No description available.

The prospect of a justification defence in cases of direct sex discrimination is universally criticised by academic commentators on the ground that it would subvert the goal of equality that underlies sex discrimination and equal treatment legislation. At the outset the thesis examines the differences between the sexes, how these differences can be used to explain the distinction between direct and indirect sex discrimination and considers various concepts of equality. Building on various elements of the existing justification defences for indirect sex discrimination and disability discrimination, this thesis constructs a model justification defence. The impact on equality of such a defence is assessed by reference to the main existing legislative exceptions for direct sex discrimination and various judicial exceptions that have been created, in the main, by the European Court of Justice. Further, the thesis considers whether the blanket prohibition against the use of sex stereotypes is warranted and the extent to which they might be permitted under the model defence. The conclusions reached are that criticism of the potential defence is overstated. Rather than undermining the goal of sex equality, such a defence could in fact enhance the degree of legal protection as long as the criteria of the defence are stringently drawn. Indeed, in relation to some areas of direct sex discrimination, for example pregnancy and maternity, the introduction of such a defence could enhance the degree of equality. Moreover, the introduction of such a defence could introduce a greater degree of openness and clarity into this complex area of law.

No description available.

No description available.

Yes / Le Brexit représente le changement le plus important dans les relations que le Royaume-Uni a entretenu avec l’Europe et le monde depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. La décision britannique de mettre fin à plus de quatre décennies de participation au projet européen, la détermination du gouvernement de Theresa May à extraire son pays de l’Union Européenne (UE), mais aussi de l’Union douanière, du Marché intérieur, de la juridiction de la Cour Européenne de Justice, de l’ensemble des règlementations européennes, et même de la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, ont des implications multiples et lourdes de conséquences dans de vastes domaines. Le Royaume-Uni est certes le premier pays affecté, et ce sur tous les plans. Toutefois, la France et l’Allemagne, ainsi que le projet européen, sont aussi directement concernés par ce divorce qui laisse présager d’importantes répercussions économiques et politiques, mais aussi un déclin progressif de leur voisin d’outre-Manche, avec les conséquences qui pourront en découler.

This thesis explores subsidiarity's untapped potential as an enforceable legal principle in EU law. To date, discussion of the principle's function in European integration remains overly focused on its effect as a restraint on the Union legislature. In the first part of the thesis, I seek to challenge this entrenched view. Specifically, I question whether or not the subsidiarity principle could and, ultimately, should apply also as a brake on the interpretative authority of the Court of Justice. Arguing that subsidiarity does indeed have a role to play in this context, I then turn to examine, in the second part of the thesis, the implications of this conclusion for the Court's interpretation of the scope of the Treaty provisions guaranteeing intra-EU movement. In the final analysis, I argue that the subsidiarity principle necessitates an adjustment of the Court's current approach to defining the concept of an obstacle to intra-EU movement. This adjustment isolates and protects an appropriate sphere of Member State regulatory competence from the Court's scrutiny at Union level. In so doing, it ensures that, in the process of establishing and managing a functioning internal market, Member States retain some space to breathe.

Thesis advisor: James Cronin / In 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by six West European states to create the European Economic Community (EEC). Designed to foster a common internal market for a limited amount of industrial goods and to define a customs union within the Six, it did not at the time particularly stand out among contemporary international organizations. However, by 1992, within the space of a single generation, this initially limited trade zone had been dramatically expanded into the world's largest trade bloc and had pooled substantial sovereignty among its member states on a range of core state responsibilities. Most remarkably, this transformation resulted from a thoroughly novel political experiment that combined traditional interstate cooperation among its growing membership with an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty to centralized institutions. Though still lacking the traditional institutions and legitimacy of a fully-fledged state, in many policy areas, the European Union (EU) that emerged in 1992 was nonetheless collectively a global force. My dissertation argues that the organization's unprecedented transfer of national sovereignty challenged the very definition of the modern European state and its function. In structure and ambition, it represented far more than just a regional trade bloc among independent states: it became a unique political entity that effectively remodelled the fundamental blueprint of the conventional European state structure familiar to scholars for generations. How did such a dramatic transformation happen so quickly? I argue that three forces in particular were at play: the external pressures of globalization, the search for a new Western European and German identity within the Cold War world and the often unintended consequences of the interaction between member state governments and the Community's supranational institutions. In particular, I examine the history of the EEC's monetary union, common foreign policy, common social policy and the single market to explain the impact of the above forces of change on the EEC's rapid transformation. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.

<p>The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long been recognized as a major engine behind the European integration project for its role in passing judgments expanding the powers and scope of the European Community, while member states have consistently reacted negatively to judgments limiting their sovereignty or granting the Community new powers. It is this interplay between the Court and member state interests that cause the ECJ to pose a threat to the future of integration. Using a combined framework of neofunctionalism and rational choice new institutionalism, six landmark cases and the events surrounding them are studied, revealing the motivations behind the Court’s and member states’ actions. From the analysis of these cases is created a set of criteria which can be used to predict when the ECJ will make an activist decision broadening the powers of the Community at the expense of the member states as well as when, and how, member states will respond negatively.</p>

<p>The European Court of Justice, the ECJ, has the governing function in the Union as a guardian of law and justice. Even today, with a Union of 15 memberstates, statistics show that the ECJ and the Court of First Instance have increasing difficulties in fulfilling their tasks. This situation is chiefly a cause of an increasing number of cases raised. Due to this, profound changes have to be made in order to preserve common lawagreements in a future expansion of the Union. The purpose of this paper is to exam which changes the Courts have to make in order to meet an increased amount of cases that an enlarged Union would mean.</p>

The European Court of Justice, the ECJ, has the governing function in the Union as a guardian of law and justice. Even today, with a Union of 15 memberstates, statistics show that the ECJ and the Court of First Instance have increasing difficulties in fulfilling their tasks. This situation is chiefly a cause of an increasing number of cases raised. Due to this, profound changes have to be made in order to preserve common lawagreements in a future expansion of the Union. The purpose of this paper is to exam which changes the Courts have to make in order to meet an increased amount of cases that an enlarged Union would mean.