This single case study researches the preferences of the actors identified by the two leading theories of EU (legal) integration: liberal intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism. The preferences...Show moreThis single case study researches the preferences of the actors identified by the two leading theories of EU (legal) integration: liberal intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism. The preferences guided us to derive a conclusion on which theory can best explain the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs). This provided new building blocks to the ongoing discussion of the theories contrasting approaches to EU integration. The methods used in this study are document analysis and within-case causal process tracing to uncover the different steps of the actors to measure their preferences. Liberal intergovernmentalism states that the EU member states’ preferences are the steering factor of legal integration as they are the masters of the EU treaties and the only actors that can alter them. The EU organs act as the agents of the states and are reactive to them. Neo-functionalists explain that individual actors and their self-interests determine integration. They form interest groups on the national and supranational levels and create spillover effects. Furthermore, as the EU agenda setter, the European Commission (EC) is a central actor in explaining EU legal integration. This study found convincing evidence that especially the EC was a significant steering factor in explaining the termination. Overall, the interest groups’ preferences from the supranational level picked up the economic needs of the national level and supported the termination of intra-EU BITs for a change to an EU-wide system to reduce transaction costs and boost the EU economy. This study argued that the member states reacted to these actors. Therefore, this study concluded that neo-functionalism is perceived as the better theoretical approach to explain the termination of intra-EU BITs.Show less
In 2018, the European Council proposed to establish regional disembarkation arrangements in the Mediterranean with a view to stem irregular migration and prevent loss of life of migrants bound for...Show moreIn 2018, the European Council proposed to establish regional disembarkation arrangements in the Mediterranean with a view to stem irregular migration and prevent loss of life of migrants bound for Europe. The proposal allows for the quick disembarkation of migrants saved in search and rescue missions and the extraterritorial assessment of their claims to international protection. This study employs a doctrinal research method in order to provide a legal analysis on the proposal's compatibility with EU Member States' international human rights obligations. In addition, the assessment puts focus on refugees’ options to obtain legal access to EU Member States’ territory in order to claim international protection as well as the proposal's implications on these options. The study concludes that the European Council's proposal is compatible with EU Member States’ international human rights obligations, but cannot create protected entry procedures for refugees.Show less
Through qualitative legal research, this paper will answer the question: ‘How can constitutionalism be balanced with a human rights perspective, in EU accession to the ECHR?’ We hypothesize that...Show moreThrough qualitative legal research, this paper will answer the question: ‘How can constitutionalism be balanced with a human rights perspective, in EU accession to the ECHR?’ We hypothesize that this balance is possible. From the current academic debate, three theories applicable to this research are distilled: constitutionalism; a human rights perspective; and institutionalism. Through application of the first two theories, a concrete proposal for the way forward in EU accession to the Convention is constructed. The legal options for this proposal consist of Treaty revisions (including the adoption of a ‘notwithstanding’ protocol), unilateral measures (reservations, declarations, and agreements), and renegotiation of the Draft Accession Agreement. Thirteen amendments are proposed: eleven to the Draft Accession Agreement; one to the Draft Explanatory Report; and one to the TEU. Furthermore, it is argued throughout this research that institutionalist tendencies matter, but cannot serve as sole explanations for the Court’s reasoning. As the key conclusion, we find that a way forward in accession, that considers both constitutional demands and a human rights perspective, exists. Appended to this paper, a comprehensive proposal for this way forward is introduced.Show less
