<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/6dcbcf81e23133c5</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/eu-sanctions-and-the-mirage-of-unanimity/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>EU Sanctions and the Mirage of Unanimity - Overcoming the Hungarian Veto One Step After Another Under the Letter of EU Law</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Schäffer, Johannes</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2025-10-08</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Art. 215 TFEU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Art. 29 TEU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>CFSP</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Hungary</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Sanctions</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Unanimity</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>The EU’s sanctions framework is meant to work in two steps: unanimity for decisions defining the Union’s approach to “a particular matter of a geographical or thematic nature” under Article 29 TEU, and qualified majority voting for the necessary measures implementing these decisions under Article 215 TFEU. In reality, the two steps are collapsed into one, which magnifies the leverage of a single veto. This post makes the case for resequencing this practice which would realign decision-making with the Treaties’ design, reduce the risk of impasse, and improve speed and flexibility.</dc:description>
</dc>
