A short introduction in the preasumptio similtudinis, tertium comparationis and functional equivalence
A short introduction in the preasumptio similtudinis, tertium comparationis and functional equivalence
Brussels 1 and Rome 1 briefly explained in a three step approach (EU Regulation 1215/2012 and 593/2008).
Powered by: Shanti Media.
This week we saw the emergence of a major diplomatic conflict between Turkey and the Netherlands. In short, the Dutch government used legal means to ban two Turkish ministers from Dutch territory, preventing them to hold speeches in support of the Erdogan campaign. This campaign is about a referendum that would change the Turkish Constitution, putting –bluntly said- more power in the hands of the Turkish President.
In the media, we see an explosion of articles that are about the ‘lawfulness’ of the Dutch actions and Turkish ministers. However, what I miss in the ‘mainstream’ debate is a very important underling question: ‘can you use democratic means to realize undemocratic results?’ Or, from the opposite perspective: ‘can you use undemocratic means to protect democracy?’
My name is Bart Wernaart, I am a lecturer in law and ethics, and wanted to express my sincere appreciation to you for your profession. Well, that is an understatement: I guess I wanted to say that we need help, and we need you more than ever.
Some doubt the added value of your subject. Some might even suggest to delete history as a subject from school curricula. Amongst them, to my horror, we might even find policy makers. They are fools. I hereby would like to ask you to double your effort in your vital job to teach your subject. Law and ethics are important topics to reflect on our current society, but when people fail to learn from past experiences, my subject is rather meaningless.
How tax and trucks proved to be a very effective combination.
Why is this ruling so important?
In this groundbreaking ruling, the European Court of Justice held that citizens could invoke particular European law in the national courts of EU Member States. Before, international law was considered to be an agreement between States only, and therefore only affecting the relation between State Parties, not the relation between a State Party and its citizens.
Today, fact free politics is increasingly accepted. I guess that the victory of Donald Trump in the American presidential elections is a manifestation of this phenomenon. As we have seen during the fierce campaign, it was hardly about facts but rather about virtues, and perhaps –though less visible- about values. In its core, fact free politics makes some sense. However, completely ignoring facts while taking decisions about something does not. Where should we draw the line?
A short introduction in using Brussels 1 and Rome 1 in the context of private international law. For the expert!
Depending on the University you visit, some students (including my own) may experience the sheer joy of doing some exams these days. That includes law and ethics exams. Here’s a myth busted, and some tricks.
In the media, we see some surprised responses to the fact that the Walloon parliament in southern Belgium is able to veto an international trade agreement on behalf of Belgium. This concerns the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) closed between the EU and Canada. The surprise does not come from the fact that people or parliamentarians oppose to big trade agreements, but rather that the Walloon parliament is able to resist to such an agreement, being a regional (and not a national) legislature. However, this is not so surprising when we take a closer look at the Belgian constitutional system and its current political climate.