Qaṣīdah fī ʻilm al-ʻaqāyid : manuscript, undated

Bound with: Baḥr al-kalām fī ʻilm al-tawḥīd / lil-Shaykh al-Imām Abū al-Muʻīn al-Nasafī (ff. 1v-25r).

Kitāb al-maʻānī al-daqīqah fī idrāk al-ḥaqīqah / li-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʻaṣr wa-khātimat al-ḥuffāẓ al-Jalāl al-Suyūṭī : manuscript, 1584

Copy dated 992 [1584].

Shaqāʼiq al-daqāʼiq wa-ḥadāʼiq al-ḥaqāʼiq : manuscript, [ca. 1608]

Cream laid paper with watermarks. 19.9 x 14.3 cm (16.5 x 10.5 cm.)

Risālah-ʼi nūrbakhsh-i Jāmī dar bayān-i ḥaqīqat-i majāz : manuscript, undated

Cream laid paper with watermarks. 19.9 x 14.3 cm ( x cm.)

Hādhā kitāb al-ʻAqāʼid / lil-Imām al-Nasafī al-Ḥanafī : manuscript, undated

Paper. 20 x 13 cm. (15.6 x 8 cm.).

Qaṣīdah mufīdah fī ʻilm al-ʻaqāyid : manuscript, undated

Bound with: Baḥr al-kalām fī ʻilm al-tawḥīd / lil-Shaykh al-Imām Abū al-Muʻīn al-Nasafī (ff. 1v-25r).

Sharḥ al-ʻAqīdah al-Sanūsīyah : manuscript, [ca. 1755]

With this is bound: Itḥāf al-murīdīn li-ʻaqīdat Umm al-burhān / Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd Allāh ibn Abī Bakr al-Ghadāmisī (ff. 29v-128r) -- Ḥāshiyah ʻalā al-ʻAqīdah al-Sanūsīyah / Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Qāsim ibn Naṣr al-Thawrī (ff. 129v-164r) -- al-Durrah al-mushayyadah fī sharḥ al-Murshidah / Muḥammad ibn ʻAbbād al-Tilimsānī (ff. 165v-199v) -- Ightinām al-fawāʼid bi-sharḥ Qawāʻid al-ʻaqāʼid / Aḥmad ibn Aḥmad Zarrūq (ff. 200v-229v).

Itḥāf al-murīdīn li-ʻaqīdat Umm al-burhān : manuscript, [ca. 1755]

Bound with: Sharḥ al-ʻAqīdah al-Sanūsīyah / Muḥammad al-Maʼmūn ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥafṣī (ff. 1v-28v).

Ḥāshiyah ʻalā al-ʻAqīdah al-Sanūsīyah : manuscript, 1755

Copy completed on 13 Shawwāl 1168 AH [July 23, 1755 AD] in the hand of Muḥammad ibn ʻAlī ibn Naṣr ibn ʻĀmir al-Maṭmaṭī.

Ightinām al-fawāʼid bi-sharḥ Qawāʻid al-ʻaqāʼid : manuscript, 1756

Incomplete at beginning.

Risālah fī masāʼil al-aqḍiyah : manuscript, [ca. 1704]

Title supplied by cataloger.

Introducing more equity in the CAP: a difficult challenge. Egmont Paper #55, June 2012

[From the Introduction]. The main question addressed by this paper is how to reach a more equitable distribution of CAP’s payments pragmatically, politically and economically? Pragmatically, the CAP is a multi-functional policy, which has to combine different goals, i.e. to be more equitable, green and market-oriented. However, these objectives are not always compatible and require trade-offs. Politically, regarding the CAP’s significant share (40%) of the EU budget and the current public debt crisis, Member States are most likely to keep their attention on the juste retour calculations rather than the promotion of the European public interest in the EU negotiations. Economically, reaching a more equitable distribution of payments should be achieved without significant disruptive changes that could have serious consequences on the costs and benefits of the agricultural sector in the EU. Considering these elements, it is already clear that reaching a more equitable distribution of CAP’s payments represents a difficult challenge.

Europe’s most wanted? Recalibrating Trust in the European Arrest Warrant System. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe 55/21 March 2013

This paper assesses the uses and misuses in the application of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system in the European Union. It examines the main quantitative results of this extradition system achieved between 2005 and 2011 on the basis of the existing statistical knowledge on its implementation at EU official levels. The EAW has been anchored in a high level of ‘mutual trust’ between the participating states’ criminal justice regimes and authorities. This reciprocal confidence, however, has been subject to an increasing number of challenges resulting from its practical application, presenting a dual conundrum: 1. Principle of proportionality: Who are the competent judicial authorities cooperating with each other and ensuring that there are sufficient impartial controls over the necessity and proportionality of the decisions on the issuing and execution of EAWs? 2. Principle of division of powers: How can criminal justice authorities be expected to handle different criminal judicial traditions in what is supposed to constitute a ‘serious’ or ‘minor’ crime in their respective legal settings and ‘who’ is ultimately to determine (divorced from political considerations) when is it duly justified to make the EAW system operational? It is argued that the next generation of the EU’s criminal justice cooperation and the EAW need to recognise and acknowledge that the mutual trust premise upon which the European system has been built so far is no longer viable without devising new EU policy stakeholders’ structures and evaluation mechanisms. These should allow for the recalibration of mutual trust and mistrust in EU justice systems in light of the experiences of the criminal justice actors and practitioners having a stake in putting the EAW into daily effect. Such a ‘bottom-up approach’ should be backed up with the best impartial and objective evaluation, an improved system of statistical collection and an independent qualitative assessment of its implementation. This should be placed as the central axis of a renewed EAW framework which should seek to better ensure the accountability, impartial (EU-led) scrutiny and transparency of member states’ application of the EAW in light of the general principles and fundamental rights constituting the foundations of the European system of criminal justice cooperation.