POSTS BY Daniel Halberstam

The Judicial Battle over Mutual Trust in the EU: Recent Cracks in the Façade

In a little-noticed decision in April, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) significantly revised its approach to the doctrine of mutual trust among the member states. Even though the decision was issued only as an interpretation of the European Arrest Warrant, it will have profound consequences for the Area of Freedom Security and Justice more generally, including ongoing controversies concerning refugees.

Continue Reading →

Foreign Policy and the Luxembourg Court: How to Address a Key Roadblock to EU Accession to the ECHR

The Court of Justice of the European Union recently declared the European Union cannot join the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) unless the Luxembourg court has jurisdiction over all questions of EU law that reach the Strasbourg court – including Common Foreign and Security Policy. The reasons behind this decision have been discussed elsewhere. The big question now is, how to proceed?

Continue Reading →

Foreign Policy and the Luxembourg Court: How to Address a Key Roadblock to EU Accession to the ECHR

The Court of Justice of the European Union recently declared the European Union cannot join the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) unless the Luxembourg court has jurisdiction over all questions of EU law that reach the Strasbourg court – including Common Foreign and Security Policy. The reasons behind this decision have been discussed elsewhere. The big question now is, how to proceed?

Continue Reading →

Plural Constitutionalism as Theory and Method: A Reply to Critics

I enjoyed the exchange on my article providing a qualified constitutional defense of Opinion 2/13. I will not delve into a point-by-point rebuttal of the critics here. Instead, I shall make three quick points and end with a methodological challenge in the interest of moving forward.

Continue Reading →

A Constitutional Defense of CJEU Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR (and the way forward)

The Court of Justice of the European Union has arrived! Gone are the days of hagiography, when in the eyes of the academy the Court could do no wrong. The judicial darling, if there is one today, is Strasbourg not Luxembourg. Only hours after Opinion 2/13 struck down the Draft Agreement on EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, scholars condemned the opinion as “exceptionally poor.” Critical voices mounted ever since, leading to nothing short of widespread “outrage.”

I disagree with the critics. In my legal analysis and constitutional reconstruction the Court’s concerns are mostly warranted. I also identify the changes that must be – and reasonably can be – made to move accession forward. Finally, and in a twist of irony, I show that one of the Court’s greatest concerns – mutual trust – goes to the very survival of the Union and demands not an exemption, but full accession.

Continue Reading →

Rescue Package for Fundamental Rights: Further Comments by DANIEL HALBERSTAM

Peter Lindseth’s post directed at my own intervention on the Heidelberg proposal deserves a response, if only because it opens up debate about a basic divide in scholarship on the European Union.  Do we understand the Union as an administrative or a constitutional construct?  This has important consequences for both democracy and how we understand […]

Continue Reading →

Rescue Package for Fundamental Rights: Comments by DANIEL HALBERSTAM

I welcome the Heidelberg proposal! Several years ago – long before the Zambrano judgment confirmed the idea – I wrote a piece explaining that a “reverse Solange” idea could already be discerned from such early cases as Carpenter and Chen. Despite the doctrinal niceties that provided certain formal limits to those early cases, it was […]

Continue Reading →