European Union

This is the Monday edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.

Ahmet Davutoglu, centre, meets with his German and Dutch counterparts ahead of the summit

EU leaders gather in Brussels today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s prime minister, to once again attempt to sort out a deal that could stop the massive influx of refugees crossing into Europe from Turkish shores. This time, however, rather than high-minded rhetoric, there appears to be a workable deal on the table: Mr Davutoglu has signalled his readiness to agree a scheme that would allow the EU to return tens of thousands of non-Syrian migrants trying to enter Greece back to Turkey. Add in a new Nato mission that was yesterday given the authority to operate in Turkish waters and will help Greek and Turkish authorities hunt down human smugglers, and the pieces of effective response may finally be falling into place.

There’s one small problem, however: the UN isn’t sure the plan is legal under international law, which prohibits “pushbacks” of potential asylum seekers, who under the Geneva Conventions must receive a fair hearing first. Vincent Cochetel, who is leading the UN refugee agency’s response to the European crisis, hinted EU courts would find the tactic in violation of EU laws which incorporate the Geneva Conventions. Human rights groups also question its legality.

Read more

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