'Enforcing Passport Apartheid through EU Law: From Internal Market to the Polish Border': CELS Seminar

Cambridge Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) Podcast

Cambridge Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) Podcast

24:42

Episode Notes [01:14] Unexpected Email from Employer [05:49] The Deferred Resignation Program [06:34] Initial Reactions and Concerns [08:01] Evaluating the Offer [08:21] Enhanced Standards of Conduct [08:55] Personal Reflections and Concerns [12:21] Seeking Advice and Making a Decision [13:01] Option One: Do Not Resign [14:56] Option Two: Resign [16:44] Insights from Conversations [21:30] Making The Decision [23:51] Final Thoughts and Gratitude Resources Mentioned Sebastian Junger The Soul of Shame by Curt Thompson Donald Trump Elon Musk Steve Bannon Russell Vought Derek Sivers Sumner Crenshaw Brian Fretwell at Finding Good Chad Littlefield The Thought Leaders Practice by Matt Church Simon Cowell Beauty Pill Producer Ben Ford Questions Asked Is it legitimate, and can it be trusted? How are you feeling? What questions come to your mind? Where does your mind go? Are you seeking safety? Would this have been an adrenaline rush as you raced to send the resignation response? What an "enhanced standard" regarding loyalty and trustworthiness was? What are these new "enhanced standards?" Are they beyond what my Constitutional oath requires? If I don't resign, how bright will the target on my back glow? My leadership has supported all my work, but would termination direction come from higher up the chain of command? What would you recommend if we talked over coffee? What questions would you ask? How would you use listening? How would you use silence? How is this scenario playing out in your mind and body? What is coming to the surface for you? How might that influence what you are about to say to me? What are the chances of my name popping on a list and getting fired? How about the chances of being part of an official Reduction in Force and early retirement? Would the administration make a better offer? What do I know about the pending job market? What did I expect the workplace to be like and did I want to be there as the contractions took place? Will the administration pay me through the end of September or will they renege? Can I sufficiently build the Curated Questions business to transition by 1 October? - Do I have the faith or confidence to step into this future as a sole practitioner and grow Curated Questions into all I envisioned? Was this purpose calling? What would I expect the job market to look like at the end of summer if I hadn't developed the income streams to maintain our lifestyle? What is your recommendation? Did it change from your initial recommendation? Where in your body are you feeling the uncertainty? Are you processing this scenario in parallel with your decision as if you had received the email? What additional questions should I have considered? Who else should I have consulted with? How would you have changed my risk rating? What is the correct length of the pregnant pause before making an important announcement? What processes would you use in my circumstance, and what would be different? What questions are at the top of your list to get to a decision? Who would be the members of your pantheon you would counsel with to gain clarity? Apart from the heady analysis, what other key practices would you include in your journey through a similar situation?…

3 years ago 38:46

MP3•Episode home

Professor Dimitry Kochenov (Central European University) gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Enforcing Passport Apartheid through EU Law: From Internal Market to the Polish Border" on 23 February 2022 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CELS (the Centre for European Legal Studies). Biography: Dimitry Kochenov leads the Rule of Law Research Group at the Central European University Democracy Institute in Budapest and is Professor of Global Citizenship and Values at the CEU Department of Legal Studies in Vienna. He is also visiting professor of citizenship and the rule of law at LUISS Guido Carli in Rome. Prof. Kochenov taught different aspects of citizenship, constitutional and EU law worldwide, including at Princeton, Oxford, Groningen, Turin and Osaka and published widely on these issues. His most recent book (Citizenship, MIT Press 2019) has been translated into several languages and reviewed in The New York Review of Books. Dimitry consults governments and international organizations on the matters of his academic interest and served as the founding chairman of the Investment Migration Council (Geneva). Abstract: The European Union is a clear-cut example of the passport apartheid in action, where blood-based statuses of attachment to public authority distributed at birth (citizenships), which predetermine the course of life of all of us to a great degree are taken particularly seriously. The contribution will elaborate on this starting point using two examples showcasing the EU law-based aspects of this global system of injustice: the near complete exclusion of non-EU citizens from the fundamental freedoms in the EU and the pro-active stance of the Union and the Member States in ensuring that the right to seek asylum in the EU is turned into an unworkable proclamation. The two examples will allow enriching a general sketch of what passport apartheid is and which role is played by it in the contemporary world elaborated by Prof. Kochenov in the I-CON with a focus at the global level: https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/18/4/1525/6169921. The analysis of the two examples suggests that the EU is a deeply atypical constitutional system in that it assumes that the core of its law should not apply to those who 'do not belong' by default, including, largely, the idea of the Union's very existence as a territory of directly enforceable supranational rights. This starting position fetishising the personal status of legal attachment to the Union makes the European integration project the best case study for passport apartheid in the world, since all the other legal systems are never as explicit in excluding the foreigners from the most essential rights by default. The atypical nature of the Union on this count is significantly undertheorized and this paper aims to start bridging the gap between the reality of EU law and the numerous proclamations about the Union's equitable value-laden nature. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

163 episodes

#University Of Cambridge

'Enforcing Passport Apartheid through EU Law: From Internal Market to the Polish Border': CELS Seminar

published 3 years ago

MP3•Episode home

163 episodes

#University Of Cambridge

All episodes

1
The Future of the European Union: Socio-Economic and Political Challenges to its Legal-Constitutional Framework: CELS Seminar 36:23

17 days ago36:23

36:23

Speaker: Dr Bernadette Zelger, University of Innsbruck Abstract: The debate about the future of the European Union has long left academic circles, arrived in the midst of society and been awarded political attention. Meanwhile, there has been an increase of Euroscepticism accompanied by more nationalist political developments echoed in the swings to the right all across the EU. These developments may, arguably at least in parts, be explained by social resentments of the peoples of Europe. While acknowledging that law constructs and contributes to a social reality of its own it is thus, arguably also about the lack of a genuine socio-economic equilibrium within the law and political system of the EU. This imbalance is not only found within the EU legal constitutional framework, but also within the case-law of the European Court of Justice. However, possible solutions to solve this socio-economic imbalance are limited: It is either (i) Treaty reform or, alternatively, (ii) a change in the approach of the Court in its jurisprudence. While these alternatives are both valid and, to some extent, mutually exclusive, they unveil and epitomise different visions as regards the future of the European Union. However, while acknowledging the differences in the approach, they are arguably different means to serve the very same end: Warrant the European Union’s future success. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'Digital Empire or Fiefdoms? The Role of 'the EU' as a Digital Power': CELS Seminar 38:00

8 weeks ago38:00

38:00

Speaker: Professor Orla Lynskey, University College London Abstract: The EU ‘digital empire’ seeks to align technological development to its rights and values by adopting and promoting a rights-driven model of technological regulation. Bradford’s influential characterisation of EU digital strategy is credible when one maps the array of legal ‘Acts’ applicable to data, digital markets, digital services and AI adopted by the EU in recent years, all of which are without prejudice to the EU data protection law. Yet, when one delves deeper, the EU’s commitment to rights-based regulation of the digital sphere is not iron-clad. Rather, as we demonstrate through an empirical analysis of the European Commission’s adequacy decisions over a quarter of a century (1999-2024), there are clear divergences amongst EU institutions about the balance to be struck between fundamental rights and economic interests. Such divergence suggest the EU might more accurately be characterised as an amalgamation of fiefdoms rather than an empire. This inter-institutional dynamic is relevant to the legitimacy of EU actions in the digital sphere and may foreshadow the future direction of EU data law. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'EU Antitrust Law's Resilience: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly': CELS Seminar 42:28

19 weeks ago42:28

42:28

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King’s College London Abstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law’s ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public’s trust in it. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activities For more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'The Familiapress Dilemma: The Horizontal Application, Horizontal Direct Effect and Horizontal Enforcement of the Free Movement Provisions': CELS Seminar 31:21

20 weeks ago31:21

31:21

Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham University Abstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'The 2023 Franco-German Proposal on Reforming and Enlarging the EU – A Conversation': CELS Seminar 43:57

46 weeks ago43:57

43:57

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century’. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU’s capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe’s Second Constitution'? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'Of Hijabs and Shechitah/Halal – Does the CJEU (and perhaps even the ECtHR) have a Blind Spot about Non-Christian Religions?': CELS Seminar 52:42

48 weeks ago52:42

52:42

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion’ in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers’ EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d’Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian. Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'EU, UK and the World: Reflecting on Challenging Times': CELS Seminar 39:24

1 year ago39:24

39:24

Speaker: José Barroso, former President of the European Commission Biography: José Manuel Durão Barroso served twelve years in the Government of Portugal including as Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister. He was President of the European Commission during two mandates (2004/2014). His academic appointments include visiting professor at Georgetown University and visiting professor at Princeton University. He is currently a visiting professor at the Catholic University of Portugal and at the European University Institute, School of Transnational Governance, Florence. José Manuel Barroso studied Law (University of Lisbon) Political Science and International Affairs (University of Geneva). He is currently Chair of the Board of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and Chairman of International Advisors, Goldman Sachs. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'The CJEU, its legal reasoning, and its interaction with its Advocates-General': CELS Seminar 42:08

1 year ago42:08

42:08

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is a court that speaks through a single judgment, and that ‘dialogues’ with its Advocates General without ever saying quite what that dialogue means. What is the reader to make of the interplay between the individual opinion of the advocate general and the collective decision of the judges? The final seminar in the series asks some questions, suggests some partial answers, and invites reflection on whether the current arrangements should ‘evolve’ (and, if so, in what direction). For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'UK-EU Relations: How can they be Improved?': CELS Seminar 41:23

1 year ago41:23

41:23

Speakers: João Vale de Almeida, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the United Kingdom (2020-2022) and Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The UK and EU relationship has not been straight forward since Brexit but since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister a certain amount of pragmatism has prevailed. Meanwhile, the European Union is facing significant geo-political challenges – not least the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Does it have capacity to think about these broader issues? The Ukraine conflict has led to much deeper thinking about enlargement of the EU, not just for Ukraine but also the Baltic states. The question of Europe of concentric circles has been raised again. What might a Europe of concentric circles mean for the accession and neighbourhood countries? What else can be done to improver relations with our closest trading partner? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'Decoding CJEU Judgments': CELS Seminar 46:11

1 year ago46:11

46:11

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: A common complaint of common lawyers is that the way in which CJEU judgments are written is abstract and obscure. The criticism is levelled most notably at judgments that reply to requests for a preliminary ruling from national courts. Once you understand about language and the Court, there are a lot of hidden clues, if you only know where to look for them. This second seminar is designed to help you squeeze the maximum information out of the text, and alert you to what those formulae you’re reading really mean. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'Language and the CJEU': CELS Seminar 48:51

1 year ago48:51

48:51

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is unique in having 24 equally valid languages of procedure, plus an informal and unofficial working language (French) which is not necessarily spoken by as great a percentage of staff members in 2023 as it was when the Court was first set up by the original six founding Member States. What does running a 24-language court mean in theory and in practice? How does the diversity of language – and indeed of legal tradition (in the sense of how legal argument is presented) – impact upon the way the CJEU functions, how it handles its caseload, and how it writes its judgments? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series…

1
'The impact of Russia's war against Ukraine on the EU legal order': CELS/UCU Webinar (audio) 1:32:36

2 years ago1:32:36

1:32:36

On 12 May 2023 the Cambridge University Centre for European Legal Studies and (CELS) and the Ukrainian Catholic University School of Law held a webinar on the topic 'The Impact on Russia’s War against Ukraine and the EU Legal Order'. Dr Luigi Lonardo (University College Cork) will discussed his book ‘Russia’s 2022 War Against Ukraine and the Foreign Policy Reaction of the EU: Context, Diplomacy, and Law’ which focuses on the pre-war EU-Ukraine relations and the effects of Russia’s 2022 war against Ukraine on the EU, and the EU’s reaction to the war. There were five speakers at the event: Speaker: Dr Luigi Lonardo (University College Cork) Chair: Dr Markus Gehring (University of Cambridge) Introduction: Nataliya Haletska Respondent: Professor Taras Leshkovych (Ukrainian Catholic University Law School) Respondent: Dr Maxim Kolyba (Ukrainian Catholic University Law School) This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.…

1
'Assessing Antitrust Damages in Follow-on Actions Against Cartels': 3CL Travers Smith/CELS seminar (audio) 33:01

2 years ago33:01

33:01

Speaker: Professor Wolfgang Wurmnest Biography: Wolfgang Wurmnest is a full professor of law at the University of Hamburg since 2021. Previously he served as a full professor at the Universities of Augsburg (2013–2021) and Hanover (2009–2013), and as a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute of Private International and Comparative Law, Hamburg (2004–2008). He was a visiting scholar in Foggia, Lyon, Hanoi and (from September 2022 onwards) Cambridge. His main fields of research are comparative and international tort and competition law. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners. The Cambridge Private Law Centre acknowledges with gratitude the generous financial support of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and of South Square: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activities For more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.…

1
CELS/CPL/LCIL webinar: Rapid response on the UK Internal Market Bill (audio) 1:57:53

3 years ago1:57:53

1:57:53

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) warmly invite you to an online Rapid Response Seminar on the UK Internal Market Bill. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21 was introduced on 9 September 2020 and contained what observers have called constitutional dynamite and the newspapers described as ‘Britannia waives the rules.’ Ministers have alternatively called it ‘his does break international law in a specific and limited way’ or justified it as a reaction to a material breach by the EU to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland/Ireland Protocol. A detailed provision authorising Ministers (possibly with consent of Parliament) to breach international law and preventing access to the courts is unprecedented. The three Research Centres of the Faculty of Law have joined forces to analyse three aspects of the UK Internal Market Bill in a rapid response seminar. Experts on EU law, international law and public law will jointly discuss different aspects of the introduction, passage and potential consequences of the Bill. While the content of the Bill and the rules governing the internal market are equally controversial, these will be discussed in detail in November during an academic CELS seminar. The rapid response given by members of the three research centres is designed to bring different legal perspectives together and provide expert opinions on this new legislation from diverse points of view. It will allow enough time for an online Q&A, so please submit your questions through the chat. Welcome – UK Internal Market Bill Rapid Response Seminar (5 min) Professor Mark Elliot (for the Faculty of Law) Professor Alison Young (for the Centre for Public Law) Professor Catherine Barnard (for CELS) Dr Lorand Bartels (for the LCIL) Panel 1 – The Withdrawal Agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Withdrawal Agreement Act (Special status of EU law, international law in UK domestic law, why are state aid and customs checks a problem for the UK internal market?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Gehring Dr Bartels– International law Professor Barnard – EU law Dr Steinfeld – Public law Panel 2 – The breach of an international treaty, the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament (Is there a breach, does it matter, does the Ministerial Code prevent it, why are the devolved administrations concerned?) (25 min) Chair: Dr Hinarejos Dr Bartels – International law Dr Gehring – EU law Professor Young – Public law Panel 3 – Consequences of breaches in international law, reactions by the EU, ongoing trade negotiations and dispute settlement (Analysis of the statements by the Cabinet Office and the EU Commission and EU Parliament, US politicians?) (25 min) Chair: Professor Barnard Dr Bartels – International Law Professor Armstrong – EU Law Professor Young – Public law Questions and Answers (30 min) This entry provides an audio source.…

1
LCIL/CPL Webinar: Rapid response on the proposed UK Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (audio) 59:38

3 years ago59:38