European Union

The Monthly Highlights publication provides an overview, at a glance, of the on-going work of the policy departments, including a selection of the latest and forthcoming publications, and a list of future events.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It is the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established under the League of Nations. Located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the ICJ is composed of 15 judges, who are elected by the U.N. General Assembly to serve nine-year terms.

The ICJ is empowered to decide two types of cases. First, the ICJ can issue advisory opinions when requested to do so by the Security Council, the General Assembly or several other United Nations bodies authorized to request such opinions. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued twenty-one advisory opinions.

Second, the Court can exercise jurisdiction in a contentious case between two or more States with the consent of the parties. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals, except to the extent that a State espouses their claims. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued judgments in thirty-nine contentious cases. That amounts to the Court hearing an average of less than two cases each year. During the 1990s, however, the Court became increasingly active, and it currently has eight contentious cases, and two requests for advisory opinions on its docket.

Consent to jurisdiction over contentious cases can be given in three ways. First, States can agree to have their disputes decided by the ICJ on an ad hoc basis. Second, many treaties contain provisions giving the ICJ jurisdiction over any dispute between parties to the treaty as to its interpretation or application. Third, States may make a declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ statute, agreeing to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in relation to other States that have made a like declaration. As of 1997, fifty-nine States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Declarations made under Article 36(2) may specifically exclude certain categories of disputes from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. Such declarations are subject to reciprocity, and a defendant state against which a proceeding is brought may invoke an exclusion not stipulated in its own declaration but included in the declaration of the plaintiff state.

The United States had agreed in 1946 to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with two principal exceptions. The first, known as the “Connelly reservation,” provided that the United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ over disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. The second, known as the “Vandenberg reservation” exempted the United States from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction with respect to any disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court. After the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over Nicaragua’s suit against the United States concerning U.S. support of the Contras and mining of Nicaragua harbors, the United States terminated its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.

The termination of the United States’ acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction has not completely immunized the United States from the ICJ. The United States has subsequently been hailed before the ICJ on several occasions pursuant to clauses contained in multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party. It has become the recent practice of the United States to make a reservation opting out of the ICJ jurisdiction clause of multilateral treaties at the time of ratification, but the United States continues to be party to over one hundred treaties containing an ICJ jurisdiction clause.

Judgments of the ICJ are binding between the parties. Under Article 94(1) of the U.N. Charter, all members of the United Nations have undertaken to comply with a judgment of the ICJ in any case to which they are parties. If a party fails to comply with the judgment of the ICJ, any other party may call on the Security Council to enforce the judgment. ICJ decisions are widely recognized as important statements of existing international law, and they are often cited as authority to support fundamental principles of international legal development.

Contentious cases usually involve three phases. First, the parties often request that the ICJ “indicate” provisional measures in order to preserve their respective rights while a case is pending. Decisions on provisional measures are usually issued within a few weeks from the initial request. While provisional measures are somewhat analogous to a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order under U.S. domestic law, the court has never ruled whether an order indicating provisional measures is mandatory on the parties. The second phase involves challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the matter before making a decision. Finally, the Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the merits of the case. From start to finish, the ICJ may take several years to rule on a dispute. The final decision of the ICJ is not subject to appeal.

The post The International Court of Justice appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/62cfd496-6d9f-11e5-92fb-bc764e08d9b2_40.04_thumb_169_1456920696_1456920696_129_97shar_c1.jpg

The meeting of EU heads of state or government is being held with Turkey on 7 March 2016 in Brussels. It is devoted to the refugee crisis.

Download this video here.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/a8444298-56f0-11e5-83d1-bc764e084e2e_16.86_thumb_169_1456333236_1456333236_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Environment meet in Brussels on 4 March 2016 to discuss the action plan for the circular economy and the follow-up to the Paris agreement on climate change.

Download this video here.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 303 - Draft motion for a resolution 2015 Report on Turkey
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 304 - 545 - Draft motion for a resolution 2015 Report on Turkey
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

DRAFT REPORT on The EU relations with Tunisia in the current regional context
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Fabio Massimo Castaldo

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 120 - Draft report (PE575.014v01-00)
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

 

Irish election results show that austerity measures, even when resulting in economic recovery, will be punished by electorates.

The results are in. In the first general election since 2011, the previous coalition government of Fine Gael (centre-right) and Labour, has been rejected by the Irish people. This time around Fine Gael and Labour, despite an uptake in the economy, suffered unprecedented losses, and the main opposition parties Fianna Fáil (centre-right) and Sinn Fein (left) both gained a number of extra seats, as well as an increased number of disparate independent candidates. Without a doubt, on a national level this election has been seen as a huge blow to Fine Gael and a direct consequence of the unpopular austerity measures imposed on the Irish people.

Thus, since last Friday, two things have been undeniably changed: firstly, the Irish political landscape and secondly, claims that austerity measures, even when they bring economic stability, can be popular amongst an electorate. While at the EU level, Ireland may be seen as the star pupil amongst the P.I.G.S., closer to home, voters either aren’t feeling the recovery or are embittered with how the austerity measures were imposed. Indeed, at the EU level, the result represents the recurring theme, witnessed recently in Portugal and Spain, of centre-right austerity imposing government’s being rejected in recent general elections.

Ireland: the star pupil?

Among the P.I.G.S. (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, the EU members that received rescue packages from the EU following the economic downturn in 2008) Ireland has been touted as the poster child for recovery; the country that has bounced back from the depths of economic crisis unlike any of the others. Accepted by the then Fianna Fail government, and implemented by Fine Gael and Labour when they were elected in 2011, the package was seen as necessary in order to protect against a destroyed real estate sector, unprecedented levels of unemployment, increased taxes, excessive household debt and mass emigration of the country’s youth. The Irish people, fresh out of a period of economic prosperity referred to as the “Celtic Tiger” years, were hit hard.

Of course, there was push back. The rescue package offered by the EU and the IMF was deemed excessively harsh by a huge proportion of the Irish people. The last number of years has seen numerous anti-austerity protests and the founding of the new Anti-austerity Alliance party. Political anoraks all over the country and across Europe are saying that the election results indicate that the Irish people are saying “no thanks” to the austerity imposed over the last five years. Admittedly, the minority coalition partner for the previous government, the Labour party, was decimated over the weekend. But so have all minor coalition parties in the last few elections. Although this weekend’s election results replanted Fine Gael with the highest number of candidates elected, overall the huge drop in support for the party shows that the people of Ireland seem to have had little faith in Fine Gael’s campaign slogan to – “keep the recovery going”. Arguably Ireland’s great comeback: it is returning as the star pupil of an EU-led economic recovery, when failing miserably at the bottom of the class just a few years ago.  Yet the reality is that although the statistics show a successful economic recovery, unlike anything seen among its fellow P.I.G.S., the political class have massively underestimated the lasting psychological damage that the bailout had on the Irish psyche. In the minds of many of the Irish people, the bailout has not been a success.

Ireland: the class swot?

Ireland may have been absent from school the day political idealism was taught. As a nation, Ireland has not produced the same polarised anti-austerity movements to the extent that have emerged in its fellow hard-hit countries. Ireland has had no equivalent of the Syriza party, no Jeremy Corbyn and no Front Nationale emerging strongly following severe austerity. Irish politics have never experienced such polarised political views. This is evidenced perfectly by the fact that the parties in power have see-sawed back and forth since the founding of the state, from the centre-right Fine Gael (the nearest equivalent being the UK conservative party) and the centre-right Fianna Fáil (the nearest equivalent also being the UK conservative party). Why is this? Why has Ireland experienced similar tough measures imposed on its people, and yet never experienced the same level of public outrage and pushback? Is it perhaps not that Ireland is the success story of EU austerity measures, but rather, that our nation’s cultural inclination is too reluctant to rock the boat and to disagree with teacher?

What does this election mean for the EU?

The general elections taking place in this island nation affect neither legislative processes in Brussels, nor broader issues such as the upcoming Brexit referendum to any large extent. Although a member of the EU since the 1970’s and a strong supporter of the European Project, Ireland is far from the position of countries such as France, Germany or the UK. Despite debates over the stability of this newly elected government (and whether or not we will be rewriting this post in a few months’ time…) this election does indicate that a precedent has been set in terms of how we measure the success of EU bailout packages. It’s now clear that austerity, even when it successfully regenerates an economy, is political suicide on a national level.

True, the European Union can now use Ireland as a successful example: an EU member state, once in dire economic straits, has accepted the government that imposed austerity and has emerged with good results with the help of an EU bailout package. Pigs can fly, it seems. Yet, it would be foolish for the EU to ignore what has just happened in Ireland: the price of instability and the bailout has been paid by national politicians, not by Brussels. EU imposed recovery has not been successful, but the EU as an entity does not have to answer for the strict measures it helped to impose. The EU would do well to heed this warning.

Yasmin Hamed and Cillian O’Donoghue

The European Parliament Ambassador Schools programme aims to raise awareness amongst young people in secondary education of the impact of the European Union in their daily lives. It offers an engaging and interactive format, training material for various levels, and is free of charge. On 15 January, secondary school teachers from all over Ireland came to the Parliament’s Information office in Dublin for the first ever Ambassador School Workshop.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 233 - 392 - Draft report on the EU in a changing global environment - a more connected, contested and complex world
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 232 - Draft report on the EU in a changing global environment - a more connected, contested and complex world
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The ‘Brexit’ debate has taken off in the UK in the ten days since David Cameron got his new deal at February’s European Council summit, with daily media coverage and social media from both sides swinging into gear. How the debate, and the polls, will evolve over the coming four months is unclear but so far various paradoxes are emerging.

1. Mainly an intra-government debate
To all appearances, media coverage to date suggests that the Brexit debate is essentially only a debate between two different camps in the Conservative government: a debate between mild eurosceptics in the British cabinet, including the Prime Minister, against a half dozen strong eurosceptics also in the cabinet.

The arguments between these two camps have already covered: conflicting views over the economic costs and benefits of EU membership, the legally-binding nature of Cameron’s EU renegotiation, how long it would take to establish a new UK-EU relationship after Brexit, whether there could be a second referendum, and an on-going row over whether Brexit-supporting ministers can see government papers pertaining to the referendum. Other debates are rumbling on about how long Cameron will stay as Tory leader, even in the event of a vote to stay in the EU.

The fact that this is a debate concerning the whole of the UK – all political parties and the UK public – is not one that is obvious from media coverage so far. Somewhat bizarrely, Cameron is also reported to be asking big business and big banks to hold back from expressing their support too strongly.

2. Labour voters are vital but Corbyn is absent
While Tory voters are, according to polls, broadly split on staying in or leaving the EU, Labour voters are more strongly in favour at a level of around 60%, as are the much smaller number of Liberal-Democrat supporters. Keeping Labour voters’ support and getting them to turn out on the day (so far polls suggest ‘leave’ voters are more likely to turn out) is crucial for the ‘remain’ side to prevail on 23rd June.

Yet Labour’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been more notable by his absence from the debate so far than for any strongly argued speeches in favour of the EU. When Corbyn does comment, it seems so far to be more to criticise Cameron than to make strong pro-EU statements.

Labour has launched its own pro-EU campaign led by former cabinet minister Alan Johnson, but he has so far had rather little presence in the media. While Labour grassroots supporters are already campaigning, whether Corbyn will start to make a strong case for Europe – having long been seen as more eurosceptic than supportive – is an open question. Cameron, meanwhile, is reportedly wondering how and whether to make a pitch to Labour supporters on the EU.

3. Only the Scottish leader is making a genuinely European argument
Ironically, in Corbyn’s absence, the only really visible opposition leader making the pro-EU argument for the UK is the pro-independence Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

In a wide-ranging speech on 29th February, Sturgeon showed that she is a genuine European, concerned about the big challenges facing the EU, from the failed and failing austerity policies of the eurozone to the lack of solidarity, compassion and strategic leadership over the refugee crisis. Sturgeon’s speech combined a constructive critique of the current EU crisis with a set of social, economic and political reasons for staying in the EU.

It was the sort of speech that Cameron will not give, determined as he is to focus on the ‘special treatment’ he got for the UK, and on the economic case for remaining in. It was also the sort of speech Corbyn should give but seems unwilling and unable to.

4. The ‘Out’ side have momentum but are split
The opinion polls range from significant leads for the ‘remain’ camp – especially in phone rather than internet polls – to many suggesting the two sides are very close; the most recent poll of polls from NatCen puts it at 51% for remaining in, 49% for Brexit.

The ‘out’ side, as has been widely acknowledged, tend to have more passion and emotion. Yet for now, the ‘leave’ side remains split into two main camps: ‘Leave.EU’ supported by UKIP leader Nigel Farage, and ‘Vote Leave’, supported by UKIP’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, and also by Boris Johnson amongst other Tories.

Whether these two sides will resolve their split, and which will be recognised by the Electoral Commission as the lead campaign is unclear. The split will undermine coherence in ‘leave’ arguments and campaigning, though how much this will impact on the polls is unclear.

5. The Referendum won’t resolve Tory splits over the EU
It is widely acknowledged that David Cameron called the referendum in an attempt to handle the continuing split in the Tory party over Europe. Yet the referendum, whatever the outcome, looks like doing no such thing.

A vote to leave would probably be quite close and, in the face of ‘remain’ votes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and possibly Wales, would unleash a political and constitutional crisis across the UK. Whether the Tory party would split at this point is an open question. A vote to ‘remain’, unless it is of the order of 60%:40%, is unlikely to resolve Tory divisions on the matter and will leave an embittered party and a split cabinet.

6. Only the SNP are visibly contingency-planning for Brexit, yet ‘indyref2’ is not guaranteed
With a Brexit vote a possibility, contingency planning – both for the immediate days after such a vote and for the months ahead – would seem vital. Yet any such planning is clearly being kept closely under wraps for now, and civil servants appear to have been told not to do any such planning.

Nicola Sturgeon has said a ‘leave’ vote would make a second independence referendum, ‘indyref2’, almost a certainty, and it is clear the SNP are doing some behind-closed-doors strategising. Yet whether the SNP moves rapidly to a second referendum in such circumstances will depend on how much the polls shift towards support for independence, and on the evolution of the resulting political crisis in the UK after a Brexit vote.

For now, what Cameron or Corbyn would do in the face of a Brexit vote is quite unknown. Cameron would surely have to resign, opening the question both of who would be the new Tory leader, and what sort of future relations with the EU the Tories would argue for. Corbyn – and Labour – will also need to have a political position on what comes next, including on Scottish independence, yet if such planning is under way inside Labour, it is well hidden.

An evolving debate
The UK referendum debate has several months to go. If the paradoxes outlined here remain, it will be a debate where pro-EU political, rather than economic, arguments get little attention, and it will be a debate dominated by a split governing party with Labour struggling to be heard. Even a split ‘leave’ side can only benefit from most of these paradoxes.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Number 10

 

The post Six paradoxes of the Brexit debate appeared first on Europe’s World.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/b863bf68-977e-11e5-b3f1-bc764e084e2e_292.42_thumb_169_1456920085_1456920085_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Finance Ministers of the eurozone meet in Brussels on 11 February 2016 to exchange views on the ongoing implementation of Greece's economic adjustment programme, focusing on the reforms required for the successful completion of the first review. The Cyprus programme, due to expire on 31 March, and the discussion on the transparency of Eurogroup meetings are also on the agenda.

Download this video here.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/389dcba8-4fc1-11e4-a2b0-bc764e08d9b2_73.04_thumb_169_1456919862_1456919862_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Employment, Social Affairs, Consumer Protection, Health and Equal Opportunities (EPSCO) meet on 7 March 2016 in Brussels to hold a policy debate on the 2016 European Semester on the basis of an employment committee contribution on labour market segmentation and contractual arrangements. The Council is also discussing the expected new skills agenda.

Download this video here.

After months of wrangling it is hoped that the summit between the EU member states and Turkey on Monday will provide a joint response to the refugee problem. EU Council President Donald Tusk has visited several Balkan states and Turkey for exploratory talks ahead of the meeting. But at this stage no one is expecting a breakthrough at the summit.