An Exercise in Legal Honesty: Re-writing the Court of Justice and the Bundesverfassungsgericht. IHS Political Science Series No. 136, February 2014

At a time of crisis – a true state of emergency – both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the German Federal Constitutional Court have failed the rule of law in Europe. Worse still, in their evaluation of the ersatz crisis law, which has been developed in response to financial and sovereign debt crises, both courts have undermined constitutionality throughout Europe. Each jurisdiction has been implicated within the techocratisation of democratic process. Each Court has contributed to an incremental process of the undermining of the political subjectivity of European Citizens. The results are depressing for lawyers who are still attached to notions of constitutionality. Yet, we must also ask whether the Courts could have acted otherwise. Given the original flaws in the construction of Economic and Monetary Union, as well as the politically pre-emptive constraints imposed by global financial markets, each Court might thus be argued to have been forced to suspend immediate legality in a longer term effort to secure the character of the legal jurisdiction as a whole. Crisis can and does defeat the law. Nevertheless, what continues to disturb is the failure of law in Europe to open up any perspective for a return to normal constitutionality post crisis, as well as its apparent inability to give proper and honest consideration to the hardship now being experienced by millions of Europeans within crisis. This contribution accordingly seeks to reimagine each Judgment in a language of legal honesty. Above all, this contribution seeks to suggest a new form of post-national constitutional language; a language which takes as its primary function, proper protection of democratic process against the ever encroaching powers of a post-national executive power. This contribution forms a part of an on-going effort to identify a new basis for the legitimacy of European Law, conducted jointly and severally with Christian Joerges, University of Bremen and Hertie School of Government, Berlin. Differences do remain in our theoretical positions; hence this individual essay. Nevertheless, the congruence between pluralist and conflict of law approaches to the topic are also readily apparent. See, for example, Everson & Joerges (2013).

EU-Turkey plan for handling refugees is fraught with legal and procedural challenges. CEPS Commentary, 10 March 2016

EU-Turkey relations in the scope of the ongoing refugee crisis were at the heart of the European Council meeting of 7 March 2016. Among the set of initiatives proposed, the following two have attracted the most attention: First, for every Syrian readmitted by Turkey from the Greek islands, another Syrian from Turkey would be resettled in an EU member state. This has come to be known as the ‘one for one’ resettlement approach. Second, all new irregular migrants and asylum-seekers crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands would be returned to Turkey without offering any guarantee of protection.

EU-Turkey Summit on the refugee crisis Law and (dis)order? EPC Commentary, 21 March 2016

After many meetings and long hours of negotiations, the overwhelming feeling when a deal between the EU and Turkey was struck, was one of “mission accomplished”! Faced with an unprecedented crisis and forced to appease increasingly hostile public opinions back home, EU leaders had only one objective in mind: reducing the number of migrants arriving in the EU so that order can return in the framework of EU rules. However, a closer look at the Summit Conclusions and the EU-Turkey statement leaves a bitter taste, according to Yves Pascouau. In this Commentary, he questions the feasibility of the final EU-Turkey deal, saying that it creates more problems than it solves: besides the obvious legal and practical issues, it is far from certain which member states will be willing to do their part, or whether or not the EU can come up with a strategic vision on human mobility for the future.

Norfolk copyright entries, 1837, 1851-3, 1856-7, 1858-9, 1864, 1866-71. Registers of copyrights and copies of the Court records for copyrights of the Federal District Court at Norfolk, Virginia, generally referred to as the Court of the Eastern District of Virginia.

Bibliography: leaf 42.

Rules of court, 1905-1916 : made under the China orders in Council, 1904-1915, the foreign jurisdiction (admiralty) order in Council, 1910, and the China (companies) order in Council, 1915 /

At head of title: British jurisdiction in China.

Rules of the United States District court for the Northern district of Iowa, including rules in Bankruptcy, as amended and revised to April 1, 1924.

Mode of access: Internet.

General rules and bankruptcy rules for the United States District court for the Northern district of Oklahoma.

Mode of access: Internet.

Prize rules and standing interrogatories in prize adopted and filed on January 8, 1942 in the United States District court for the Southern district of New York.

Mode of access: Internet.

Rules of the United States District court for the Northern district of Iowa, as amended and revised to April 1, 1924.

Mode of access: Internet.

Fingerprints : fingerprinting living and deceased individuals : latent fingerprints : court decisions.

At head of title: Federal Bureau of Investigation. United States Department of Justice.

Summary of major legislation, and of federal court decisions on its constitutionality, 1933-1940 : summary of major legislation, 1933-1940, with the various amendments to each basic act, and decisions of the federal courts as to the constitutionality of the basic and amending acts.

"This document was prepared by W. H. McClenon, in charge of the Federal Law Section."--p. iii.