The Brussels Convention:a still born child?

Whether status of Brussels Convention as international treaty rather than EU treaty limits its potential and effectiveness

International business encounters organized crime:the case of trafficking in human beings

With increasing globalization, transnational crime in general, and human trafficking in particular, a design of new legal framework is required in order to effectively operationalize interstate law enforcement operations and prosecutions. The development of a transnational criminal legal framework—or frameworks—can build on pre-existing transnational economic frameworks. There is also the need to extend the application of domestic law beyond national borders to influence transnational corporate behavior. Regulations based on reflexive law are one possible approach. Teubner’s idea of reflexive law has been informing developments in this area. This approach uses traditional national law to inform corporate governance strategies in order to achieve effects on the market. A few jurisdictions have already adopted measures modeled on this approach to tackle human trafficking and slavery-like conditions in global supply chains. Weaknesses in the approaches adopted by the UK and the State of California have already been identified. If strengthened, this approach could be adopted in more jurisdictions—including the EU—and also to combat more areas of transnational crime—such as money laundering. This paper will examine the resulting challenges using human trafficking as a case study

Agriculture, the EC and the WTO:a legal critical analysis of the concepts of sustainability and multifunctionality

The agricultural policies of the member states of the EC has for many years now been controlled from Brussels under the Common Agricultural Policy. In recent years the CAP has, together with other policies of the EC, been refocused from crop production support to a European Rural policy, with the term "sustainability" being written into many policy documents. This term has achieved international recognition, and the definition used by the Brundt Land commission has been widely accepted, as evidenced by its use in OECD documentation. While the term "sustainability" has been written into WTO texts, the robustness of the term is questionable. The question then arises as to the legal interaction of WTO texts and Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements, which do have "sustainability" as their core philosophy. A new term has entered the regional and global debate in the policy area of agriculture, that of "multifunctionality". The EC is increasingly defining agriculture as being multifunctional. This term has yet to be clearly defined at and EC level, however the OECD has done some work in this area. How the Millenium round of WTO negotiations reacts to the term "multifunctionality" will have an important impact on the EC's Common Agricultural Policy

When European integration meets corporate harmonisation

Both U.K. Corporate Law and the E.U. wide study of the Law of European Integration have been developing apace in recent years. The nexus between these two fields forms the focus of this paper, which is written from a legal integrationist perspective. Not only are the E.C. directives and proposed directives in Corporate law examined in this paper, but also the evolving European Corporate structures, which promise to enliven and add complexity to the future European Corporate landscape

On the boundary clash between EC commercial law and WTO law

Both the WTO and the EC have come to a crossroads in their development. The WTO is currently the subject of the Doha round of negotiations, while the EC, together with pillars II and III of the EU, is about to be re-constituted under the draft European Constitution. The issue of the articulation between these two legal systems, despite the best efforts of legal academics over the years, remains unresolved, as evidenced in the recent case of Biret International SA v. Council.1 Issues which were resolved in the early years of the EC on the nexus of therelationship between the EC and the laws of its member states, are now reappearing at the EC-WTO nexus. The EC-Member State principles of supremacy, 2 direct effect3 and state liability for the non-implementation of directives4 are now being echoed at the WTO-EC nexus, in the context of direct effect,5 legality control, and indirect effect. The Biret case raisedthe issue of “no-fault liability for the Community” for non-compliance with WTO law, echoing discourses many years earlier at the EC-MS nexus. The issue of the boundary demarcations between EC Commercial law and WTO law merits re-examination in light of these developments, with the continuing imperfect legal articulation between these two jurisdictions resulting in a boundary clash which requires a resolution. Ideally this resolution would come in the form of a treaty amendment drafted by the member states of the EU. In this respect the draftConstitution, which fails to adequately address this issue could be seen as a missed opportunity. The ECJ may well find itself obliged to develop on the Advocate General’s opinion in the Biret case

A critical analysis of the EU legal provisions on terrorism

Terrorism activities within the EU are essentially transnational. Given that counter-terrorism operations and prosecutions have been allocated to different actors in different EU member states, operating within quite differing legal provisions and systems, co-ordination by the EU in this area is to be welcomed. In addition to critically examining the new EU laws in this area, this paper focuses on legal framework for the interaction of police, security services, and judiciary across Europe in this task, to include Europol and Schengen provisions. It also pays particular attention to the divergent positions of the UK and Ireland within this framework

The issue of data protection and data security in the (pre-Lisbon) EU third pillar

The key functional operability in the pre-Lisbon PJCCM pillar of the EU is the exchange of intelligence and information amongst the law enforcement bodies of the EU. The twin issues of data protection and data security within what was the EU’s third pillar legal framework therefore come to the fore. With the Lisbon Treaty reform of the EU, and the increased role of the Commission in PJCCM policy areas, and the integration of the PJCCM provisions with what have traditionally been the pillar I activities of Frontex, the opportunity for streamlining the data protection and data security provisions of the law enforcement bodies of the post-Lisbon EU arises. This is recognised by the Commission in their drafting of an amending regulation for Frontex , when they say that they would prefer “to return to the question of personal data in the context of the overall strategy for information exchange to be presented later this year and also taking into account the reflection to be carried out on how to further develop cooperation between agencies in the justice and home affairs field as requested by the Stockholm programme.” The focus of the literature published on this topic, has for the most part, been on the data protection provisions in Pillar I, EC. While the focus of research has recently sifted to the previously Pillar III PJCCM provisions on data protection, a more focused analysis of the interlocking issues of data protection and data security needs to be made in the context of the law enforcement bodies, particularly with regard to those which were based in the pre-Lisbon third pillar. This paper will make a contribution to that debate, arguing that a review of both the data protection and security provision post-Lisbon is required, not only in order to reinforce individual rights, but also inter-agency operability in combating cross-border EU crime. The EC’s provisions on data protection, as enshrined by Directive 95/46/EC, do not apply to the legal frameworks covering developments within the third pillar of the EU. Even Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, which is supposed to cover data protection provisions within PJCCM expressly states that its provisions do not apply to “Europol, Eurojust, the Schengen Information System (SIS)” or to the Customs Information System (CIS). In addition, the post Treaty of Prüm provisions covering the sharing of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and vehicle registration data pursuant to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, are not to be covered by the provisions of the 2008 Framework Decision. As stated by Hijmans and Scirocco, the regime is “best defined as a patchwork of data protection regimes”, with “no legal framework which is stable and unequivocal, like Directive 95/46/EC in the First pillar”. Data security issues are also key to the sharing of data in organised crime or counterterrorism situations. This article will critically analyse the current legal framework for data protection and security within the third pillar of the EU

The development of the external dimension of the AFSJ: new challenges of the EU legal and policy framework

The Stockholm Programme sets new challenges for the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The development of external relationships with European Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean Economic Area countries will prove problematic. The treaty boundary lines between the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the AFSJ will need to be negotiated. In addition, the full range of EU provisions with regard to policing, investigation and prosecution, and fundamental and due process rights, all required to obtain safe convictions, which will need to be part of the EU external relations legal framework for the AFSJ. EU legal agreements for the AFSJ could be either directly with a particular third country, or via Europol. Europol counterparts could be the South-East European Law Enforcement Centre (SELEC) or the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre (CARICC). This paper will critically analyse the problems likely from an EU legal framework and policy perspective

Security cooperation, counterterrorism, and EU–North Africa cross-border security relations, a legal perspective

The EU is clearly in the process of developing an external dimension to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). This paper focuses on ex. Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCCM) provisions. These developments pose specific legal basis issues for the EU, given its complex EU–member state legal relationship, and the inter-institutional balance, all reflected in the treaty framework post-Lisbon. New Court of Justice rulings are now emerging which will assist in this issue. Equally the approach to be taken in developing these relationships will be crucial. This paper proposes the adoption of an Onuf style constructivism in order to best capture the reality of the process that is developing, and has developed for the ex. PJCCM measures internally. This then needs to be allied with a constitutionalism model to ensure a balanced development of all three aspects of the AFSJ