Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 16(5) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Susanne Gratius
European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 16, Issue 5 (2011) pp. 689 – 703
https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2011046
Abstract
Although interests are obviously part of inter-regional relations, the European-Latin American partnership is not mainly interest- but value-driven. Since the early 1980s, when nearly all Latin American countries abandoned military regimes, democracy and human rights have had a prominent place in EU-Latin American relations. Today, the mutual commitment to democracy and human rights is stressed in all official documents and cooperation accords between the EU and Latin America. Nonetheless, other regional priorities and the return to electoral democracy began to undermine the common values discourse and marginalize the political role of the EU in Latin America. This article is based on three major arguments: First, the EU's democratic engagement in Latin America still focuses on traditional authoritarian regimes (Cuba) and has not developed into a strategy towards the new political challenges of democratic backlash; second, the substance of democracy promotion mainly consists of technical governance issues and socio-economic support; and third, Spain is still a major actor in EU policy and its low priority of democracy promotion influenced the EU's profile. Based on these assumptions and following a short discussion on underlying principles, this article will address EU's priorities in democracy assistance in Latin America, particularly with regard to the most problematic countries in terms of democracy, such as Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela.
Extract
Throughout the duration of the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU), non-implementation and incorrect transposition of Directives has been commonplace. Coupled with the Court of Justice of the European Union’s refusal to extend the direct effect of Directives to horizontal relationships, and historic difficulties in holding States liable in damages, it has often fallen to the national courts to give effect to EU laws through purposive statutory interpretation. Recent cases involving the collective redundancy of workers in the UK, and the High Court’s assessment of State Liability in the insurance sector (approved by the Court of Appeal), raise questions as to the efficacy of the current system of enforcement of EU law domestically. Despite the problems of access to EU rights experienced by workers in the UK, there appears to be hope that the judiciary is becoming more attuned to the relationship between EU and domestic laws, and are willing to take control of granting access to remedies without necessarily waiting for EU institutions to provide express permission or instruction. 2015 has thus far been a particularly important year in this regard. However, a systematic review of the UK’s transposition of EU law and the impact on individuals of the current suite of enforcement mechanisms is required if private enforcement of EU law is to provide the protection workers need and to which they are entitled.
Business Law Review