How the European Union does not work: national bargaining success in the Council of Ministers

We know surprisingly little about whether the content of European Union legislation reflects the preferences of some Member States more than others. The few studies that have examined national bargaining success rates for EU legislation have conceptual and methodological weaknesses. To redress these problems I use a salience-weighted measure to gauge the relative success of Member States in translating their national preferences into legislation, and test two plausible, competing hypotheses about how the EU works: that no state consistently achieves more of what it really wants than any other, and that large Member States tend to beat small ones. Neither hypothesis receives empirical support. Not only do states differ far more significantly in their respective levels of bargaining success than previously recognised, but some of the smaller states are the ones that do especially well. The paper‟s main contribution -- demonstrating that the EU does not work as most people think it does -- sets the stage for new research questions, both positive and normative. In the last section I make a tentative start answering two of the most important: which factors explain the surprising empirical results, and whether differential national bargaining success might undermine the legitimacy of the integration process.

Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union

This article examines the adoption of genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) crops in the European Union (EU) prior to its commercial release. A set of potential drivers including the implementation of coexistence measures by farmers, farmers’ own motivational factors (e.g. economic, environmental and technical factors) and perceived social pressure to accept or reject adoption may influence European Union farmers’ willingness to adopt GMHT oilseed rape and GMHT maize. The analysis includes economic and sociological factors. Results show that coexistence measures may hamper GMHT adoption in the EU.

Drug control, human rights, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health: a reply to Saul Takahashi

A recent article in this journal challenged claims that a human rights framework should be applied to drug control. This article questions the author’s assertions and reframes them in the context of socio-legal drug scholarship, aiming to build on the discourse concerning human rights and drug use. It is submitted that a rights-based approach is a necessary, indeed obligatory, ethical and legal framework through which to address drug use and that international human rights law provides the proper scope for determining where interferences with individual human rights might be justified on certain, limited grounds.

The role of necessity in international humanitarian and human rights law

The nature of armed conflict has changed dramatically in recent decades. In particular, it is increasingly the case that hostilities now occur alongside ‘everyday’ situations. This has led to a pressing need to determine when a ‘conduct of hostilities’ model (governed by international humanitarian law—IHL) applies and when a ‘law enforcement’ model (governed by international human rights law—IHRL) applies. This in turn raises the question of whether these two legal regimes are incompatible or whether they might be applied in parallel. It is on this question that the current paper focuses, examining it at the level of principle. Whilst most accounts of the principles underlying these two areas of law focus on humanitarian considerations, few have compared the role played by necessity in each. This paper seeks to address this omission. It demonstrates that considerations of necessity play a prominent role in both IHL and IHRL, albeit with differing consequences. It then applies this necessity-based analysis to suggest a principled basis for rationalising the relationship between IHL and IHRL, demonstrating how this approach would operate in practice. It is shown that, by emphasising the role of necessity in IHL and IHRL, an approach can be adopted that reconciles the two in a manner that is sympathetic to their object and purpose.

Updated empirical model of genetically-modified maize grain production practices to achieve European Union labeling thresholds

An updated empirical approach is proposed for specifying coexistence requirements for genetically modified (GM) maize (Zea mays L.) production to ensure compliance with the 0.9% labeling threshold for food and feed in the European Union. The model improves on a previously published (Gustafson et al., 2006) empirical model by adding recent data sources to supplement the original database and including the following additional cases: (i) more than one GM maize source field adjacent to the conventional or organic field, (ii) the possibility of so-called “stacked” varieties with more than one GM trait, and (iii) lower pollen shed in the non-GM receptor field. These additional factors lead to the possibility for somewhat wider combinations of isolation distance and border rows than required in the original version of the empirical model. For instance, in the very conservative case of a 1-ha square non-GM maize field surrounded on all four sides by homozygous GM maize with 12 m isolation (the effective isolation distance for a single GM field), non-GM border rows of 12 m are required to be 95% confident of gene flow less than 0.9% in the non-GM field (with adventitious presence of 0.3%). Stacked traits of higher GM mass fraction and receptor fields of lower pollen shed would require a greater number of border rows to comply with the 0.9% threshold, and an updated extension to the model is provided to quantify these effects.