mercoledì 27 giugno 2012

Besselink, General report FIDE 2012

The Protection of Fundamental Rights post-Lisbon

Full Text Available at:
The 2nd HEC Paris Workshop on Regulation - Regulating Lifestyle Risks in Europe - will take place at HEC Paris main campus (Le Château) on September 20-21, 2012.
The workshop will offer an opportunity for researchers (PhD students, post-docs, researchers and established academics), policy makers, NGOs, industry representatives and other stakeholders to reflect on the role which the European Union should play in promoting healthier lifestyles, in light of the moral, philosophical, legal and political challenges associated with the regulation of individual choices. Special attention will be paid to the role that the relevant industries may realistically be called to play in tackling the rising tide of NCDs. A special focus will be devoted to the ongoing efforts aimed at integrating behavioral insights into policy making.
The draft program is available here and you can register here. You will find all details at: 

Please don’t hesitate to contact Cliff Wirajendi ( should you be interested in attending the event.

Best wishes,
Alberto Alemanno (HEC Paris)
Amandine Garde   (Durham University)

Finotelli-La Barbera, Comparative analysis on the regulations in force in EU member States about naturalization‏

This report is part of a larger project funded by the Italian Ministerio dell'Interno and entitled "Vecchio Continente, nuovi cittadini". The goal of the project is the analysis of the legal framework and administrative procedures on citizenship acquisition from a comparative perspective. The countries analyzed are Italy, France, UK, Germany and Spain. 

Full text available at:

New Blog: TAREAS PENDIENTES ECJ Leading Cases on Fundamental Freedoms and Rights ~ Jurisprudencia Relevante del TJUE sobre derechos y libertades fundamentales

From the homepage:

"ECJ Leading Cases on Fundamental Freedoms and Rights is a permanent seminar on ECJ case law regarding fundamental freedoms and rights. It will get started next Fall at the Faculty of Law of the Spanish Open University (UNED). It is aimed to law scholars and students as well as to anybody interested on this topic. The seminar, chaired by Marina Vargas (Professor of International Private Law) and Pedro M. Herrera (Professor of Financial and Tax Law) is part of an in-progress teaching innovation project". 

martedì 19 giugno 2012

RECON Newsletter

The RECON project (Reconstituting Democracy in Europe) concluded on 31
December 2011. In the final year, RECON experienced an increased interest
in its research on the prospects for democracy beyond the nation state. We
aimed at widespread dissemination of research findings. This final RECON
Newsletter provides information on a number of key events and publications:

Full text available at:

venerdì 15 giugno 2012

Petersmann (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods: Theories, rules and institutions for the central policy challenge in the 21st Century, EUI working paper


This publication includes papers of an interdisciplinary conference in 2011 analysing multilevel governance problems of the international trading, environmental, development and rule-of-law systems as interdependent ‘aggregate public goods’. It begins with policy-oriented analyses from leading practitioners on the ‘gap between theory and practice’ in multilevel governance. The analyses of the ‘collective action problems’ are supplemented by case-studies on the world trading, environmental, development and related rule-of-law systems. Apart from assessing existing multilevel governance arrangements (such as the G20 meetings), the conference papers explore alternative strategies for rendering multilevel governance more effective, for instance by promoting public-private partnerships, empowering private actors through stronger cosmopolitan rights, enhancing legal-judicial accountability of governments and by promoting overall coherence through transnational rule-of-law systems. The papers explore emerging principles for multilevel political governance (like ‘responsible sovereignty’, unilateral protection of ‘common concerns’) as well as new forms of multilevel judicial governance strengthening transnational rule-of-law in international trade, investment and environmental regulation.

Full text available at:

mercoledì 6 giugno 2012

Cambridge Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2012)

Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC LLD
University of Cambridge and Lauterpacht Centre for International Law

DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.48
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Andrew Sanger
Rumiana Yotova
Founders and Editors-in-Chief of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law and Doctoral Candidates at the University of Cambridge. They can be contacted at and respectively.

DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.49
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Sir Christopher Greenwood
Judge, International Court of Justice

International litigation, International Court of Justice
DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.2
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC
Director of Legal Policy International Limited

International Law, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Legal Adviser, Practice, Sources of Law, Litigation
DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.1
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Philippe Sands
Professor of Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London

DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.41
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Lorand Bartels
University Senior Lecturer in Law and Fellow of Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge. Research for this note was conducted at the request of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.47
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Filippo Fontanelli
Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of Surrey

Exception of non-performance, General principles of international law, International Court of Justice, Law of treaties, Law of responsibility
DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.40
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Professor Robin Churchill
Professor of International Law, University of Dundee

Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, maritime delimitation, outer continental shelf, maritime boundaries, territorial sea boundaries, exclusive economic zones
DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.3
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Kimberley N. Trapp
Lecturer in Law, Newnham College, University of Cambridge.
Alex Mills
Lecturer, Faculty of Laws, University College London.

State immunity, jurisdiction, state responsibility, International Court of Justice, territorial tort exception, ius cogens, substance/procedure distinction, countermeasures
DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.33
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Francesco Messineo
Lecturer in Law, Kent Law School, Canterbury

DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.37
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Thomas R. Liefländer
MSt. candidate, St Hugh’s College, Oxford

International criminal law, International Criminal Court, child soldiers, Thomas Lubanga
DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.38
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]
Anna Cowan
Research Associate to Professor James Crawford, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge

DOI: 10.7574/cjicl.01.01.44
[Abstract] | [Fulltext PDF]

The Quaglia on European Union and Global Financial Harmonisation

The European Union and Global Financial Harmonisation

Title: The European Union and Global Financial Harmonisation
Author: QUAGLIA, Lucia
Subject: European Union; financial regulation; international standards; banking; securities; insurance
Date: 2012
Series/Report no.: EUI SPS; 2012/04
Abstract: This research examines the influence of the European Union (EU) in international financial harmonisation over the last two decades. It asks why the EU ‘uploads’ international financial regulation in some (few) cases, ‘downloads’ it in (many) other cases, or neither uploads or download rules. It sets up an analytical framework that combines the concepts of ‘international regulatory capacity’ and ‘EU regulatory capacity’, considering their variation across financial services as well as over time. Such a framework is then concisely applied to a variety of significant empirical case studies of prudential regulation of banking, securities, and insurance.
Full text available at:

lunedì 4 giugno 2012

Padoa Schioppa on the EU

Cinque miti anti-europei da sfatare

Antonio Padoa Schioppa*
La crisi dell’euro e la condizione critica dell’economia (ma anche della politica) in Europa impongono di delineare con urgenza quello che dovrebbe essere il traguardo del processo di integrazione, iniziato sessanta anni orsono.
I veri ostacoli contro le necessarie riforme verranno dai cospicui interessi economici e soprattutto politici al mantenimento delle pur evanescenti sovranità nazionali mediante il potere di veto e attraverso il mancato riconoscimento del ruolo spettante al Parlamento europeo. E verranno altresì dal ricorso spregiudicato (sincero o meno, a seconda dei casi) ad ideologie superate. Nulla di più pericoloso e tenace delle idee sbagliate. Ne indichiamo qui alcune, in estrema sintesi.
Demos: “l’UE non può diventare uno Stato, neppure uno Stato federale, perché non possiede un demos unitario.” Come se per la maggior parte degli stati l’unità nazionale non fosse un prodotto dello stato, non un suo presupposto; e poi un “comune sentire” europeo esiste già, nella concezione dello stato sociale, nell’atteggiamento verso le guerre, nell’apertura alla dimensione planetaria.
Sovranità: “solo lo Stato nazionale è la sede naturale della sovranità e della democrazia politica.” No: la nozione monolitica della sovranità come pertinente al solo Stato nazionale non regge più né dottrinalmente né storicamente. Già oggi l’esercizio della sovranità è suddiviso a diversi livelli, dal municipio alla regione allo stato nazionale al continente al mondo. E il titolare è solo l’individuo, l’insieme dei cittadini che delegano la sovranità ai diversi livelli in base al principio di sussidiarietà.
Identità: “la sola identità è quella nazionale.” No, essa non è neppure l’identità prevalente, né mai lo è stata. Non esiste solo l’identità nazionale bensì un fascio di identità (locale, regionale, nazionale, europea, mondiale): ogni individuo le ha tutte in sé, insieme con molte altre, di natura non territoriale ma storica, sociale, culturale, individuale. L’identità individuale è costituita da questo ventaglio, diverso in ciascuno.
Istituzioni ed elezioni europee: “i cittadini non sentono l’Europa, ne è la prova la decrescente partecipazione elettorale e il disinteresse verso il Parlamento europeo.” No, il disinteresse dipende dal fatto che i cittadini non hanno la percezione di quanto del loro presente e del loro futuro dipenda già oggi, in positivo, dall’esistenza dell’Unione; e dipende dal fatto che l’organo che li rappresenta legittimamente, il Parlamento europeo, è ancora privo del potere pieno di legiferare e di controllare il governo e il bilancio dell’Unione. Quando ciò accadrà, ci sarà maggiore consapevolezza dell’importanza del voto europeo. Né va dimenticato che la crisi delle democrazie occidentali e l’allontanamento dal voto sono fenomeni generali (negli Stati Uniti vota poco più del 50% dei cittadini). Rimedi e nuove forme di partecipazione vanno trovati per tutte le democrazie, anche a livello nazionale.
Fattore tempo: “l’Europa politica non è ancora matura, è un traguardo per le prossime generazioni”. No, il momento per arrivarci è adesso, l’edificio è già in buona parte costruito, si tratta di completarlo trasferendo al livello europeo quei comparti della sovranità che nominalmente sono ancora degli stati ma che questi non sono più in grado di esercitare in un mondo globale. La rapidità con la quale il mondo si trasforma rende urgente che l’Europa compia il cammino che ancora resta per raggiungere il traguardo. Il mondo del futuro va preparato oggi, domani per l’Europa sarebbe ormai troppo tardi.

Full text available at:

4th Annual LegArg 2012 Conference on Legal Theory, Legal Argumentation and Legal Philosophy

Dear colleague,

We are kindly inviting you to participate at the 4th Annual LegArg 2012 Conference on Legal Theory, Legal Argumentation and Legal Philosophy that is co-organized by the Graduate School of Government and European Studies and European Faculty of Law; and supported by the Slovenian Research Agency.

The conference will take place in Kranj (Slovenia) on November 9th and 10th 2012. The title of this year’s conference is “Natural Law in Postmodern Times”, but the theme of you contribution can fall under any of the below mentioned fields and topics:

-          legal theory;
-          legal argumentation;
-          approaches and dimensions of legal reasoning;
-          law and logic;
-          law, politics and democracy;
-          challenges of international and transnational law;
-          legal challenges of EU integration;
-          legal philosophy and political philosophy;
-          human rights;
-          ethics and law.

A conference taking a format of an international symposium will track the latest developments in the field of legal theory and legal philosophy and offer an insight into current developments and emerging debates.

As organizers we will be able to reimburse your accommodation costs in a hotel (up to 2 nights) and host you at a conference dinner, but you must secure the travel budget yourself. 

We would like to get your confirmation of participation as soon as possible, but no later than June 1st 2012.  The deadline for submitting a final title of the presentation and a short abstract is September 1st 2012. No written paper is required at this stage, but for those interested in having their contributions published, a special volume of Dignitas – The Slovenian Human Rights Journal will be dedicated to the conference presentations. 

Having received the abstracts, a detailed conference program will be prepared and notified to you. You shall also receive the guidelines for accommodation and arrival. For those arriving by plane, however, the most convenient airport to reach Kranj is the Airport of Ljubljana, but the Airport of Trieste, Venice and Treviso could be considered too.

If you have any further questions you are most welcome to address them to Ms. Kaja Godec, the administrative coordinator of the conference, at:

Yours sincerely,

the organizers

Matej Avbelj, Graduate School of Government and European Studies
Jernej Letnar Černič, Graduate School of Government and European Studies
Marko Novak, European Faculty of Law in Nova Gorica
Vojko Strahovnik, Graduate School of Government and European Studies

EURAC Federal Scholar in Residence Programme‏

Dear friends and colleagues,
we are pleased to inform you that the EURAC-Institute for Studies on Federalism and Regionalism has just launched the “EURAC Federal Scholar in Residence Programme”.
The winner of the programme is granted a research stay up to three weeks at the European Academy of Bolzano/Bozen (EURAC) in South Tyrol, Northern Italy.

To be considered eligible for the “2013 EURAC Federal Scholar in Residence Programme”, you are warmly invited to apply by 1st July 2012.

All detailed information is available at

Legitimacy, Global Governance and Human Rights Institutions: Inverting the Puzzle

Johan Karlsson Schaffer

University of Oslo - Norwegian Centre for Human Rights

March 1, 2012

In this chapter, I draw on recent scholarship on the alleged legitimacy deficits in global governance institutions, seeking to engage the notions of legitimacy this literature suggests with the intriguing case of international human rights institutions. First, I reconstruct how this literature views the problem of legitimacy in global governance, a view that relies on a particular notion of international institutions which both explains and justifies global governance institutions in terms of the collective goods they help states obtain. The puzzle of legitimacy, on this view, lies in offering citizens valid reasons to obey, support or abstain from interfering with global governance institutions – reasons that include certain procedural, epistemic and substantive elements, which together comprise a complex, hybrid standard of legitimacy.

Second, I explore to what extent this view of legitimacy problems in global governance institutions can be applied for analyzing corresponding legitimacy problems in international human rights institutions. Drawing on recent liberal international scholarship, I discuss the ways in which international human rights institutions constitute a different kind of political entity than typical global governance institutions. Uniquely, international human rights institutions do not help states obtain any joint benefits, but regulate the internal relation between a government and individuals under its jurisdiction, and, to the extent that they are effective, chiefly rely on domestic mechanisms of enforcement. This crucial difference between the two kinds of international institutions, in turn, changes the legitimacy puzzle involved. In the human rights area, the problem of legitimacy rarely entails offering citizens reasons why they should accept to bear the costs of international cooperation in light of the benefits it provides for states. Rather, the issue is why governments should accept their obligations under international human rights law, in light of the benefits human rights treaties provide for citizens. In the third section, I draw out the implications of this analysis for finding such reasons. While the complex, hybrid standards of legitimacy suggested for global governance institutions seem difficult to transpose to international human rights institutions, the discarded notion of state consent provides an essential component of legitimacy for the human rights area. Finally, I discuss whether the notion of international institutions discussed in the chapter may have implications beyond the human rights area.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: human rights instittuions, legitimacy, global governance, cosmopolitanism, functionalism

Full text available at: 

A Plural Account of the Transnational Law Merchant

Leon Trakman

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law

May 14, 2012

(2011) 2(3) Transnational Legal Theory 309–345
UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2012-19

The Law Merchant is depicted today as a transnational system based on merchant practice operating outside the fabric of national law. It is conceived as cosmopolitan in nature, universal in application, expertly delivered, and independent of other regulatory systems.

This article critiques these qualities attributed to the historical as well as present-day Law Merchant. It disputes that it has evolved ‘spontaneously’ out of merchant practice; that it is uniform in nature; and that it transcends national law. It argues instead that the Law Merchant is often fragmentary in nature and subject to disparate national and transnational influences. It challenges, in particular, unitary conceptions of ‘autonomy’ ascribed to the Law Merchant, presenting a pluralistic conception of Law Merchant ‘autonomy’ instead. It illustrates these arguments in relation to the so-called Cyberspace Law Merchant and to transnational commercial arbitration.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 38

The Character of EU Law and Governance: From ‘Community Method’ to New Modes of Governance

Kenneth Armstrong

Queen Mary University of London, School of Law

May 27, 2012

Current Legal Problems, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 179-214, 2011
Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 118/2012

The changing design of EU governance is often characterized as marking a departure from the ‘Community Method’ of governance and an arrival at a destination of ‘new modes of governance’. Nonetheless, scholars disagree as to the nature and scale of the governance changes taking place: whether they are minor deviations from a world of ‘hierarchy’ or whether they represent an emerging ‘experimentalist’ governance architecture. Moreover, changes in governance are not easily accommodated within legal discourse. For some, new modes of governance are a distraction from a more pervasive ‘legalism’. For others, differentiation in governance can be mapped on a scale of ‘legalization’. Yet, new modes of governance may be more challenging for law, either because they signify ‘de-legalization’ or a ‘transformation’ of law and governance. In exploring these different characterizations of EU law and governance the essay argues that what is emerging is a rich and complex mix of governance patterns and styles that poses challenges for law of greater or lesser extents. The yoking of different governance tools in a range of institutional designs results in more or less successful attempts to make the functional demands of governance meet the rival functional demands of law. 

The Constitutive Paradox of Modern Law: A Comment on Tully

Ruth Buchanan

Osgoode Hall Law School - York University


Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 46, p. 495, 2008

This commentary draws out and elaborates upon some of the more challenging aspects of Professor Tully’s sophisticated taxonomy of the relationship between modern constitutional forms and constituent powers. Tully’s article reveals the historical particularities of these formations, and at the same time encourages the reader to think beyond them, towards the potentially uncategorizable realm of democratic constitutionalism. Yet, how is it possible to use a taxonomy of modern constitutional democracy as a means of understanding what lies in the uncharted territory beyond? This commentary further explores to what extent this paradoxical modern configuration of constituent powers and constitutional forms may be connected to a paradox at the heart of modern law.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Keywords: Tully, power, taxonomy

Full text available at: 

A Constitution Like Any Other? Comparing the European Constitution with Nation State Constitutions

Stefan Voigt

University of Hamburg - Institute of Law & Economics; CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research)

May 27, 2012

The Treaty of Lisbon is analyzed as the constitution of the European Union drawing on the tools of constitutional economics. It is shown that (i) the increased number of policy areas to which the newly created ordinary legislation procedure will be applied is likely to lead to more legislation. (ii) The creation of a president of the European Council will not make the Union presidential. (iii) The subsidiarity principle in combination with the monitoring competence of the national parliaments is unlikely to create an important brake to ever more centralization. (iv) Since citizens’ initiatives do not have any formally binding effects, they are unlikely to have any such effects factually. (v) The Charter of Fundamental Rights gives the ECJ yet another tool to enhance its influence which it is expected to use. (vi) The possibility of exiting from the Union is unlikely to change much, as the Union could not have prevented any member state from exiting even before. (vii) The tremendous hurdles to explicitly change the constitution in combination with the large number of memberstates further re-enforce the influence of the ECJ. It is further discussed whether the allocation of competences can be said to have created a “new separation of powers."
Number of Pages in PDF File: 24
Keywords: Treaty of Lisbon, European Union, Constitutional Economics

Full text available at: 

Palombella on Global Legislation

Global Legislation and Its Discontents

Gianluigi Palombella

University of Parma - Faculty of Law

May 28, 2012

This paper deals with ‘legislation’ flourishing in the global sphere from a large number of sources, in the lack of a ‘central authority’ and of a unified system. Legal philosophy, international and constitutional law, legal sociology are focusing on the nature of the transformations of law and the multiplicity of levels of order. Current redefinitions of the notions of legality and validity as well as ambitious attempts at a global constitution deserve some scrutiny and have to cope with the very fact that legislation on the global sphere bears unprecedented features: being issued from deracinated sources, altering the scope and functions of legislation-as-we-knew-it, developing ‘managerial’ and regulatory modes, reversing the distinction vis à vis 'administration', electing functional rationalities with 'limited responsibility', loosing connection to the comprehensive well being of social communities. Despite devices of accountability focused upon by ‘global administrative law’ scholars, ‘global’ legislation remains a source of discontents.

Eventually, the promises of legal form and the ideal of the rule of law are at stake in keeping alive the distinction between global decision making and universalizability. The future of global legislation (as well as its legitimacy) shall depend not only on shared criteria of legality in a number of rule-generative processes, but also on how they shall interfere against each other or against the autonomy of less-than-global orders: that is, on the justice-related, legal quality of the relationships between the plurality of orders.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 20
Keywords: legality, validity, global governance, legitimacy, pluralism, justice, global constitutionalism, legal theory, international law, constitutional law, global law

Full text available at: 

Davic on European Democracy

Caveats from Karlsruhe and Berlin: Whither Democracy after Lisbon?

Davor Jancic

University of Utrecht - Faculty of Law

May, 30 2012

Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2010

This Article analyzes the evolution of the reasoning about E.U. democracy that the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has been shaping starting with the Solange I and II, Maastricht, and European Arrest Warrant cases and culminating with the Lisbon Treaty case. The BVerfG’s reasoning has often taken the form of caveats, whereby the BVerfG ‘warned’ the European Union of its assessments of the state of democracy in the Union. This Article argues that the BVerfG’s view of the primary source of the Union’s democratic legitimacy has gradually shifted away from the European towards the German Parliament. Never before has the BVerfG highlighted the role of national parliaments in buttressing E.U. democracy with such clarity. In what can be called ‘democracy solange’, the BVerfG ruled that as long as the European Union is an association of sovereign states, two consequences ensue; the democratic legitimacy provided by national parliaments and governments, and complemented by the European Parliament, is sufficient; and E.U. democracy cannot and need not be shaped in analogy to that of a state. As a corollary, the German system of parliamentary involvement in E.U. affairs has significantly been overhauled to enhance the legal position of the German Parliament vis-à-vis the Federal Government. The initial academic reactions to the BVerfG’s Lisbon judgment have failed to credit the BVerfG’s role in this important development.