Avenir De La Reconnaissance Mutuelle En Mati Re P Nale Dans L Union Europ Enne

In the EU's fast-growing Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the principle of mutual recognition should play a key role in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters.Since mutual recognition was enshrined as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the EU by the European Council of Tampere in 1999, an increasing number of binding instruments based on this principle have been adopted in the framework of the EU's Third Pillar.The considerable impact of those instruments on national criminal legal systems has often required a major effort by Member States in adjusting their national legislation so that it complies with the new mechanisms agreed at EU level. What are the real difficulties encountered by Member States in the transposition of these legislative texts into national law and, even earlier, when the texts are being negotiated within the Council of the EU? What lessons can be learned from the early years of their practical implementation by the competent judicial authorities? And, above all, what will be the future role and scope of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters in Europe? The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the adoption of a new multi-annual programme (replacing the Hague Programme) to strengthen the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice are both pending. In this crucial time of transition and uncertainty, the book seeks to provide answers to the above questions and many other related issues. Through its country by country approach covering the vast majority of the Member States, it intends to provide policymakers, practitioners, academics and researchers with a comprehensive analysis of the problems that have emerged and the solutions envisaged by each State in their implementation of mutual recognition instruments. The country chapters are followed by a final EU-wide analysis that seeks to identify common themes and obstacles and to consider future options and possible scenarios. The whole study, based on in-depth research combined with interviews conducted with hundreds of practitioners and experts from across the EU, amounts to a remarkable team performance carried out together with academics and researcher members of ECLAN (European Criminal Law Academic Network).

In the EU's fast-growing Area of Freedom, Security and justice, the principle of mutual recognition should play a key rote in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Since mutual recognition was enshrined as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the EU by the European Council of Tampere in 1999, an increasing number of binding instruments based on this principle have been adopted in the framework of the EU's Third Pillar. The considerable impact of those instruments on national criminal legal systems has often required a major effort by Member States in adjusting their national legislation so that it complies with the new mechanisms agreed at EU level. What are the real difficulties encountered by Member States in the transposition of these legislative texts into national law and, even earlier, when the texts are being negotiated within the Council of the EU? What tessons can be learned from the early years of their practical implementation by the competent judicial authorities? And, above ail, what will be the future rote and scope of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters in Europe? The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the adoption of a new multi-annual programme (replacing the Hague Programme) to strengthen the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice are both pending. In this crucial time of transition and uncertainty, the book seeks to provide answers to the above questions and many other related issues. Through its country by country approach covering the vast majority of the Member States, it intends to provide policymakers, practitioners, academics and researchers with a comprehensive analysis of the problems that have emerged and the solutions envisaged by each State in their implementation of mutual recognition instruments. The country chapters are followed by a final EU-wide analysis that seeks to identify common themes and obstacles and to consider future options and possible scenarios. The whole study, based on in-depth research combined with interviews conducted with hundreds of practitioners and experts from across the EU, amounts to a remarkable team performance carried out together with academics and researcher members of ECLAN (European Criminal Law Academic Network).

One of the issues left untouched by the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 (and by the Brussels-1 Regulation replacing it) concerns the leeway left to domestic courts when applying European rules on international jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. For instance, is the court under a duty of strict compliance with the jurisdiction rule as it is drafted? Would such a duty go so far as to require the court to abide by the jurisdiction rule, even though it is being used by one of the litigants to achieve an unfair result, for example to delay adjudication on the merits? Under what conditions may the Court decline jurisdiction on account of any unsuitable forum shopping, thus ruling out the European provision on jurisdiction? Recent litigation in the ECJ has yielded rather, even excessively, restrictive answers, ruling out any discretion by domestic courts to remedy any inconvenience arising from the strict application of the European provisions, if such discretion were provided for by the lex fori (the Gasser case, the Turner case, and the Owusu case). This series of rulings from the ECJ raises several questions. Most observers have questioned the appropriateness of prescribing a blind application of European rules on jurisdiction by domestic courts, relying on the legal traditions of EC Member States usually providing for corrective mechanisms - such as 'forum non conveniens' in English Law and 'exception de fraude' in French Law - in cases when a party abusively triggers the jurisdiction of a court in order to obtain an unjust advantage, thus practising unacceptable forum shopping. The time has now come for an analysis, under both Community and comparative law, of the ramifications of the recent Gasser/Turner/Owusu cases. Readers will find in this book a collection of studies by some of the leading English and French experts today, analysing the ins and outs of jurisdiction and forum shopping in Europe.

UN publication sales no. E.87.II.D.8

Young people are transforming the global landscape. As the human popu­lation today is younger and more urban than ever before, prospects for achieving adulthood dwindle while urban migration soars. Devastated by genocide, hailed as a spectacular success, and critiqued for its human rights record, the Central African nation of Rwanda provides a compelling setting for grasping new challenges to the world's youth. Spotlighting failed masculinity, urban desperation, and forceful governance, Marc Sommers tells the dramatic story of young Rwandans who are “stuck,” striving against near-impossible odds to become adults. In Rwandan culture, female youth must wait, often in vain, for male youth to build a house before they can marry. Only then can male and female youth gain acceptance as adults. However, Rwanda's severe housing crisis means that most male youth are on a treadmill toward failure, unable to build their house yet having no choice but to try. What follows is too often tragic. Rural youth face a future as failed adults, while many who migrate to the capital fail to secure a stable life and turn fatalistic about contracting HIV/AIDS. Featuring insightful interviews with youth, adults, and government officials, Stuck tells the story of an ambitious, controlling government trying to gov­ern an exceptionally young and poor population in a densely populated and rapidly urbanizing country. This pioneering book sheds new light on the struggle to come of age and suggests new pathways toward the attainment of security, development, and coexistence in Africa and beyond. Published in association with the United States Institute of Peace