Spatial justice: law and the geography of withdrawal

While spatial justice could be the most radical offspring of law’s recent spatial turn, it remains instead a geographically informed version of social justice. The majority of the existing literature on the subject has made some politically facile assumptions about space, justice and law, thereby subsuming the potentially radical into the banal. In this article, I suggest that the concept of spatial justice is the most promising platform on which to redefine, not only the connection between law and geography, but more importantly, the conceptual foundations of both law and space. More concretely, the article attempts two things: first, a radical understanding of legal spatiality. Space is not just another parameter for law, a background against which law takes place, or a process that the law needs to take into consideration. Space is intertwined with normative production in ways that law often fails to acknowledge, and part of this article is a re-articulation of the connection. Second, to suggest a conception of spatial justice that derives from a spatial law. Such a conception cannot rely on given concepts of distributive or social justice. Instead, the concept of spatial justice put forth here is informed by post-structural, feminist, post-ecological and other radical understandings of emplacement and justice, as well as arguably the most spatial of philosophical discourses, that of Deleuze–Guattari and the prescribed possibilities of space as manifold.

Be careful what you wish for: the legal parameters of EU withdrawal

Easiness with which the political circles talk about withdrawal from the European Union is rather surprising and proves that the legal parameters of an EU exit are not treated seriously enough. In theoretical terms Article 50 TEU allows for a unilateral exit as well as for a consensual divorce. Arguably, the first is an interesting abstract proposition, which, however, in practical terms seems to be an unworkable solution. Hence, the only realistic option is a proper divorce based on a withdrawal agreement. As per Article 50 TEU, it would be negotiated by the European Union with a departing country and should cover the terms of withdrawal and “take account of future relations” between the EU and the divorcee. It is submitted that in order to avoid a legal vacuum, this agreement should not only “take account of future relations” but actually deal with them thoroughly. This will make the negotiations difficult and, most likely, time consuming. One also has to envisage a scenario whereby a country leaving the European Union would join EFTA and become a EFTA-EU Member State of the European Economic Area. Should that happen the scope of a EU withdrawal agreement would be limited to the terms of exit, while future relations between the divorcee and the European Union would be mainly covered by the EEA Agreement. This chapter unlocks the mechanics of Article 50 TEU and the withdrawal procedure it provides for. It covers the issues that should be attended to by the negotiators and provides an overview of dossiers that are likely be covered in a withdrawal agreement.