European Law and Jurisprudence

The European Union (EU) has achieved a unique level of political and economic integration. More than 500 million European citizens share an area of Freedom Security and Justice and an internal market that forms the largest economic bloc in the world. 19 national currencies have been 'integrated' into a single European currency, further enabling trade and increasing wealth. To achieve and sustain such integration, strong institutions have been built, novel legal and political mechanisms have been developed, and substantial powers have been shared at the Union level, all whilst maintaining the ultimate authority and democratic legitimacy of the Member States. This high level of integration has wielded enormous benefits in terms of wealth, stability and influence. For despite the vital importance of good law and institutions, part of the real secret behind integration is that it ultimately forms a win-win for all players involved. For states, citizens and businesses alike, integration can provide vital economic and political benefits. What is more, in our globalizing reality, integration is also necessary to retain the economic and political significance of individual states. As markets, companies and the digital world transcend borders, so must states transcend their own borders and cooperate to retain their relevance. At the same time, European integration has been a long and bumpy road, and the process is far from complete. For despite its long-term benefits, it remains a challenge to properly structure regional integration and to overcome short-term obstacles and conflicts of interest. How, for example, to balance the influence and interests of different Member States, how to divide the benefits and costs of integration, or how to structure democracy at the supranational level? Over the years, therefore, the EU has faced many challenges and setbacks as it pioneered the process of regional integration and tried to adapt how we govern to the reality that needs to be governed. Brexit only forms the most recent example of such a setback and of just how challenging it is to develop regional integration that is effective and legitimate, and that can resist short-term nationalistic reflexes, especially in times of (economic) crises and uncertainty. So far, however, the EU has always overcome such setbacks ,

The Scope, Nature and Effect of EAC Law 139 John Eudes Ruhangisa 4A The Scope, Nature and Effect of EU Law 161 Armin Cuyvers 5 External Relations and the EAC 182 Leonard Obura Aloo 5A External Relations and the Eu 196 Armin Cuyvers 6 General Principles Governing EAC Integration 202 Khoti Chilomba Kamanga and Ally Possi x preface The main challenges facing the EAC today in this regard are how to safeguard the quality of the increasing body of Community law, how to monitor compliance, and how to make EAC law binding and enforceable within national legal systems. All of these are challenges that the EU has faced in the past and is still facing, and where both the success and the failures of the EU may be of comparative use to the EAC, certainly considering the many similarities in the institutional and legal framework of both and the similarities of the challenges faced. The main purpose of this book, initiated by the Leiden Centre for the Comparative Study of EAC law (LEAC) in close cooperation with Hon. Justice Dr Ugirashebuja, the current President of the East African Court of Justice, is to be a source of information and education for all those involved in shaping, improving and studying integration in the EAC. By comparing each aspect of both institutional and substantive EAC law with its nearest counterpart EU law, we hope to have created a vital tool to better understand and move forward the integration process in East Africa. Considering these aims, we are proud that, thanks to the generous support of the law firm Allen & Overy LLP, the European Union and the Europa Institute of the University of Leiden, this book will not just be available in printed form but will also be freely available online via a completely Open Access agreement with Brill Publishers. We have been fortunate to find excellent authors from the different EAC Partner States, all leading experts in their respective fields, enabling us to cover all legal aspects of the EAC. We are very grateful for their wonderful contributions and constructive participation in this ambitious project. In addition, we have greatly benefitted from the excellent research and editorial assistance provided by Ties Boonzajer Flaes, Louise O'Callaghan, Brenden Fourie, Timothy Kawira, Carlota de Paula Coelho, and Merel Valk, as research assistants of the LEAC. We are much indebted to them for, among other things, ensuring consistency between the chapters. As always, however, responsibility for the final product remains with the authors and editors.

This paper forms part of a series of nine studies on the role of the European Union in international economic fora, prepared by Policy Department A at the request of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament. It provides factual background information about the G20, the EU's role and representation therein, its accountability as well as the coordination and impact thereof. The G20 has played a key role in measures taken to overcome the economic and financial crisis and promoted rules to prevent a repetition of such a crisis. The high compliance rate of the EU in implementing these commitments highlights the importance of the legally non-binding G20 commitments. Yet, the G20 is an informal international body where executives from officials' up to leaders' level meet. As a body G20 lacks meaningful accountability mechanisms. Moreover the EU can hardly be held to account for its action at the G20 level. This study provides a thorough analysis of the G20 and EU's action at the G20 level. It sets out the EU legal framework for the participation of the EU and its Member States in the G20. In applying a two-tier accountability framework it identifies accountability gaps and concludes with policy recommendations.

The European Commission has recently published a White Paper on the Future of Europe. With regards to the many crises the EU is currently facing, a coherent plan seems to be urgently needed. Instead of coming up with one single plan however, the Paper reflects five different scenarios…

This thesis explores a conception of the EU as a modified confederal system of sovereign member peoples and their states. A confederal conception which demonstrates how, contrary to popular belief, European integration does not conflict with sovereignty or democracy. For, properly conceived and constituted, the EU reasserts the sovereignty of the member peoples, and liberates national democracy from the confines of the state. To this end, this thesis reconnects the EU to two classic constructs of constitutional theory: confederalism and sovereignty. Two powerful but unfashionable constructs whose joint potential for European integration remains largely unexplored and undervalued. The primary instrument to explore this potential is comparative. The EU is contrasted with the rather unknown but rich example of the American Articles of Confederation, and their evolution into the now famous American federate system. A comparison with the confederal roots of the United States which is rev...

The Scope, Nature and Effect of EAC Law 139 John Eudes Ruhangisa 4A The Scope, Nature and Effect of EU Law 161 Armin Cuyvers 5 External Relations and the EAC 182 Leonard Obura Aloo 5A External Relations and the Eu 196 Armin Cuyvers 6 General Principles Governing EAC Integration 202 Khoti Chilomba Kamanga and Ally Possi x preface The main challenges facing the EAC today in this regard are how to safeguard the quality of the increasing body of Community law, how to monitor compliance, and how to make EAC law binding and enforceable within national legal systems. All of these are challenges that the EU has faced in the past and is still facing, and where both the success and the failures of the EU may be of comparative use to the EAC, certainly considering the many similarities in the institutional and legal framework of both and the similarities of the challenges faced. The main purpose of this book, initiated by the Leiden Centre for the Comparative Study of EAC law (LEAC) in close cooperation with Hon. Justice Dr Ugirashebuja, the current President of the East African Court of Justice, is to be a source of information and education for all those involved in shaping, improving and studying integration in the EAC. By comparing each aspect of both institutional and substantive EAC law with its nearest counterpart EU law, we hope to have created a vital tool to better understand and move forward the integration process in East Africa. Considering these aims, we are proud that, thanks to the generous support of the law firm Allen & Overy LLP, the European Union and the Europa Institute of the University of Leiden, this book will not just be available in printed form but will also be freely available online via a completely Open Access agreement with Brill Publishers. We have been fortunate to find excellent authors from the different EAC Partner States, all leading experts in their respective fields, enabling us to cover all legal aspects of the EAC. We are very grateful for their wonderful contributions and constructive participation in this ambitious project. In addition, we have greatly benefitted from the excellent research and editorial assistance provided by Ties Boonzajer Flaes, Louise O'Callaghan, Brenden Fourie, Timothy Kawira, Carlota de Paula Coelho, and Merel Valk, as research assistants of the LEAC. We are much indebted to them for, among other things, ensuring consistency between the chapters. As always, however, responsibility for the final product remains with the authors and editors.

According to the EU, postponing Brexit beyond May 23 legally requires UK elections for the European Parliament. If no elections are held, the argument goes, the new European Parliament would not be legally constituted. All acts adopted by that Parliament could then be open to legal challenge. Imagine the chaos. Several legal arguments support this view. Chief amongst them is Article 14(3) TEU, which requires 'direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot' for European Parliament elections. More generally, elections should not be trifled with, especially not in a Union based on the principle of democracy. The UK, it seems, should therefore choose: leave before May 23, or hold elections for the European Parliament. Yet, on closer inspection, this conclusion is not as legally convincing as it appears. The failure of one Member State to participate in elections for the European Parliament does not necessarily undermine the legality of the entire European Parliament. Luckily so, one may add. For the current EU position effectively gives every Member State an EU kill switch. Simply by not holding European Parliament elections, any Member State could shut down the entire EU. After all, without a functional European Parliament, there would be no new Commission, no EU budget, and no EU legislative acts in general. Imagine Victor Orban, Marine Le Pen, Luigi Di Maio,Thierry Baudet or future equivalents wielding such a kill switch. The problem would no longer be Brexit, Frexit or Nexit, but EUxit. There are at least five arguments why EU law does not oblige the UK to hold elections for the European Parliament, at least whilst Brexit is ongoing .

This Insight makes four key claims. First, evolutionary biology and the study of chimpanzees show that social animals have an emotional need for a stable, formal hierarchy. Second, sovereignty might be understood as a highly evolved and abstract solution to fill this basic need. Third, global interdependence and European integration challenge the existing formal hierarchy and sovereignty constructs within Member States. The EU therefore disrupts the existing formal hierarchy without providing a viable formal hierarchy in return. This reopens primal questions about hierarchy, identity and social stability. Fourth, instead of fighting sovereignty, the EU should therefore accept the underlying basic need for formal hierarchy as part of the human condition. Like every constitutional construct before it, the EU cannot go against the grain of human nature, and must therefore learn to accept, protect, and perhaps even celebrate some forms of formal hierarchy, including sovereignty, as well...

The Scope, Nature and Effect of EAC Law 139 John Eudes Ruhangisa 4A The Scope, Nature and Effect of EU Law 161 Armin Cuyvers 5 External Relations and the EAC 182 Leonard Obura Aloo 5A External Relations and the Eu 196 Armin Cuyvers 6 General Principles Governing EAC Integration 202 Khoti Chilomba Kamanga and Ally Possi x preface The main challenges facing the EAC today in this regard are how to safeguard the quality of the increasing body of Community law, how to monitor compliance, and how to make EAC law binding and enforceable within national legal systems. All of these are challenges that the EU has faced in the past and is still facing, and where both the success and the failures of the EU may be of comparative use to the EAC, certainly considering the many similarities in the institutional and legal framework of both and the similarities of the challenges faced. The main purpose of this book, initiated by the Leiden Centre for the Comparative Study of EAC law (LEAC) in close cooperation with Hon. Justice Dr Ugirashebuja, the current President of the East African Court of Justice, is to be a source of information and education for all those involved in shaping, improving and studying integration in the EAC. By comparing each aspect of both institutional and substantive EAC law with its nearest counterpart EU law, we hope to have created a vital tool to better understand and move forward the integration process in East Africa. Considering these aims, we are proud that, thanks to the generous support of the law firm Allen & Overy LLP, the European Union and the Europa Institute of the University of Leiden, this book will not just be available in printed form but will also be freely available online via a completely Open Access agreement with Brill Publishers. We have been fortunate to find excellent authors from the different EAC Partner States, all leading experts in their respective fields, enabling us to cover all legal aspects of the EAC. We are very grateful for their wonderful contributions and constructive participation in this ambitious project. In addition, we have greatly benefitted from the excellent research and editorial assistance provided by Ties Boonzajer Flaes, Louise O'Callaghan, Brenden Fourie, Timothy Kawira, Carlota de Paula Coelho, and Merel Valk, as research assistants of the LEAC. We are much indebted to them for, among other things, ensuring consistency between the chapters. As always, however, responsibility for the final product remains with the authors and editors.

Deze bijdrage geeft een initiële analyse van de juridische kaders die artikel 50 VEU neerlegt voor de terugtrekking van het VK. Welke regels gelden er en welke beperkingen leggen deze regels, in principe, op aan dit proces? Hiertoe focust de analyse op enkele essentiële elementen van artikel 50 VEU: het indienen en eventueel intrekken van een kennisgeving, de termijn voor het bereiken van een akkoord, de positie van het VK in de EU tijdens het onderhandelingsproces, het aantal en soort akkoorden dat gesloten dient te worden, en de eventuele noodzaak van een wijziging van de EUverdragen. De bijdrage sluit af met enkele meer algemene observaties over Brexit en enkele suggesties voor de eventuele aanpassing van artikel 50 VEU zelf.

The Scope, Nature and Effect of EAC Law 139 John Eudes Ruhangisa 4A The Scope, Nature and Effect of EU Law 161 Armin Cuyvers 5 External Relations and the EAC 182 Leonard Obura Aloo 5A External Relations and the Eu 196 Armin Cuyvers 6 General Principles Governing EAC Integration 202 Khoti Chilomba Kamanga and Ally Possi x preface The main challenges facing the EAC today in this regard are how to safeguard the quality of the increasing body of Community law, how to monitor compliance, and how to make EAC law binding and enforceable within national legal systems. All of these are challenges that the EU has faced in the past and is still facing, and where both the success and the failures of the EU may be of comparative use to the EAC, certainly considering the many similarities in the institutional and legal framework of both and the similarities of the challenges faced. The main purpose of this book, initiated by the Leiden Centre for the Comparative Study of EAC law (LEAC) in close cooperation with Hon. Justice Dr Ugirashebuja, the current President of the East African Court of Justice, is to be a source of information and education for all those involved in shaping, improving and studying integration in the EAC. By comparing each aspect of both institutional and substantive EAC law with its nearest counterpart EU law, we hope to have created a vital tool to better understand and move forward the integration process in East Africa. Considering these aims, we are proud that, thanks to the generous support of the law firm Allen & Overy LLP, the European Union and the Europa Institute of the University of Leiden, this book will not just be available in printed form but will also be freely available online via a completely Open Access agreement with Brill Publishers. We have been fortunate to find excellent authors from the different EAC Partner States, all leading experts in their respective fields, enabling us to cover all legal aspects of the EAC. We are very grateful for their wonderful contributions and constructive participation in this ambitious project. In addition, we have greatly benefitted from the excellent research and editorial assistance provided by Ties Boonzajer Flaes, Louise O'Callaghan, Brenden Fourie, Timothy Kawira, Carlota de Paula Coelho, and Merel Valk, as research assistants of the LEAC. We are much indebted to them for, among other things, ensuring consistency between the chapters. As always, however, responsibility for the final product remains with the authors and editors.