Sovereignty, Article 4(2) TEU and the Respect of National Identities: Swinging the Balance of Power in Favour of the Member States?

The question of whether and to what extent sovereignty has been transferred to the European Union (EU) from its Member States remains a central debate within the EU and is interlinked with issues such as Kompetenz-Kompetenz, direct effect and primacy. Central to any claim to sovereignty is the principle of primacy, which requires that Member States uphold EU law over national law where there is a conflict. However, limitations to primacy can traditionally be found in national jurisprudence and the Maastricht Treaty introduced a possible EU limitation with the requirement that the EU respect national identities of Member States. The Lisbon Treaty provided only minimal further support to the principle of primacy whilst simultaneously developing the provision on national identities, now found within Article 4(2) TEU. There are indications from the literature, national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the EU that the provision is gathering strength as a legal tool and is likely to have a wider scope than the text might indicate. In its new role, Article 4(2) TEU bolsters the Member States’ claim to sovereignty and the possibility to uphold aspects crucial to them in conflict with EU law and the principle of primacy. Consequently, it is central to the relationship between the constitutional courts of the Member States and the CJEU, and where the final elements of control remain in ‘hard cases’. However, it does so as part of EU law, thereby facilitating the evasion of direct fundamental conflicts and reflecting the concept of constitutional pluralism.

Broadening the Scope and the Norms of EU Gender Equality Law: Towards a Multidimensional Conception of Equality Law

The aim of this article is to discuss some consequences of placing the combating of discrimination and the promotion of equality among the principles of Community law. The focus is firstly on the ensuing widening of the scope of EU (gender) equality law and secondly on the increase of grounds of forbidden discrimination. In concluding, steps towards a multidimensional conception of equality law are proposed.

Village Greens, Commons Land and the Emergence of Sports Law in the UK

This article traces the legal development of recreational rights surrounding village greens and, later, urban public spaces in the UK. The article highlights that at a critical juncture in the development of modern sport in Britain - in the mid-nineteenth century - the law helped embed not only just a space for sport in the emerging industrialised and increasingly urbanised environment, but also the place of sport in the Victorian era's evolving socio-economic landscape and, further, the relevant case law was the precursor for what is known today as sports law.

Testing of a Market Fraction Model and Power-law Behaviour in the DAX 30

This paper tests a simple market fraction asset pricing model with heterogeneous
agents. By selecting a set of structural parameters of the model through a systematic procedure, we show that the autocorrelations (of returns, absolute returns and squared returns) of the market fraction model share the same pattern as those of the DAX 30. By conducting econometric analysis via Monte Carlo simulations, we characterize these power-law behaviours and find that estimates of the power-law decay indices, the (FI)GARCH parameters, and the tail index of the selected market fraction model closely match those of the DAX 30. The results strongly support the explanatory power of the heterogeneous agent models.

Equality, justice and feasibility: an ethical analysis of the WBGU’s budget approach

According to the Budget Approach proposed by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), allocating CO2 emission rights to countries on an equal per-capita basis would provide an ethically justified response to global climate change. In this paper, we will highlight four normative issues which beset the WBGU’s Budget Approach: (1) the approach’s core principle of distributive justice, the principle of equality, and its associated policy of emissions egalitarianism are much more complex than it initially appears; (2) the “official” rationale for determining the size of the budget should be modified in order to avoid implausible normative assumptions about the imposition of permissible intergenerational risks; (3) the approach heavily relies on trade-offs between justice and feasibility which should be stated more explicitly; and (4) part of the approach’s ethical appeal depends on policy instruments which are “detachable” from the approach’s core principle of distributive justice.