Publications
2021 |
|
 | S.A. Bloks; A. van den Brink The Impact on National Sovereignty of Mutual Recognition in the AFSJ. Case-Study of the European Arrest Warrant. Journal Article German Law Journal, 22 (1), pp. 45-64, 2021. Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: EU, Sovereignty | Links: @article{Bloks2021, title = {The Impact on National Sovereignty of Mutual Recognition in the AFSJ. Case-Study of the European Arrest Warrant.}, author = {S.A. Bloks and A. van den Brink}, url = {http://suzannebloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Bloks_Brink-The-impact-on-national-sovereignty-of-mutual-recognition-in-the-afsj-Case-study-of-the-european-arrest-warrant.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.99}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-01-27}, journal = {German Law Journal}, volume = {22}, number = {1}, pages = {45-64}, abstract = {National sovereignty has been the key consideration for basing judicial cooperation in the European Union on mutual recognition. More than one decade after the creation of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ), this contribution assesses whether mutual recognition-based EU legislation in civil and criminal law indeed respects national sovereignty. To this end, it studies the Framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the EU’s flagship instrument in the AFSJ. We distinguish two elements of national sovereignty: (a) the protection of the State and its basic structures (its statehood); (b) the State’s values, principles and fundamental rights (its statehood principles), and assess the EAW from a dynamic perspective: from its initial inception, in which mutual trust primarily implied little interferences with the laws and practices of issuing states, to the current state of affairs which is marked by what could be called a ‘mutual trust supported by harmonization’- approach. Especially in the judge-driven harmonization of the EAW and the dialogue between judicial authorities we witness important (and oftentimes overlooked) elements that impact national sovereignty. At the end, the findings of the article are put in the context of the current rule of law crisis in the EU. }, keywords = {EU, Sovereignty}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } National sovereignty has been the key consideration for basing judicial cooperation in the European Union on mutual recognition. More than one decade after the creation of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ), this contribution assesses whether mutual recognition-based EU legislation in civil and criminal law indeed respects national sovereignty. To this end, it studies the Framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the EU’s flagship instrument in the AFSJ. We distinguish two elements of national sovereignty: (a) the protection of the State and its basic structures (its statehood); (b) the State’s values, principles and fundamental rights (its statehood principles), and assess the EAW from a dynamic perspective: from its initial inception, in which mutual trust primarily implied little interferences with the laws and practices of issuing states, to the current state of affairs which is marked by what could be called a ‘mutual trust supported by harmonization’- approach. Especially in the judge-driven harmonization of the EAW and the dialogue between judicial authorities we witness important (and oftentimes overlooked) elements that impact national sovereignty. At the end, the findings of the article are put in the context of the current rule of law crisis in the EU. |
2018 |
|
 | S.A. Bloks The Impact on Sovereignty. Assessing an Essentially Contested Concept. Book Chapter S. Hardt; A.W. Heringa; A. Waltermann (Ed.): Bevrijdende en Begrenzende Soevereiniteit, pp. 51-72, Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 2018. Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: EU, Sovereignty | Links: @inbook{Bloks2018b, title = {The Impact on Sovereignty. Assessing an Essentially Contested Concept.}, author = {S.A. Bloks}, editor = {S. Hardt and A.W. Heringa and A. Waltermann}, url = {http://suzannebloks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bloks_The-Essentially-Contested-Concept-of-Sovereignty_BJU2018.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-11-23}, booktitle = {Bevrijdende en Begrenzende Soevereiniteit}, pages = {51-72}, publisher = {Boom Juridische Uitgevers}, abstract = {The impact of European institutions and legislation on national sovereignty is often asserted without a clear conceptualisation of sovereignty. This article sheds a new light on the debate over the impact of European institutions and legislation on national sovereignty and the debate over the concept of sovereignty itself. Contestants in both debates are shifting sands, as they are unaware that the essentially contested nature of sovereignty makes it impossible to have an overall accepted definition of the concept. The essentially contested nature is examined and used to argue for a more fruitful approach towards conceptualising sovereignty, namely examining its function in a particular use by a particular group of users. The proposed approach is applied to the use of sovereignty by national constitutional courts in order to give an account of the issues that might be at play when an impact of European institutions and legislation on national sovereignty is claimed.}, keywords = {EU, Sovereignty}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } The impact of European institutions and legislation on national sovereignty is often asserted without a clear conceptualisation of sovereignty. This article sheds a new light on the debate over the impact of European institutions and legislation on national sovereignty and the debate over the concept of sovereignty itself. Contestants in both debates are shifting sands, as they are unaware that the essentially contested nature of sovereignty makes it impossible to have an overall accepted definition of the concept. The essentially contested nature is examined and used to argue for a more fruitful approach towards conceptualising sovereignty, namely examining its function in a particular use by a particular group of users. The proposed approach is applied to the use of sovereignty by national constitutional courts in order to give an account of the issues that might be at play when an impact of European institutions and legislation on national sovereignty is claimed. |