Sandcastles of hope? Civil society organizations and the working conditions of migrant farmworkers in North America

This research explores whether civil society organizations (CSOs) can contribute to more effectively regulating the working conditions of temporary migrant farmworkers in North America. This dissertation unfolds in five parts. The first part of the dissertation sets out the background context. The context includes the political economy of agriculture and temporary migrant labour more broadly. It also includes the political economy of the legal regulations that govern immigration and work relations. The second part of the research builds an analytical model for studying the operation of CSOs active in working with the migrant farmworker population. The purpose of the analytical framework is to make sense of real-world examples by providing categories for analysis and a means to get at the channels of influence that CSOs utilize to achieve their aims. To this end, the model incorporates the insights from three significant bodies of literature—regulatory studies, labour studies, and economic sociology. The third part of the dissertation suggests some key strategic issues that CSOs should consider when intervening to assist migrant farmworkers, and also proposes a series of hypotheses about how CSOs can participate in the regulatory process. The fourth part probes and extends these hypotheses by empirically investigating the operation of three CSOs that are currently active in assisting migrant farm workers in North America: the Agricultural Workers Alliance (Canada), Global Workers’ Justice Alliance (USA), and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (USA). The fifth and final part draws together lessons from the empirical work and concluded that CSOs can fill gaps left by the waning power of actors, such as trade unions and labour inspectorates, as well as act in ways that these traditional actors can not.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

A ação direta da vítima contra a seguradora nos seguros facultativos de responsabilidade civil na dogmática brasileira

A investigação parte do surgimento histórico do contrato de seguro, abordando em sequencia sua teoria geral e a dogmática brasileira pertinente para, após, traçar os contornos específicos do contrato de seguro de responsabilidade civil, tanto pelo viés doutrinário quanto da legislação vigente no Brasil, dando ênfase maior ao seu conceito e finalidade social, às peculiaridades de seu sinistro, assim como à pluralidade de interesses nele albergado, afastando-se a ideia de se tratar de um seguro de reembolso, e adotando-se sua conceituação como de um seguro de garantia. Após, são fixados os conceitos básicos de processo civil aplicáveis ao objeto do estudo: jurisdição, processo, ação e seus elementos, para somente então expor o surgimento e desenvolvimento teórico da ação direta da vítima contra a seguradora na doutrina e jurisprudência francesas, passando pelas fases exegética, legalista e doutrinária de sua análise. Com base neste desenvolvimento histórico, adota-se concepção da ação direta da vítima contra a seguradora como instituto jurídico de conformação própria, oriundo dos princípios de equidade e justiça, e destinado ao afastamento dos princípios gerais de direito civil da relatividade contratual e da igualdade entre credores, constituindo meio de exercício do direito próprio da vítima contra a seguradora do causador do dano. Delimitados os conceitos em estudo, são expostas algumas experiências estrangeiras acerca do uso da ação direta e, partindo-se do embasamento teórico do seguro de responsabilidade civil e da ação direta da vítima por este protegida, ingressa-se na análise de seu desenvolvimento na dogmática brasileira. Para tanto, volta-se à ideia do seguro de responsabilidade civil como seguro de reembolso, e aos argumentos dela decorrentes para afastar o cabimento da ação direta, tais como o princípio da relatividade contratual, a ausência de previsão de solidariedade entre segurado e seguradora, e as dificuldades de exercício da ação e também de defesa por parte da seguradora e do segurado. Expostos e criticados os argumentos contrários ao cabimento da ação direta, passa-se ao estudo das tentativas doutrinárias e jurisprudenciais, no direito brasileiro, de se fornecer à vítima um meio de exercício de sua ação contra a seguradora, inicialmente por instrumentos de processo civil, e terminando por se reconhecer a possibilidade de acionamento conjunto de segurado e seguradora pelo Superior Tribunal de Justiça na sua Súmula 529. Por último, são tratados os argumentos doutrinários e legislativos favoráveis ao cabimento da ação direta da vítima contra a seguradora em qualquer seguro de responsabilidade civil, com e sem a participação inicial do segurado no processo, com destaque à função social do contrato de seguro de responsabilidade civil facultativo e ao direito próprio da vítima perante a seguradora. Conclui-se, assim, que a ação direta da vítima contra a seguradora, em qualquer seguro de responsabilidade civil, é instrumento apto e cabível na dogmática brasileira para dar vazão aos preceitos de equidade e justiça, despersonalizando a responsabilidade civil, ao levar seu foco da imputação para a indenidade, respeitando ao duplo interesse do moderno contrato de seguro de responsabilidade civil, e solucionando pela via mais apta e simples situação complexa.

Responsabilidade civil do consumidor pessoa física superendividado no direito brasileiro

Este trabalho tem a missão de analisar a Responsabilidade Civil do consumidor – pessoa física – superendividado no Direito Brasileiro, e está dividido em quatro capítulos. O primeiro capítulo ressalta as noções básicas para a análise do conceito de superendividamento da pessoa física e como os sistemas dos diversos regimes jurídicos de outros países tratam o tema. Mostra , ainda, a forma de prestigiar a dignidade do devedor e o direito de satisfação ao crédito dos credores, ambos integrantes de uma relação horizontal de eficácia de direitos fundamentais. O capítulo 2 aborda a evolução do tema no Poder Legislativo Brasileiro, bem como as propostas de órgãos de defesa do consumidor e sugestões verificadas no estudo metodológico como alternativa para amenizar a problemática no Brasil. No terceiro capítulo, há um estudo que demonstra a distinção de situações possíveis do regime geral da Responsabilidade Civil do superendividado pessoa física ativo e passivo em comparação com o fornecedor que atue com boas ou más condutas em face do endividamento da pessoa física. O capítulo 4 tratou de apresentar, como proposta principal, os métodos de julgamentos do tema Responsabilidade Civil do consumidor superendividado na perspectiva do Poder Judiciário Brasileiro, com destaque o endividamento do produtor rural pessoa física. O estudo do tema é uma proposta inovadora no direito consumerista brasileiro. Tem por objetivo aperfeiçoar boas práticas comerciais no mercado de consumo no Brasil, pois o consumo voraz frente à produção desenfreada de produtos e um mercado publicitário agressivo deve existir em coerência e razoabilidade com uma propensa relação jurídica eficaz em que consumidor e fornecedor são atores que objetivam sempre o equilíbrio contratual, em preservação ao sinalagma genético do contrato de consumo.

The Europeanisation of Criminal Law and the Criminal Law Dimension of European Integration. Research Papers in Law, 3/2005

From the Introduction. In the academic year 1991-1992, Utrecht University, on my initiative, started to offer courses in European criminal law. This initiative came at a symbolic moment, just prior to the entry into force of the EU Treaty of Maastricht1 and the outlining of European policy in the areas of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The Director of the Legal Department, Paul DEMARET, was aware of the significance of this development and I have been given the opportunity to teach this subject at the College of Europe since 1995. Since then, JHA has evolved into one of the main areas of EU legislation. Now we are again on the threshold of an important historical feat. In June 2003, the European Convention reached agreement concerning a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.2 The use of the term “Constitution” for the future EU Treaty is not simply cosmetic. The realisation has dawned that EU integration must be embedded in a treaty document which also regulates the rights and duties of citizens, not just with respect to European citizenship, but also with respect to, for example, Justice. Where JHA is concerned, this result acknowledges that the harmonisation of criminal law and criminal procedure and transnational cooperation cannot preclude the harmonisation of principles of due law and fair trial. Despite the substantial Europeanisation of criminal law, many criminal lawyers are defending the achievements and typicalities of their national criminal law like never before. EU initiatives are assessed from the perspective of the national agenda and national achievements. We are still too far removed from a European criminal law policy that is both European and enjoys national support. The core issue is therefore not how to keep our criminal (procedural) law national and free from European influences, but rather how to ensure democratic decision making, the quality of the constitutional state and the guarantees of criminal law in a national administrative model which has to operate increasingly interactively within a European and international context. In this contribution, the contours of the Europeanisation of criminal law are outlined and analysed. First, attention will be paid to the EC and, second, to the JHA. Following this, an evaluation and a look ahead at the current IGC are indicated.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).

Casual but Smart: The Court’s new clothes in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) after the Lisbon Treaty. Research Papers in Law, 2/2008

Introduction. Unintended as it was, the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the Court, the Court of the EU) has played an extremely important role in the construction of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999. The fact that this is a new field of EU competence, poses afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its Member States, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) extent of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions have prompted judicial solutions which take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.1 The ECJ is the body whose institutional role is to benefit most from this upcoming ‘depilarisation’, possibly more than that of the European Parliament. This structure is on the verge of being abandoned, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.2 However spectacular this formal boost of the Court’s competence, the changes in real terms are not going to be that dramatic. This apparent contradiction is explained, to a large extent, by the fact that the Court has in many ways ‘provoked’, or even ‘anticipated’, the depilarisation of its own jurisdictional role, already under the existing three-pillar structure. Simply put, under the new – post Treaty of Lisbon – regime, the Court will have full jurisdiction over all AFSJ matters, as those are going to be fully integrated in what is now the first pillar. Some limitations will continue to apply, however, while a special AFSJ procedure will be institutionalised. Indeed, if we look into the new Treaty we may identify general modifications to the Court’s structure and jurisdiction affecting the AFSJ (section 2), modifications in the field of the AFSJ stemming from the abolition of the pillar structure (section 3) and, finally, some rules specifically applicable to the AFSJ (section 4).

Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform? Research Papers in Law, 5/2008

From the Introduction. This paper will thus show that, given the rapid "criminalisation" of competition law proceedings, sanctions should in principle be imposed at first instance I. Sanctions imposed by the Commission in competition proceedings are "criminal charges" within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR by an independent and impartial tribunal fulfilling all the conditions of Article 6 ECHR (part I). Or at the very least, these sanctions should be subject to full jurisdictional review by an independent and impartial tribunal in order to comply with Article 6 ECHR and to cure the defects of the administrative procedure (part II). It is doubtful however whether such a full jurisdictional review, as it is understood by the ECtHR, is available at Community-level in antitrust cases.

Public Procurement Law and Health care: From Theory to Practice. Research Paper in Law, 2/2010

From the Introduction. This contribution will focus on the core question if, how and to what extent the EU procurement rules and principles (may) affect the national health care systems. We start our analysis by summarizing the applicable EU public procurement legislation, principles and soft law and its exact scope in relation to health care. (section 2). Subsequently, we turn to the parties in a contract, subject to procurement rules in the field of health care, addressing both the definition of contracting authorities and relevant case law (section 3). This will then lead to an analysis of possible justifications for not holding a tender procedure in the field of health care (section 4). Finally, we illustrate the impact of EU public procurement rules on health care by analysing a Dutch case study, in which the question whether public hospitals in the Netherlands qualify as contracting authorities in terms of the Public Sector Directive stood central (section 5). Our conclusions will follow in section 6.

The Judicial ‘Bail Out’ of the European Stability Mechanism: Comment on the Pringle Case. Research Paper in Law 09/2013

Since the beginning of the crisis, many responses have been taken to stabilise the European markets. Pringle is the awaited judicial response of the European Court of Justice on the creation of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), a crisis-related intergovernmental international institution which provides financial assistance to Member States in distress in the Eurozone. The judgment adopts a welcome and satisfactory approach on the establishment of the ESM. This article examines the feasibility of the ESM under the Treaty rules and in light of the Pringle judgment. For the first time, the Court was called to appraise the use of the simplified revision procedure under article 48 TEU with the introduction of a new paragraph to article 136 TFEU as well as to interpret the no bail out clause under article 125 TFEU. The final result is rather positive as the Court endorses the establishment of a stability mechanism of the ESM-kind beyond a strict reading of the Treaty rules. Pringle is the first landmark ECJ decision in which the Court has endorsed the use of new and flexible measures to guarantee financial assistance between Member States. This judgment could act as a springboard for more economic, financial and, possibly, political interconnections between Member States.

The tarnished golden door : civil rights issues in immigration.

Item 288-A.

Toward equal educational opportunity : affirmative admissions programs at law and medical schools.

Includes bibliographical references.

People who follow the crops : a staff report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights /

Includes bibliographical references.

Ley de matrimonio civil.

At head of title: República del Paraguay.

The Civil Code of the Federal District and territories. A translation, with an appendix as to the civil codes of the various Mexican states, explanatory notes, etc.

Index: p. [i]-ix.