Recent Developments in the Area of European Criminal Law
This contribution tries to highlight and scrutinize recent developments in the dynamic area of European criminal law at both the EC and EU level. In so doing the paper focuses on three judgments each providing new perspectives on, in particular, but not only, how far the Court of Justice is prepared to go in its role as integration activist; by identifying the principle of effectiveness as forming the leitmotif in the chase for constitutional evolution of European criminal law. The paper concludes, after also having discussed current legislative initiatives presented by the Commission, by asserting the need for caution and critical assessment.
Is the Development of a Common Substantive Criminal Law for Europe Possible? Some Preliminary Reflections
The road to a common European Criminal Law, notwithstanding the political tendency towards the further ‘Europeanisation’ of our laws against the background of multiple threats by transnational crime, is littered with obstacles and difficulties. An analysis of some basic questions of the General and Special Part of the criminal laws of some European Criminal Justice systems confirms that some comparative groundwork is necessary before substantive harmonisation of European criminal laws is feasible. Legal concepts and methods as well as offences show considerable differences. As to the General Part, differences range from the construction of crime to the role of justification and excuse in negating, mitigating or excusing responsibility and the various understandings of the parties to a crime. As to the Special Part, a rather superficial comparison of the offences of murder/manslaughter and theft reveals different approaches across the different systems. As for the new EU-offences contained in the European Arrest Warrant and the Constitution, it is improbable that they exist in all EU member States in the form presented by the EU instruments. From all this follows that a European Criminal Law cannot be introduced overnight ignoring these technical and other (socio-cultural) differences.
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194