Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Function of the European court of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Function of the European court of justice
Member state governments of the European Community began with a fundamental role in making EC policies and standards; but throughout the 1960s and 1970s the European Court of Justice gradually began to expand its role and developed an unprecedented regime comparable to the constitutional order of a federal state. The ECJ permitted itself to decide on matters traditionally considered to be the exclusive competence of member states; including social policy, gender equality and competition policy. Remarkably, the majority of national courts and governments of the member states have conformed to ECJ rulings and have harmoniously surrendered their jurisdiction over key policy areas – deferring to the ECJ’s authority. Consequently, the member states have struggled to enjoy international legal latitude of compliance in their relationship with the ECJ and commentators such as Weiler J.A have labelled the process a “quiet revolution. ”
It is necessary to address the means and opportunities the Court of Justice employed in order to inaugurate itself as a superior court to that of the members’. In pursuance of this objective, it should be borne in mind whether member states desired ECJ supremacy and thus voluntarily handed the ECJ their competences; or whether a “competence creep” materialised, gradually increasing the superiority of the ECJ. The answer is not easily deciphered; ample EU scholars have proposed explanations for the apparent gift of superiority. ‘Neo-functionalists’ notably argue that the early choice of national governments to place determined areas within the power of European institutions produced pressure to extend the powers of these institutions to further policy areas. The phrase ‘functional spill-over’ was coined by ...
... middle of paper ...
...man, and Heiner Schulz. 1998. The European Court of Justice,
National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization 52 (1):292
Neill Nugent. 2006. The Government and Politics of the European Union, Sixth Edition. Durham:
Duke University Press: 292.
Nugent [2006] 291
Weiler, J.A. (1994) ‘A Quiet Revolution: The European Court of Justice and its Interlocutors’
Mark A. Pollack. 2005. Theorizing EU Policy-Making. In Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th edition, edited by Helen Wallace, William Wallace, and Mark A. Pollack. Oxford: Oxford University
Press: 15.
Andrew Moravscik. April 2005. The European Constitutional Compromise and the Neofunctionalist
Legacy. Journal of European Public Policy 12 (2): 350.
Martha Finnemore. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 5.
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
Simmonds C., ‘Paramountcy and the ECHR: a conflict resolved? [2012] Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 71 Issue 3, 498-201
However, it is important to realize that in the absence of a codified constitution, there is no formal separation of powers. The functions of legislature and executive are inter-related and ministers are members of both. Overlaps do occur, which can question its effectiveness in protecting the rule of law. Unlike US, in the UK, the PM is always the leader of the leading party, which makes scrutiny much harder and makes the likelihood of exploitation of powers more likely. Parliament is always a supreme legislating body, and British judges have no power to question the validity of the Acts of Parliament. The impact of the EU, especially in protecting the basic human rights due to the absence of the UK’s equivalent, and in this sense, the separation of powers doesn’t play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law subject to the interests of minorities.
A Democratic Deficit in the EU The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual polities can draw.
Tiilikainen, T. 2011. The empowered European Parliament: Accommodation to the new functions provided by the Lisbon Treaty. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
The work of the ECJ developed not just a new legal order but also assisted in the EC's resurgence during the 1980s. (Dinan 2000: p301)
The European Union stands on the threshold of unparalleled change over the coming years. The next waves of enlargement will be unprecedented in nature and continental in scale. This process has gained so much political momentum that it is now irreversible.
Europe has a history of war and conflict that predates living memory and the idea of a united Europe is something that appears repeatedly in that history. Hitler, Napoleon, and the many Roman Emperors all sought a united Europe. Their quests although in many ways motivated by a horrifying desire for power sparked the minds of philosophers and other political thinkers to imagine Europe united in harmony and peace despite national differences. Today we have the European Union which is quite unique. After the horrors, bloodshed, and economic disaster of the twentieth century, in a desire for peace and harmony and economic and political prosperity twenty-seven states have limited their national sovereignty.2 With national interests and ambition still in mind these countries see the European Union and supranational governance and the benefits of peace and prosperity therein as something worthwhile. However, in the history of European integration there has been much conflict and Euroskepticism. Some see unity in diversity and diversity in unity as impossible, and the existence of differentiation in the EU as highly problematic. However, differentiation in the European Union’s integration process is not the hindrance it is often defined as, rather it creates further cooperation in Europe bringing the European Union closer to its objectives of peace, and economic and political growth, resulting in a more effective and efficient bureaucracy. Differentiation in the EU’s integration process has created more successful integration as it allows the nations who wish t...
It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society.
Forgue, D.G., Kehoskie, N.S. 2007. ‘Enlargement Fatigue in the European Union’. International Law News. Vol 36 (2). Spring 2007. Pp 1-2.
Members of The United Nations have a duty “to maintain international peace…in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.”[1] China, a core member of the United Nations since its formation in 1945, fails to comply with international human rights’ norms set forth by The United Nations Charter. This failure is noticeably prevalent in the practices of the Chinese Legal System. Its judicial proceedings in handling peaceful, political dissenters fail to provide the minimum protection of human rights guaranteed to all through international law. By examining accounts of Tibetans detained for such peaceful protests, this paper will set out to highlight the discrepancies between Chinese enforcement of international law in theory and in practice. Before this paper goes any further, the notion of international law must be explained. Providing a better understanding of international law will make easier the task of highlighting China’s struggles with enforcing such standards.
The lack of automatic international compulsory jurisdiction renders ICJ inferior. Therefore the argument that referring to this court as the ‘World Court’ implies it is superior; an international equivalent of a national supreme court is null and void. Generally a supreme court is the highest ranking court. Its ruling is not subject to further review and therefore the disputing parties ha...
Because it could be quite complicated to look at the EU model from a point of classical democratic nation-state, it seems to be reasonable to discuss this problem, not by abstract reasoning, but by focusing on a concrete case. European Union is the best case available, which in recent decades has developed into a new type of political system with enormous consequences on democracy and governance in its member states. Despite repeated attempts for major institutional reforms, this system is likely to persist in its basic structures for the future and is unlikely to develop into a federal state or to disintegrate into a classic international organization. The present state of democracy and governance in the EU is therefore worth to be analyzed, as it is not a mere transitory state.
States are left with a wide discretion, limited only by prohibitive rules and wherein no such prohibitive rules exist, States have the freedom to adopt the principles that it regards as best and most suitable. The ICJ effectively held that acts or omissions that are not prohibited under international law are