This collection of chapters provides the most comprehensive study of the theory and practice on the contribution of international organisations and non-State actors to the formation of customary international law. It offers new practical and theoretical perspectives on one of the most complex questions about the making of international law, namely the possibility that actors other than states contribute to the making of customary international law. Notwithstanding the completion by the International Law Commission of its work on the identification of customary international law, the making of customary international law remains riddled with acute practical and theoretical controversies which have been left unresolved and which continue to be intensively debated in both practice and scholarship. Making extensively reference to the case-law of international law courts and tribunals as well as the practice of treaty-monitoring bodies while also engaging with the most recent scholarly work on customary international law, this new volume provides innovative tools and guidance to legal scholars, researchers in law, law students, lecturers in law, practitioners, legal advisers, judges, arbitrators, and counsels as well as tools to address contemporary questions of international law-making.
An overview of the role of the Oireachtas in European Union affairs
Where we stand now: an overview
of the role of the Oireachtas in
European Union affairs
This chapter describes the role of the Oireachtas in European affairs in the 30th Dáil
(2007–11) and 31st Dáil (2011–16), the two most recently completed legislative
periods.1 There are three main aspects to parliament’s relationship with Government.
First, parliament has a role in forming and dismissing governments. Secondly, parliament has a role in policy-making and law-making. Thirdly, parliament has a role in
rendering the Government accountable.2
of law-making itself, myths are created and retained.
Ronnie Lippens has carved an international reputation through his use
of both philosophical and artistic insights into the criminological canon.
In his chapter, ‘Forward! Coding, decoding and recoding order in public
art for urban regeneration’, he explores how public artworks are themselves part of a system of coding and recoding that informs both our ethics
and our aesthetics. His contribution explores the coded dimension of large
public artworks (sculptures or installations in particular). Public space is
the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies ( ILA 2004 ).
8 International Law Commission, ‘First report on formation and evidence of customary international law’, UN Doc A/CN.4/663 (17 May 2013) (First report on customary international law) paras 24–27. See also A Bianchi , ‘ Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens ’ ( 2008 ) 19 EJIL 491 .
9 McCall-Smith (n 7); K McCall-Smith , ‘ Reservations and the Determinative Function of Human Rights Treaty Bodies ’ ( 2012 ) 54 German YbIL 521 . See , generally, G Ulfstein , ‘ Law-Making by
This chapter argues that international organisations can be conducive to the emergence or consolidation of the customary status of those primary rules of international law which their sanctions are meant to vindicate. It shows that the contribution of sanctions to the formation of custom varies significantly depending on the concrete situation. In cases where international organisations react to breaches of obligations that already have an erga omnes status and their standing to adopt sanctions is uncontested under the law of countermeasures, international organisations contribute to consolidation and clarification of custom. Ironically, however, the potential for customary law-making is greater when the erga omnes status of an obligation towards which an international organisation is reacting to is not yet confirmed. The illegality or legal uncertainty shrouding such sanctions under the law of responsibility does not preclude their potential in customary law-making – in fact, it may maximise their contribution. In discussing these situations, the present chapter makes an important distinction between the act of sanction and the act of protest. This makes it possible to argue that it is protests accompanying the act of sanction that have a role to play in custom-making, rather than the act of sanction itself.
The International Law Commission held that that the conduct of non-State actors ‘is not practice that contributes to the formation, or expression, of rules of customary international law’ for the sake of the identification of customary international law. However, the present chapter argues that the activities of de facto regimes can be considered as properly speaking ‘practice’ that contributes to the formation, or expression, of rules of customary international law under two scenarios. Firstly, the custom-creating or custom-strengthening conduct of the de facto regimes might be attributed to a State, usually to an occupying power or a State supporting in various means the entity by exercising effective control or at least decisive influence over it. Secondly, de lege ferenda, even without attribution, the conduct of de facto regimes should be taken into account as strengthening the practice forming customary international law at least in subject matters governing the rights and obligations of the de facto regimes itself. This chapter argues that in both scenarios the de facto regimes’ law-making capacity and conduct should be taken into account either as relevant sources for identifying the ‘practice’ of States or the conduct of international organisations, or as relevant ‘practice’ as such.
Does European integration contribute to, or even accelerate, the erosion of intra-party democracy? This book is about improving our understanding of political parties as democratic organisations in the context of multi-level governance. It analyses the impact of European Union (EU) membership on power dynamics, focusing on the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party (PS), and the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The purpose of this book is to investigate who within the three parties determines EU policies and selects EU specialists, such as the candidates for European parliamentary elections and EU spokespersons. The book utilises a principal-agent framework to investigate the delegation of power inside the three parties across multiple levels and faces. It draws on over 65 original interviews with EU experts from the three national parties and the Party of European Socialists (PES) and an e-mail questionnaire. This book reveals that European policy has largely remained in the hands of the party leadership. Its findings suggest that the party grassroots are interested in EU affairs, but that interest rarely translates into influence, as information asymmetry between the grassroots and the party leadership makes it very difficult for local activists to scrutinise elected politicians and to come up with their own policy proposals. As regards the selection of EU specialists, such as candidates for the European parliamentary elections, this book highlights that the parties’ processes are highly political, often informal, and in some cases, undemocratic.
German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has written extensively on the European Union.
This is the only in-depth account of his project. Published now in a second
edition to coincide with the celebration of his ninetieth birthday, a new
preface considers Habermas’s writings on the eurozone and refugee crises,
populism and Brexit, and the presidency of Emmanuel Macron. Placing an
emphasis on the conception of the EU that informs Habermas’s political
prescriptions, the book is divided into two main parts. The first considers the
unfolding of 'social modernity' at the level of the EU. Among the
subjects covered are Habermas's concept of juridification, the
latter's affinities with integration theories such as neofunctionalism, and
the application of Habermas's democratic theory to the EU. The second part
addresses 'cultural modernity' in Europe – 'Europessimism'
is argued to be a subset of the broader cultural pessimism that assailed the
project of modernity in the late twentieth century, and with renewed intensity
in the years since 9/11. Interdisciplinary in approach, this book engages
with European/EU studies, critical theory, political theory, international
relations, intellectual history, comparative literature, and philosophy. Concise
and clearly written, it will be of interest to students, scholars and
professionals with an interest in these disciplines, as well as to a broader
readership concerned with the future of Europe
In times of national security, scholars and activists who hail from the
communities under suspicion attempt to draw readers and listeners to the
complexity of the world we inhabit. For those who campaigned against the SUS law
in the 1980s, when young Black men were being routinely stopped in the streets,
the wave of counter-terrorism legislation and policy that exists today will be
very familiar. Similarly, recent discussions about the impact of drill music in
the culture of young Black men has drawn questions around the ways in which they
should be securitised, with senior police calling for the use of terrorism
legislation against them. In this environment, when those who study and have
lived alongside the communities who are at the scrutiny of the state raise
questions about the government, military and police policy, they are often shut
down as terrorist-sympathisers, or apologists for gang culture. In such
environments, there is an expectation on scholars and activists to condemn what
society at large fears. This volume is about how that expectation has emerged
alongside the normalisation of racism, and how these writers choose to subvert
the expectations raised on them, as part of their commitment to anti-racism.