule of law is a shared value across legal systems, distinct accounts develop within, and adapt to, each one. I advance an EU-centric account of the rule of law (EUCA) which is apt for the EU legal order. I advocate the value of EUCA first in abstract by providing reasons for why it is to the benefit of the EU Institutions, the Member States and individuals to endorse EUCA compliance. I then show the practical use of EUCA as a source of legitimacy from the perspective of Member States and individuals in the context of issues of contemporary and pressing concern in the areas of international trade, corporate taxation and the criminal law. I seek to bridge the gap between a theoretical account of the rule of law apt for the EU legal order, and the practical guidance it can provide in the resolution of crisis issues. I conclude on the essential importance of guarding, strengthening, and enhancing the rule of law throughout the EU, not just as a means of resolution in times of crisis, but as a guarantee of the future of the European Union.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

It is generally assumed that the EU law regime excludes arbitration from its scope, since issues of EU law must be resolved within the EU legal order, according to the wording of the Treaties and the case law of the CJEU. It is also assumed that courts offer adequate and effective protection to litigants, thus arbitration does not make any further contribution to parties. This thesis challenges these ontological assumptions, using the case of bank depositors, and aims to investigate whether courts within the EU protect bank depositors effectively or whether arbitration would offer further protection. For this purpose, the nature of bank deposits is considered, and the approach of courts and arbitrators towards depositors are comparatively analysed, based on effectiveness of protection, as the appropriate tool of assessment. The findings of this examination lead to the final research question regarding the role, if any, of arbitration within the EU legal order and the relationship between arbitration and litigation, in particular within the context of the global financial crisis. Thus, the central argument of this thesis is that, if it is accepted that arbitration does have a place in the EU legal order, and based on the argument that bank deposits qualify as investment, bank depositors can enjoy the protection offered by international investment arbitration, which can protect them more effectively than litigation The originality of this work centers around three points. Firstly, this thesis aims to use the principle of effectiveness in a substantial sense rather than its procedural meaning, considering whether individuals do not only access the justice, but also being remedied effectively. Secondly, this thesis argues that bank deposits can be treated as investment, thus depositors could enjoy further protection offered by investment law. Finally, the thesis supports that the EU law regime does have some place available for arbitration, albeit its traditional exclusion, especially during the particular period of the financial crisis.

Univ., Diss.--Helsinki, 2002.

Topic of this thesis is "Relation between European Union law and Czech mining law" and its introduction regards mining, concept of mining law and how European Union law works in general. Next chapter regards what relation human rights has to mining. Main focus of this text is overview of most important legislation of European Union law that influence Czech mining law. These are Directive SEA and EIA, IED Directive, Habitats Directive, Directive SEVESO III, CCS Directive nad Mining Waste Directive.

How did EU and US legislation go from initially appearing to be the same, if not mirroring each other, to differing significantly in their execution of competition legislation goals? Why did the US take a more authoritative tone in enforcing interstate competition legislation? And if the EU is so inclined to mimic US policies 50 years ago, why didn’t their competition enforcement take the same form today? I hypothesize that the US and EU’s legislative history with regulating governmental supremacy is part of the clue to answering for these differences.