European and International Law

The story of European Integration has often been told as that of an 'ever closer union'. This narrative has rightly attracted criticism over the years. However, it is worth exploring through which practices this 'ever closer union' is pursued, because these practices go to the heart of what the European Union is. Existing concepts used to interpret cooperation in the European Union, like harmonization, are unfulfilling, as they are used in different ways depending on the field in which they are applied. Currently, common ground and conceptual clarity are lacking. In an attempt to provide the kind of simplicity that facilitates cross-disciplinary analysis, we introduce the concept of aligning rulesets, a fivelevel framework for studying international cooperation (differentiating between (1) full alignment, (2) methods-based alignment, (3) ends-based alignment, (4) principles-based alignment and (5) no alignment). After introducing our framework, we demonstrate its applicability in the domains of statistical measurement, the responsibility for asylum applications, and the COVID-19 vaccine purchasing policy.

One of the most important goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development concerns life on land (SDG15). It seems that among the issues mentioned in SDG15, soil degradation and preservation is the matter which is least studied in theory and most neglected in practice. “Soil is the key to life on this planet – the foundation for all terrestrial ecosystems”. For centuries, soil has mainly been seen as a source of goods. However, with the increasing human impact on the environment, the close links between soil and a number of environmental issues, such as sustainability, climate change, and loss of soil organic matter and nutrients, have been recognized. All soil functions depend on its physical, chemical and biological properties. They determine the quality of the soil. This in turn guarantees whether or not the soil can provide its services.

Introduction and overview of the Research Handbook on General Principles in EU Law: Constructing Legal Orders in Europe (eds Katja S, Ziegler, Päivi J. Neuvonen and Violeta Moreno-Lax, Edward Elgar, forthcoming 2022).

This innovative Research Handbook explores the judicial and scholarly approaches to, and theories surrounding, general principles in the EU legal order against the backdrop of considerable uncertainty about the concept. It does so by analysing a diverse range of general principles in discrete areas of EU law (‘zooming in’) and from external, wider perspectives on the notion of a general principle of law in international law, comparative law, and legal theory (‘zooming out’).

Rather than arguing for a single closed definition of what a general principle of law in the EU legal order must look like, this Research Handbook identifies conceptual, theoretical, and legal parameters within which the doctrine of general principles can be meaningfully discussed and contested in EU law. The different analytical layers built into this Handbook shed light on whether general principles are defined by the different contexts in which they apply; whether general principles are in practice leading to more coherence between different areas of EU law; and what challenges they create for the EU legal order. Chapters thus help to contribute to a more refined methodological and doctrinal understanding of general principles in the EU legal order.

Opening up new spaces to critically reflect on the concept, role, significance, and limitations of general principles, the Research Handbook on General Principles in EU Law will be a key resource for scholars and students of European law, politics, and theory of integration and internationalisation.

After the Second World War, human rights moved away from the margins and became an important aspect of international law. This new paradigm was based on human person at the centre of international human rights law. That is, instead of the state-centric Westphalian system, international human rights law is based on the human person as the source and end of law. Human rights instruments are created, interpreted and applied taking into account the human person. This pro homine framework flows from human rights instruments and was created by states themselves. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man established this pro homine framework, which was later crystalized by following international treaties and strengthened by decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice.

The first edition of this Research Handbook offers unparalleled insights into the large-scale resurgence of interest in Marx and Marxism in recent years, with contributions devoted specifically to Marxist critiques of law, rights, and the state.

The Research Handbook brings together thirty-three scholars of Marx, Marxism, and law from around the world to offer theoretically informed introductions to the Marxist tradition of social critique, contemporary Marxist analyses of law and rights, and future orientations of Marxist legal analysis. Chapters testify to the strength of Marxist critical tools for understanding the role of law, rights, and the state in capitalist societies.

Exploring Marxist critique across an extraordinarily wide range of scholarly disciplines, this Research Handbook is a must-read for scholars of law, politics, sociology, philosophy, and political economy who are interested in Marxism. Graduate and advanced undergraduate students in these and related disciplines will also benefit from the Research Handbook.

The volume is edited by Paul O'Connell (Reader in Law, SOAS, University of London) and Umut Özsu (Associate Professor of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University).

Contributors include Max Ajl (Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Social Sciences, Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University & Research), Rémi Bachand (Professor of Law, Université du Québec à Montréal), Miriam Bak McKenna (Lecturer in Law, Lund University), Clyde W. Barrow (Professor of Political Science, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley), Enzo Bello (Associate Professor, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro), Bill Bowring (Professor of Law, Birkbeck, University of London), Honor Brabazon (Assistant Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies, St. Jerome’s University in the University of Waterloo), Gustavo Capela (PhD Candidate in Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley), Cosmin Sebastian Cercel (Associate Professor of Law, University of Nottingham), B. S. Chimni (Distinguished Professor of International Law, OP Jindal Global University), Pablo Ciocchini (Lecturer in Criminology, University of Liverpool), Natalia Delgado (Lecturer in Law, University of Southampton), Matthew Dimick (Professor of Law, University of Buffalo), Radha D’Souza (Reader in Law, University of Westminster), Michael Head (Professor of Law, Western Sydney University), Nate Holdren (Associate Professor of Law, Politics, and Society, Drake University), Rob Hunter (Independent Scholar, PhD in Politics, Princeton University), Talina Hürzeler (Independent Scholar, LLB, University of New South Wales), Bob Jessop (Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Lancaster), Rene José Keller (Independent Scholar, PhD in Law, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, and PhD in Social Work, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul), Rafael Khachaturian (Lecturer in Critical Writing, University of Pennsylvania), Stéfanie Khoury (Independent Scholar, PhD in Sociology of Law, Università degli Studi di Milano and Universidad del País Vasco), Dimitrios Kivotidis (Lecturer in Law, University of East London), Daniel McLoughlin (Senior Lecturer in Law, Society, and Criminology, University of New South Wales), Eva Nanopoulos (Senior Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary, University of London), August H. Nimtz (Professor of Political Science and African American and African Studies, University of Minnesota), Paul O’Connell (Reader in Law, SOAS, University of London), Chris O’Kane (Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley), Rebecca Schein (Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Carleton University), Igor Shoikhedbrod (Assistant Professor of Political Science and Law, Justice, and Society, Dalhousie University), Nimer Sultany (Reader in Law, SOAS, University of London), Christine Sypnowich (Professor of Philosophy, Queen’s University), and Ahmed White (Professor of Law, University of Colorado at Boulder).

The G. and R. case came as a surprise to immigration lawyers in the context of the EU Returns Directive. The Court of Justice found that the failure to hear a third-country national in the course of proceedings relating to an extension of the pre-removal detention period, does not automatically lead to the release of that person. According to the Court, where the extension of a detention measure has been decided in an administrative procedure in breach of the right to be heard, a national judge may order the release only if the infringement deprived the TCN concerned of the possibility of arguing his defence better, to the extent that the outcome of that administrative procedure could have been different. How is this possible? In fact, the ECJ extended its classic case law on the consequences of the infringement of the right to be heard by European institutions in the field of the internal market (in particular competition) law to immigration detention. This extension raises several questions, most importantly on the extent of the procedural autonomy of Member States in administrative detention procedures under the Returns Directive. Therefore, in our paper, we focus, first, on this issue, on which the Court and the Advocate General disagreed. Second, we critically examine the reasoning of the Court in extending its case law on the right to be heard on the basis of the “effet utile” of the Returns Directive.