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.
This chapter introduces the mechanisms of deliberate or coincidental 'othering' of immigrants through law and the application of law. It starts by introducing what 'othering' means and then transplants the findings into the context of legislation and law. The chapter emphasizes the systemic 'otherness' of immigrants in a legal system defined by the nation state. Citizens are per definition in the in-group, whereas foreigners are per definition in the out-group. The chapter also addresses how the differentiation between foreigner and citizen is more complicated in the EU with its EU citizenship and free-movement rights. The chapter addresses the role of law as an amplifier of 'otherness' or as a tool for the inclusion of immigrants.
Stuck between politics of ethnic nationalism and multiple responsibilities under international legal regimes, Bulgaria has introduced a laissez-passer integration model for refugees which is in stark contrast with integration policies in Western Europe, but ironically achieves similar results of 'othering' and exclusion. The reception of asylum-seekers and refugees has been similar in other Central and Eastern Europen countries, if not more problematic. This paper looks at the reasons for the preference for such an approach and claims that ethnic nationalism is still alive, albeit well disguised. Engaging with theories of 'othering' and 'otherness' from a historico-legal perspective, it aims to illustrate that, despite insurmountable differences between East and West, the increased mixed migratory flows of 2015 onwards have paradoxically contributed to more cohesion in response to migration and integration on a European level.
The EU has spearheaded innovative legislation in 2019 to promote the financing of economic activities to tackle climate change. But the social aspects of tackling climate and environmental problems have received inadequate attention in the legislation. This has resulted in inconsistent legal definitions and unelaborated processes to ensure all economic and climate tackling activities are socially sustainable. In many cases climate changing activities have resulted from, or been combined with, breaching social and human rights. Providing opportunities to citizens and communities to (financially) redress environmental problems is important for a just transition. An integrated approach whereby ESG risks and long term impacts are integrated in all banking and investment decision-making should be urgently taken up by the Commission. Building on existing international standards, voluntary codes and expertise in the EU’s social sector would help to meet the existing challenges. Such EU policy should also be integrated in the EU’s international trade and investment treaties that create the competition from financial players outside the EU which might not integrate an ESG approach.
Part of the book's background chapters on the ECtHR's engagement in Turkey's Kurdish conflict, Chapter 2 seeks answers to the following puzzle: How is it that Turkey remains an authoritarian regime despite havig been part of the post-World War II international liberal democratic order? Arguing that the answer lies in the country's political history and sociological reality, it traces Turkey’s post-war tumultuous experience with electoral democracy, constitutionalism, human rights and minority protection against the backdrop of its engagement with international and European institutions, including the European Union and the Council of Europe. It argues that Turkey’s transition to polyarchy in 1950 has never translated into democratisation, which cannot be solely explained by frequent military interventions. Rather, authoritarianism has survived in Turkey due to unique social and political factors, including sustained electoral support for anti-democratic laws and policies, a tradition of a strong state immune to the internal checks of liberal democracy and the absence of a democratic culture.
This chapter discusses the scope of the right to free elections in the Convention. It explores how this is largely limited to legislatures but there are debates about the application to presidential elections and referendums. The chapters includes a discussion on globalisation and the development of the free elections case law in respect of the European Parliament.
Sustainable development provisions have become an integral part of the European Union's (EU's) ‘new generation’ trade agreements. Yet, a growing number of empirical works show that their design varies significantly, even in the trade agreements signed with countries at similar (low) levels of development. We contend that this variation can be accounted for by discussing how the growing integration of the EU economy with specific developing countries across global value chains (GVCs) affects the domestic politics of regulatory export in the EU. European firms that operate within GVCs rely on imports of inputs produced in low-labor cost countries. These firms tend to oppose the export of those regulatory burdens that generate an increase in their imports' variable costs. The political mobilization of these actors weakens domestic coalitions supporting regulatory export strategies, which explains why the EU adopts a more lenient approach over the inclusion of sustainable development provisions in Preferential Trade Agreement negotiations with some developing countries.
Federalism and the associated multi-level polity-structure have been frequently blamed for delaying the implementation of European Union (EU) directives. However, this verdict is incomplete as only a few studies open the “black box” of federalism to analyse the involvement of subnational parliaments and executives or second chambers in policy implementation. This article fills this gap and explains the transposition delay on the level of each individual implementation measure. Our novel data set covers about 850 directives and the corresponding 1,950 implementation measures between 1990 and 2018 in Germany. Using logistic regression models, we find that involving the subnational authorities substantially delays transposition. Subnational measures are three times more likely to be delayed than national ones. The effect of the veto power of a second chamber remains inconclusive. Our findings highlight the challenges federalism poses for the multi-level implementation of EU policies and have implications for the broader literature on compliance with public policies.
This chapter assesses whether the EU’s recent empowerment to conclude international investment agreements has made these agreements more development-friendly. Focusing on the EU’s choice of partner countries, substantive protection and treatment provisions as well as procedural provisions on investor-to-state dispute settlement, the chapter finds that the EU’s international investment agreements (IIAs) have indeed become more development-friendly in comparison to the international investment agreements of EU member states. They strengthen state interests vis-à-vis investor interests. The chapter tests whether these policy changes are due to European law obligations applying to EU international investment agreements, increased politicisation of IIA policy-making in the context of EU’s Common Commercial Policy, or the aggregation of diverse member state preferences into a common European approach. It finds that politicisation and aggregation of member state preferences primarily fuelled policy changes while legal obligations played no significant role. From a theoretical perspective, the chapter lends support to rational choice institutionalism, which suggest that institutional changes affect policy substance.
After September 1992, there remained considerable uncertainty about the longer-term possibility of the UK eventually joining the Eurozone, a prospect that few liked, but equally almost no policy-maker wanted to rule out definitively. There thus remained a substantial ambiguity in the question of the UK’s relation to the giant monetary experiment of the European Union. The Bank started to think about exporting its new policy framework, based on an inflation target, as a superior model, also for European monetary management.
Cybersecurity in the financial sector is a dynamic and evolving policy field with unique challenges and specific characteristics. While it has recently received a lot of attention from disciplines like Economics and Politics, legal literature on this topic, especially with regard to EU law, still lags behind. This is surprising, given that cybersecurity in the EU is characterized by complex governance structures, a variety of legal sources, and a wide range of different rule makers and involved actors, and given that only a clear legal framework with efficient institutions at both EU and Member State level can provide for a safe digital environment. The purpose of this Article, therefore, is twofold: On the one hand, it aims to introduce the legal aspects of cybersecurity in the financial sector while taking stock of existing cybersecurity schemes, including their strengths and weaknesses from a legal perspective. On the other hand, it will set out key elements that cybersecurity regulation in the financial sector must respect in order to be effective and come up with reform proposals to make the EU financial sector more cybersecure.
Cereals and cereal products have a long history of use by humans. Recently, there have been some discussions regarding level of processing as a descriptor to define food products, including cereal-based foods. This has led to a somewhat emotional debate on food processing. Given the widespread inclusion of cereals in the diet, this review highlights the history of cereal processing as well as their consumption by humans. It provides an evidence-based discussion on their production, contribution to human nutrition, benefits and disadvantages. The present review illustrates the impact of processing on nutrients, as well as non-nutrients specifically in bread and ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (RTEC), two cereal-based foods which are widely consumed and integral parts of food-based dietary guidelines globally. As a category, most cereals must be processed in some way to enable consumption by humans as we are not equipped to survive exclusively on raw grains. Even thousands of years ago, the processing of cereals was a common practice by humans, turning raw grains into palatable, safe and nutritious foods. Modern processes for cereal-based products are efficient in providing safe and good-quality products to satisfy population needs, as well as helping to meet consumer expectations by providing a range of foods that allows for a varied and balanced diet. Today, RTEC and bread make significant contributions to dietary energy and nutrient requirements and underpin food-based dietary guidance globally. They have been positively linked with intake of dietary fibre, vitamins and minerals, especially when consumed as whole grain.
In this comment, and drawing on the papers in the special issue, we ask: what are the core questions for the future of research into health law and policy, and European health law and policy more specifically? We first sketch the general functions and values of health law and policy. We then outline how these functions and values are affected by globalisation and Europeanisation, on the one hand, and technological change and digitalisation, on the other. In light of these developments we carve out some questions for future research and the implications of this agenda for the academic community that is working on European health law and policy.
This chapter provides an introduction to preferential trade agreements or regional trade agreements. It considers trade creation and trade diversion within a supply and demand framework of PTAs. It then summarizes the examples of the European Union, NAFTA, Mercosur, ASEAN and its AFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Chapter 1 describes the path that brought to the current European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). In contrast to a common tradition and culture, based on largely similar philosophical and religious foundations, Europe has a history of fierce opposition and wars among national states that culminated in World War II. An important impulse to some kind of European cooperation came exactly from the attempt to counter this tradition of conflicts, even if the past was still weighing. This largely explains the long process through which European institutions have reached their current state as well as their “incompleteness.” The cooperation evolved from the European Coal and Steel Community (1951), having a limited coverage, but active inter-country coordination and cooperation and limits to free market, to the European Economic Community (1957), with a larger coverage, but a free-market orientation in all fields. This partially changed with the Maastricht Treaty (originating the European Union(EU) and the EMU), with the introduction of common monetary policy and some constraints on national fiscal policies (1992). The former now gathers 28 countries. The latter had only 11 members when it started in 1999 and has now enlarged to 19.
This article seeks to enhance our understanding of the European Parliament (EP) elections in an era of populist and anti-European Union (EU) politics. Specifically, it aims to evaluate both the conventional second-order elections theory as well as an alternative approach that regards EP elections as an arena for conflict between liberal-democratic Europeanism and populist, extremist and euroskeptic alternatives. It does so by deriving a series of hypotheses from both approaches and testing these with party-level data from all EU member states in the context of 2019 EP elections. Our results challenge both explanations. Party size is a robust predictor of electoral performance in EP elections, and its effect is moderated by electoral system design. While large parties lost votes across the EU, their losses were more pronounced in countries where national legislatures are elected under plurality or mixed systems. We find no evidence of incumbent losses or electoral cycle effects. Party-level populism, extremism and euroskepticism did not systematically predict electoral performance but party ideology appears to have moderated the effects of incumbency and party size. Incumbency was associated with vote gain among populist and far-right parties but not other parties, and the effect of size also varied across party ideologies. In sum, these results suggest that vote fragmentation in the 2019 EP elections is partly explained by electoral system design, while it was not driven by the desire to punish political incumbents. Populist and far-right parties in power appear to be particularly immune to punishing behavior often associated with EP elections.
The relevance of the European Union (EU) for health has been widely recognised within the health community for some time, and is increasingly apparent to European policy-makers and publics. Despite being an area of policy that national governments would prefer to keep exclusive control of, and though in the past it has rarely been at the top of the agenda, many elements of health have been gradually ‘Europeanised’. This special issue marks the culmination of a British Academy-funded project – EU Health Law and Policy: Shaping a Future Research Agenda – which sought to build on the growing web of expertise in this field and reflect upon the future of health as an EU competence, at a time when it appeared to be under threat.
Over the last three decades, a system of European Union mental health governance (EUMHG) emerged, via instruments including strategies for action, joint actions, pacts and high-level expert groups. It sponsored multiple projects, initiatives and research, and involved state, non-state and European institutional actors. This paper attempts to understand how EUMHG operated and the structure of political relations within it, attending especially to opportunities for citizen participation. It adopts a global governmentality approach that focuses on practices and discourses. It finds that EUMHG practices including benchmarks, best practices and risk-thinking reinforced larger EU policy goals of market-optimisation, and that the central discourses of de-institutionalisation (DI) and community mental health (CMH) shifted meaning over time, first apprehending mental health as a public-health goal, then targeting mental ill-health as a burden to states. Finally, it finds that non-governmental organisations' (NGOs) work within EUMHG rendered them both objects and subjects of government. Through these dynamics, citizens usually were positioned outside governance, and NGO identities were altered, though CMH's transformative potential remained. Citizen participation in EUMHG was heavily conditioned. NGO and citizen power will need vigilant protection in any future EUMHG.
The prevention of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been a flagship of the EU's health policy since the early 2000s, leading the European Commission to mandate three European agencies to cooperate in the fight against AMR: EMA (the European Medicines Agency), ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) and EFSA (the European Food Safety Agency). This article is at the intersection of EU health policy and the burgeoning scholarship on bureaucratic reputation. Little is known on the role played by reputational incentives on inter-agency cooperation. This empirical work supports the claim that cooperation creates incentives for agencies to protect their reputational uniqueness vis-à-vis each other. However, rather than threatening their cooperation, it amounts to a process of sense-making of their respective roles in the integrated fight against AMR. Evidence is generated through the agencies' textual sources, as well as in-depth interviews and analysed through a narrative analysis. From the early days of inter-agency cooperation, to recent legislative work, this paper offers in-depth insights on the EU's governance against AMR.
Migration is often perceived as a challenge to the welfare state. To manage this challenge, advanced welfare states have established transgovernmental networks. This article examines how domestic factors condition the interaction of representatives of advanced welfare states when they cooperate on transnational welfare governance. Based on new survey data, it compares who interacts with whom in one of the oldest transgovernmental networks of the European Union (EU) – the network that deals with EU citizens' rights to cross-border welfare. First, the authors perform a welfare cluster analysis of EU-28 and test whether institutional similarity explains these interactions. Furthermore, they test whether the level and kind of migration explains interaction and examine the explanatory value of administrative capacity. To test what drives interactions, the study employs social network analysis and exponential random graph models. It finds that cooperation in networked welfare governance tends to be homophilous, and that political cleavages between sending and receiving member states are mirrored in network interactions. Domestic factors are key drivers when advanced welfare states interact.
The chapter explores the symbols and myths of EU transnational solidarity through a threefold analysis of transnational solidarity within, across, and beyond the EU. Based on post-Cold War study of the EU in global politics over the past three decades, it compares and contrasts transnational solidarity from communitarian and cosmopolitan perspectives before advocating a cosmopolitical understanding of EU transnational solidarity in a global context. The chapter examines transnational solidarity within the EU by looking at symbols and myths of communitarian, cosmopolitan and cosmopolitical solidarities. It then looks across the borders of the EU to consider the symbols and myths of communitarian, cosmopolitan, and cosmopolitical solidarities within the European neighbourhood. It then goes beyond the EU to analyse the symbols and myths of communitarian, cosmopolitan and cosmopolitical solidarities with distantly situated others through EU external actions. It concludes by arguing the need to clearly identify, in line with Carol Gould, transnational EU solidarities as overlapping networks of relations that share and support actions to eliminate oppression or reduce suffering. It further argues that cosmopolitical solidarities that network and share global ethics with local politics are more likely to take actions in concert that are caring and empathic towards distantly situated others.