This chapter analyses the democratic accountability mechanisms currently existing in the European Banking Union, and draws some initial conclusions based on their practice as it has developed thus far. It compares the procedures existing in the two first pillars of the European Banking Union, i.e. those that exist in the framework of the Single Supervision Mechanism and those that are in place in the Single Resolution Mechanism. The Council and the European Parliament, but also national parliaments are considered, alongside the European Commission in the case of the Single Resolution Board (SRB). This chapter then examines whether, considering their use during the first years of functioning, they suffice to compensate for the additional transfer of competences to the EU level. It concludes that five years after the entry into force of the SSM Regulation, accountability has, so far, been mostly ensured at the European level by the European Parliament and the Council, whilst national parliaments have only marginally made use of the prerogatives conferred upon them. The European Parliament interacts regularly with the SRB, even if it does so less than it does with the ECB. Few precise data are available regarding the Council and the Commission, but their relationships too seem to be rather close. National parliaments have so far only very rarely interacted with the SRB.
Browse by title
You are looking at 81 - 90 of 85,963 items
Gianni Lo Schiavo
Like a latter-day Cinderella, the European Banking Union failed to make the original guest list when EMU formally began at Maastricht in 1992. Subsequently, however, the EBU went on to have its status transformed, gaining star billing. The significance of its belated creation has impressed scholars and participants alike. This article looks at the reasons for its initial exclusion, and the grounds for its then seemingly-inevitable subsequent eventual incorporation into the euro area structure in the form which it has taken. It also considers the elements which make the EBU: the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Single Resolution Mechanism and the EBU's deposit insurance aspect. The future prospects of the EBU are then considered, and conclusions on the relationship between the EBU and EMU reached, with due regard being paid both to the need to update it and remain in step with broader international developments, and the need for its context to be accompanied by a Capital Markets Union.
The chapter reconstructs the European Banking Union (EBU) as an unprecedented effort to create a new supranational institutional framework for banking supervision and resolution. The chapter explores the main reasons behind the creation of the EBU were high tension in financial markets and the lack of harmonised and uniform rules to deal with on-going prudential supervision and restructuring of ailing entities. The paper critically looks at the main institutional aspects stemming from the EBU from an institutional perspective. In particular, the chapter examines the relationship between the internal market and the EMU, the impact of the EBU on the EU principles of solidarity and responsibility, the manner in which the EBU has affected the institutional balance of the EU and finally the division of powers between the Union and the Member States. The author concludes that the EBU represents an unprecedented contribution to the establishment of the internal market and the establishment of the EMU whose currency is the euro, which are still subject to review and improvements in future reforms.
Edited by Gianni Lo Schiavo
The US invitation to the High Authority to visit Washington in the summer of 1953 contributed to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community’s (ECSC) international position. The then President of the High Authority and two of his advisers accepted the invitation, meeting with President Eisenhower and members of his cabinet, as well as with influential members of Congress. The US was already supporting European efforts towards integrated policies, of which the ECSC was a shining example. During this period, the High Authority also negotiated the Association Agreement of 1954 with the UK, as well as other important arrangements with Austria, Switzerland and Sweden on various issues relating to coal and steel markets.
Philip Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer
This chapter examines the extent to which the euro – which was introduced as a ‘virtual’ currency in January 1999 and then as a ‘real’ currency in January 2002 – has been successful. The effective countdown to the single currency started with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. The convergence criteria, which were to determine whether a national currency would join the single currency, provide some insights into the nature of the euro project and are discussed. Also discussed is the introduction of the euro, which was accompanied by the adoption of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) with its constraints on fiscal policy. The ordo-liberal nature of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and its policy framework constitute important contributions to the neo-liberal theoretical and policy framework and are discussed in the chapter. This is followed by some reflections on the impact of the framework on inflation and unemployment. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the relatively poor economic performance under the euro and the major issues that are now emerging.
The chapter explores the emergence of the EU as a global actor in the field of international investment law and policy. Therefore, it examines first the legal framework concerning the assumption of powers in the field of foreign investment by the EU. Secondly, it looks into the accommodation of the EU within the existing regime of international investment law. The chapter places particular emphasis on the EU mechanism providing for transitional arrangements for Member State BITs and the EU mechanism on financial responsibility. Finally, it explores the content of EU investment agreements, identifying the key contributions that the EU has developed in this field and its importance as a ground-breaking normative actor. In light of the above, the conclusion is drawn that although the EU’s record has not been quantitatively impressive, it is qualitatively substantial, paving the path for a new legal framework on FDI regulation.
The Advantage of Lagging Behind
Edited by Rob van Gestel and Andreas Lienhard
A European perspective to the assessment of academic legal publications is still in its infancy. Yet, in Europe, there are several contexts in which assessment of academic works takes place: when legal scholars apply for funding at the European Research Council, when they submit manuscripts to book publishers or law journals that target a European audience, and when they try to get awarded a contract for doing research for the European Commission. Moreover, there are debates and initiatives on European journal and university rankings in which the assessment of academic legal publications is also discussed. This chapter explores and critically discusses the assessment criteria and procedures employed in these various contexts. It finds that all institutions that evaluate works of academic legal scholarship have, independent of each other, developed their own specific evaluation criteria and procedures that are subjected to similar flaws (most-importantly: multi-interpretable criteria and a focus on author status rather than substantive quality). It is therefore argued that it is high time to have a more vivid European debate on how best to evaluate the work legal scholars produce.
Dissertation, habilitation and the appointment procedure for professorships are the typical steps of an academic career in Austria. In all procedures publications represent the most important performance indicator. Guidelines about good scientific practice are established, but an official ranking of law journals does not exist. An Austrian particularity is, that there is no clear distinction between academic and professional legal research. A review system comparable to open peer review is used in most journals. PhD dissertations are reviewed by two supervisors, special doctoral programs for law students started around 2009. The habilitation thesis is reviewed by a committee, also the appointment procedure for professorship is implemented by a committee. Some universities make bibliometric analysis additionally. Funding agencies use a double blind peer review system for evaluation. There are not exact definitions for quality criterions in all procedures – this is a point of criticism in Austria.