To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The question of exactly who benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of which range of persons and bodies should be recognised as legally competent to enforce any given provision of Union law before the national courts, is surprisingly murky. This lack of clarity is due partly to the inherent complexity of the question, as well as to the complication posed by the interdependent relationship between the Union and national legal orders. The confusing approach adopted by the Court of Justice compounds the matter. This chapter discusses some observations on why this is a question which poses particular policy challenges for the Union legal order, before going on to summarise the relevant tools employed by the Court of Justice when addressing issues about the decentralised enforcement of Union law by private and public actors. It is argued that, despite the apparent confusion, it is possible to construct a workable division of labour between the role of Union law in defining its own protective scope (on the one hand) and the discretion of each Member State over access to the courts for the enforcement of Union law (on the other hand). A detailed analysis of the case law is conducted in order to identity the weakest links in the system, or at least those which suffer from the greatest degree of doctrinal and conceptual neglect. The question of who exactly benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of enjoying rights of standing to enforce Union law before the national courts, presents both surprisingly difficult challenges and promising research issues for the future.
The development of a “Community remedial competence” has become the subject of increasing academic analysis, and a burgeoning source of litigation by traders dissatisfied with the levels of judicial protection offered by domestic rules of the Member States. Such litigants are anxious to invoke principles of Community law to support their claims as these principles can, in theory, prescribe more effective means of redress.
This article is concerned with the legal position of Community nationals who move to another Member State in search of employment. Section II will summarise the traditional legal status of the workseeker viewed as an economic factor of production. Section III will explore the new legal status of the workseeker viewed as a citizen of the European Union. Section IV will offer some brief comments on the Commission’s 2001 proposal for an umbrella directive on free movement for Union citizens, and its implications for the migrant workseeker. It will be argued, through this analysis, that the institution of Union citizenship, so often criticised for its ‘us and them’ mentality in the treatment of third country nationals, is equally characterised by a ‘haves and have-nots’ approach to its own members—thus presenting a model which (albeit for perhaps understandable pragmatic reasons) is not necessarily in the best interests of maximising economic efficiency within the Common Market, places limits on certain of the political aspirations vested in the process of European integration, and questions the depth or at least the methodology of the Community’s stated commitment to attaining high levels of social protection.
The UK's decision to leave the European Union marks a fundamental reorientation in UK law and policy: both internally, when it comes to the structures, processes and outputs of our own domestic legal systems; and externally, as regards the UK's place in and relations with the broader European and international legal orders. Many of those who heartily championed and/or supported the ‘Brexit’ cause seem to have harboured only a limited comprehension of the scale and profundity of the changes they worked so hard to initiate. Many others positively delight in the prospect of being able, fundamentally, to rewrite the country's future direction, yet evince a comparable lack of understanding about the internal and external factors that will actually shape and constrain their grand revolutionary visions. This book seeks to offer its readers – be they students and postgraduate researchers, fellow academics and practitioners, policy-makers and NGOs, or indeed the interested public in the UK and abroad – a more informed and realistic basis upon which to understand the nature and importance of the challenges now facing the UK.
It goes almost without saying: this collection of essays is not intended to be either definitive or exhaustive of the legal and policy issues raised by the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The sheer range of fields which will be affected, combined with the general state of uncertainty about how events might now unfold, would militate against any such ambition. Instead, our aim is to highlight some of the key challenges which are likely to arise in selected areas of the UK legal system – thus providing a reference point for future discussion as the situation continues to develop, while also helping to identify parallel issues potentially affecting other policy sectors.
The essays are grouped into three main sections. Part I deals with some of the key constitutional issues arising from UK withdrawal.
The UK after Brexit is the result of a cooperation between a group of leading academics from top institutions in the UK and beyond. It offers students, practitioners and scholars an authoritative, informative and thought-provoking series of analyses of some of the key challenges facing the UK legal system in and through the process of 'de-Europeanisation' - that is, in and through 'Brexit'. It provides discursive exploration of key issues and themes for reflection and debate within multiple areas of law, broadly divided into three main areas of interest: - constitutional concerns such as the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the relevance of devolution, and the impact on the courts; - substantive topics including employment law, environmental law, financial services, intellectual property, and criminal cooperation; and - issues regarding the UK's external relations, for example its relations with the EU, membership of the World Trade Organization, ingredients for creating UK trade policy and bilateral investment policy, and international security (the UN, NATO and more). The structure of this work is specifically designed to offer the clearest presentation of these analyses and constitute a critical, comprehensive resource on the effects of de-Europeanisation on the UK legal system. These analyses will remain relevant over time – not only as the withdrawal process unfolds, but well into the future as the UK reorientates its legal system to new internal and external realities with contributions by Professor Catherine Barnard (University of Cambridge), Dr Aleksandra Cavoski (University of Birmingham), Professor Paul Craig (University of Oxford), Professor Marise Cremona (European University Institute), Professor Michael Dougan (University of Liverpool), Dr Michael Gordon (University of Liverpool), Professor Christian Henderson (University of Sussex), Dr Veerle Heyvaert (London School of Economics), Dr Thomas Horsley (University of Liverpool), Dr Joanne Hunt (Cardiff University), Dr Luke McDonagh (City University of London), Dr Gregory Messenger (University of Liverpool), Dr Marc Mimler (Bournemouth University), Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas (Queen Mary University of London), Professor Niamh Moloney (London School of Economics), Dr Stephanie Reynolds (University of Liverpool) and Dr Mavluda Sattorova (University of Liverpool). Michael Dougan is Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law at the University of Liverpool. He is an established academic authority on EU constitutional law and Joint Editor of Common Market Law Review—the world's leading scientific journal for European legal studies. Michael's work has also contributed to wider public and political debates about European law. For example, he has provided written evidence to numerous Parliamentary enquiries, appeared as an expert witness before various Parliamentary committees in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and provided external advice to a range of Government departments and Union institutions. Michael's public engagement activities, including videos of his lectures on the EU referendum, received extensive media attention in the run-up to the 'Brexit' referendum and he continues to be a popular authority on the matter for individuals and groups all around the world.
Of all the regions of the United Kingdom, it is widely believed that Northern Ireland is likely to be most deeply affected by withdrawal from the European Union – notwithstanding the fact that 56 per cent of the electorate there who voted on 23 June 2016 expressed their desire to remain. Equally, of all remaining Member States of the EU itself, it is widely accepted that the Republic of Ireland will be most deeply affected by the departure of the United Kingdom – even though the Republic's population obviously had no direct say in the UK referendum. Indeed, as the House of Lords has observed: the whole network of tripartite relations, running north and south, east and west, that link together both past and future relations between the Republic, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK now face significant challenges.
To be fair, the salience of certain issues has perhaps been exaggerated: for example, it is difficult to see how UK withdrawal from the EU could, simply in and of itself, amount to a breach of either the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement or the British-Irish Agreement. Nevertheless, the causes for legitimate concern remain myriad: one need only consider the particular vulnerability of crossborder trade, supply chains and labour forces to the impact of imminent UK departure from the single market; the relative dependence of Northern Ireland's agricultural sector upon EU funding and indeed of its economy as a whole upon public sector employment; and the threats to maintaining strong cooperation in fields ranging from security to healthcare and energy supply. The ultimate concern is that the cumulative effects of economic uncertainty and instability, fundamental changes to the longstanding constitutional framework which has underpinned the peace process, and the potential for one or both of the main communities to feel that important aspects of their identity are under pressure, will render even more difficult the task of securing political stability and promoting social cohesion.
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. Emergence of AMR occurs naturally, but can also be selected for by antimicrobial exposure in clinical and veterinary medicine. Despite growing worldwide attention to AMR, there are substantial limitations in our understanding of the burden, distribution and determinants of AMR at the population level. We highlight the importance of population-based approaches to assess the association between antimicrobial use and AMR in humans and animals. Such approaches are needed to improve our understanding of the development and spread of AMR in order to inform strategies for the prevention, detection and management of AMR, and to support the sustainable use of antimicrobials in healthcare.
EU Law – Member State liability in damages – Issues of protective scope about exactly which individuals/interests are protected – Conditions for Member State liability – Intention to confer rights criterion – Tendency towards a ‘checklist’ approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union – Potential implications for scope of Member State liability – Finding appropriate balance between protecting individuals and punishing public bodies – Example of free movement rights – Example of environmental legislation – Example of employment legislation
In 2003, a National Electrostatics Corporation (NEC) 5MV tandem accelerator mass spectrometer was installed at SUERC, providing the radiocarbon laboratory with 14C measurements to 4–5‰ repeatability. In 2007, a 250kV single-stage accelerator mass spectrometer (SSAMS) was added to provide additional 14C capability and is now the preferred system for 14C analysis. Changes to the technology and to our operations are evident in our copious quality assurance data: typically, we now use the 134-position MC-SNICS source, which is filled to capacity. Measurement of standards shows that spectrometer running without the complication of on-line δ13C evaluation is a good operational compromise. Currently, 3‰ 14C/13C measurements are routinely achieved for samples up to nearly 3 half-lives old by consistent sample preparation and an automated data acquisition algorithm with sample random access for measurement repeats. Background and known-age standard data are presented for the period 2003–2008 for the 5MV system and 2007–2008 for the SSAMS, to demonstrate the improvements in data quality.