II. Justice and home affairs

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 231-238

  Walker, Neil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917321653     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300061650     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. See e.g. R. Bieber and J. Monar (Eds), Justice and Home Affairs in the European Union (1995)
2. D. Cullen, J. Monar and P. Myers (Eds), Co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs: An Evaluation of the Third Pillar in Practice (1996)
3. M. Anderson, M. den Boer, P. Cullen, W.C. Gilmore, C.D. Raab and N. Walker, Policing The European Union: Theory, Law and Practice (1995).
4. See N. Walker, “Policing the European Union: The Politics of Transition”, in O. Marenin (Ed.), Policing Change, Changing Police (1996).
5. For a more detailed analysis, see J. Berryon, L. Turnoull, A. Willis, R. Woodward and A. Beck, Police Co-operation in Europe- An Investigation (1993).
6. Idem, pp.152–167.
7. A text in English is reproduced as an annex to H. Schermers et al. (eds). Free Movement of Persons in Europe (1995), pp-547–551.
8. Idem, pp.552–605.
9. See Anderson et al, Idem, at chap.7.
10. Idem, chap.4.
11. Reproduced as App.5 to the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, “1992; Border Controls of People”; Session 1988–89,22nd Report (HX. Papers 90).
12. For more detailed analysis see Anderson et al,Session 1988–89,22nd Report, at chap.2.
13. D. O'Keefe, -Recasting the Third Pillar” (1995) 32 C.M.L.R. 893,902.
14. J. Monar, “European Union-Justice and Home Affairs: A Balance Sheet and an Agenda for Reform”, in G. Edwards and A. Pijpers (Eds), The Politics of European Treaty Reform: The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and Beyond (1997), pp.326–339, at p.330.
15. The most controversial example to date has been the Europol Convention (1995) O J. C316. After its conclusion in July 1995, ratification and implementation were delayed pending an agreement on the role of the ECJ. When the matter was finally resolved in the form of a Protocol to the European Convention in July 1996, it effectively took the form of an agreement to differ, with each high contracting party retaining the option to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ to interpret the Convention by means of a declaration to that effect.
16. See e.g. Monar, O J: B. Meyring, “Intergovernmentalism and Supra-nationality: Two Stereotypes for a Complex Reality” (1997) E.L.Rev. 221.
17. See e.g. D. Bigo, “The European Internal Security Field”, in M. Anderson and M. den Boer (Eds), Policing Across National Boundaries (1994), pp.161–173
18. M. Spencer, States of Injustice: A Guide to Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the European Union (1995).
19. See Monar, States of Injustice: A Guide to Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the European Union.
20. Protocol, States of Injustice: A Guide to Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the European Union, Arts.4–5.
21. Protocol, States of Injustice: A Guide to Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the European Union, Art.6.
22. Professor Dierdre Curtin, in a lecture to the Annual Congress of the Academy on European Law in Trier. 20 June 1997; quoted in Statewatch, VoL 7, No.3 (May-June, 1997), p.18.