10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Brexit Sovereignty and its Dead Ends

      1
      Global Policy
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In more ways than one, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) concluded by the EU and the UK is a typical trade agreement. Its commitments are international in nature; its provisions create no directly effective rights and obligations for private parties to enforce under domestic law. The TCA thus turns from the central innovation of EU law, an innovation, which also lies at the heart of the Single Market. It is a price the UK is willing to pay for throwing off what it considers the yoke of EU law. This is not out of tune, perhaps, with a wider popular pushback against globalisation and the institutions perceived to represent it. But has Brexit truly returned control of its own laws to the UK, in both a formal and a practical sense? This article analyses the TCA as a balancing act between the parties’ ‘right to regulate’ and the EU’s demand of a level playing field, the ‘Brussels effect’ likely to constrain British attempts in the direction of regulatory divergence, and what has become of the formal effect of EU law in the laws of the UK.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The autonomy of the EU legal order

            The European Union (EU) cannot make a plausible claim to sovereignty under international law. However, what the EU can do and what it also does is, is to act as if it were sovereign and claim certain rights that are considered core elements of state sovereignty. This article argues that the Court of Justice’s (ECJ) conception of the EU legal order as autonomous provides the EU with a core element of state sovereignty: jurisdictional sovereignty. Autonomy construed by the ECJ is best understood in conceptual legal and absolute terms. It is meant to shield the ECJ’s conceptual legal claims from interference. Legal autonomy as construed by the ECJ is not relative as many authors have claimed. It cannot come about in an incremental or relative manner. It cannot be based on arguments relating to the status of a self-contained regime of international law that gradually distances itself from the general rules of international law. It is a conceptual claim giving birth to the assumption of apriority that can only be made in categorical terms. In this way it is similar to sovereignty. The article first sets out how the autonomy of the EU legal order is best understood. It examines the ECJ’s case law in light of legal theoretical considerations and relates it to the separation thesis of Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law. It then explains that autonomy is of such relevance to the EU legal order because the aprioristic character of EU law remains essentially contested. This relevance indirectly explains why the Court so cautiously protects the autonomy of the EU legal order. Finally, the article examines the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17 in light of the identified absolute conception of autonomy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              EU Law Beyond EU Borders

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Global Policy
                Global Policy
                Wiley
                1758-5880
                1758-5899
                April 2022
                April 29 2022
                April 2022
                : 13
                : S2
                : 98-105
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculty of Laws UCL London UK
                Article
                10.1111/1758-5899.13077
                11df51e8-174f-4a7c-9f56-1b63aacfa2e8
                © 2022

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article